When nature heals: Nature exposure moderates the relationship between ostracism and aggression

Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

When nature heals: Nature exposure moderates the relationship between ostracism and aggression Kai-Tak Poon a, *, Fei Teng b, Wing-Yan Wong a, Zhansheng Chen c a

Department of Psychological Studies and Centre for Psychosocial Health, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong School of Psychology, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, The Base of Psychological Services and Counseling for “Happiness”, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China c 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 5 February 2016 Received in revised form 24 June 2016 Accepted 10 October 2016 Available online 11 October 2016

Prior studies have consistently shown that ostracism promotes aggression. The present research investigated the role of nature in reducing aggressive responses following ostracism. Three studies provided converging support to the prediction that nature exposure can weaken the relationship between ostracism and aggression. Compared with ostracized participants who viewed nature pictures, ostracized participants who viewed urban pictures indicated a higher willingness to assign a longer and colder exposure of painful chilled water to another person (Study 1), reported elevated aggressive urges in hypothetical situations (Study 2), and showed a higher intention to assign a spicier and larger amount of hot sauce to a person who hated spicy food (Study 3). Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of nature in influencing aggressive responses following ostracism. Implications are discussed. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ostracism Nature exposure Social exclusion Aggression Antisocial behavior

1. Introduction “It was in the forest that I found the peace that passeth understanding”. Jane Goodall The need to belong is one of the most important human needs because having positive and sustainable social relationships can promote well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). People want to experience social acceptance to satisfy their belonging need, but ostracism, which is defined as being excluded or ignored, can detrimentally thwart this important need (Williams, 2007, 2009). In response to ostracism, people often engage in aggressive behaviors against those who ostracize them or even against innocent strangers (e.g., DeWall, Twenge, Gitter & Baumeister, 2009; Poon & Chen, 2016; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice & Stucke, 2001). According to the basic motivational processes of need deprivation and intensification (e.g., Geen, 1995; Lundin, 1961; Shah & Gardner, 2007), people would be motivated to seek alternative

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.-T. Poon). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.002 0272-4944/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ways to satisfy deprived important needs. Because ostracism deprives the fundamental need to belong, ostracized people have a high desire to regain a sense of belonging by reconnecting with other individuals. However, the aggressive and violent urges of ostracized people will likely lead to further ostracism (Juvonen & Gross, 2005; Kurzban & Leary, 2001). Therefore, it is important to identify strategies that can weaken the effect of ostracism on aggression, which can help people better cope with ostracism. The quote by Jane Goodall suggests that natural environments hold properties that can bring people into a peaceful state, which implies that nature exposure may have the capacity to reduce people's aggressive tendencies in provocative situations. The present research hence aims to empirically examine whether nature exposure can weaken the relationship between ostracism and aggression.

1.1. The negative impacts of ostracism Ostracism is a ubiquitous experience that happens on a daily basis (Nezlek, Wesselmann, Wheeler & Williams, 2012). Previous studies have accumulated substantial understanding about its negative impacts. In particular, minimal signals of ostracism can immediately cause significant psychological and social distress

160

K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168

(e.g., Garris, Ohbuchi, Oikawa & Harris, 2011; Wesselmann, Cardoso, Slater & Williams, 2012; Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000; Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg & Williams, 2010). People still feel hurt even when they know that they are ostracized by a computer (Zadro, Williams & Richardson, 2004) or by despised outgroup members (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007). Brain imaging studies have further shown that ostracism and physical pain share common neurological underpinnings (see MacDonald & Leary, 2005). For instance, brain regions that are involved in processing the affective component of physical pain (e.g., dorsal anterior cingulate cortex) are also active when people experience ostracism in an online ball-tossing game (Eisenberger, Lieberman & Williams, 2003). Moreover, brain areas that are involved in processing the sensory component of physical pain are also active (e.g., dorsal posterior insula) when people view pictures of their ex-romantic partners after an unwanted romantic breakup (Kross, Berman, Mischel, Smith & Wager, 2011). Worse still, prior studies have shown that chronic feelings of ostracism carry longterm implications as it is a critical predictor of depression (DeWall, Gilman, Sharif, Carboni & Rice, 2012) and adverse physical condition (Miller, 2011). As ostracism carries significant implications on people's wellbeing, it is important to understand how people would react after ostracism. The next section reviews evidence showing that people may behave aggressively after ostracism, which is followed by sections that discusses various benefits of nature exposure and the interactive relationship between ostracism, nature exposure, and aggression. 1.2. The relationship between ostracism and aggression Aggression is defined as any behavior that is carried out with a desire to hurt another person (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bushman & Huesmann, 2010; DeWall, Anderson & Bushman, 2011). The literature has shown that ostracized people may engage in different forms of aggressive behavior when they cannot foresee potential sources of reconnection (see Leary, Twenge & Quinlivan, 2006; Williams, 2007, 2009). For instance, Leary, Kowalski, Smith, and Phillips (2003) provided qualitative evidence on the relationship between ostracism and aggressive behavior by systematically reviewing cases of school shootings and found that most killers had experienced chronic ostracism. Quantitative evidence supporting the association between ostracism and aggression come from several sources with different research methodologies. First, prior cross-sectional studies showed that individuals who have experienced much workplace ostracism tend to engage in more organizational and social deviant behaviors, along with less workplace prosocial behavior (e.g., Balliet & Ferris, 2013; Ferris, Brown, Berry & Lian, 2008). Second, a recent longitudinal study found that children with more ostracism at four years old would demonstrate higher aggressiveness two years later (Stenseng, Belsky, Skalicka & Wichstrøm, 2014). Third, a large amount of experimental studies have demonstrated the causal effect of ostracism on aggression (see DeWall & Bushman, 2011; Williams & Nida, 2011). In these experiments, compared with non-ostracized participants, ostracized participants reported higher levels of aggressive intentions in hypothetical scenarios, assigned more spicy hot sauce to individuals who despised spicy food, blasted louder unpleasant white noise to unknown strangers, gave a more negative job evaluation to a candidate who wanted to get a desired position, and exposed another person to painful chilled water for a longer period of time (e.g., Buckley, Winkel & Leary, 2004; Chen, DeWall, Poon & Chen, 2012; DeWall et al., 2009; Poon & Chen, 2014; Twenge et al., 2001; Warburton, Williams & Cairns, 2006; Wesselmann, Butler, Williams & Pickett,

2010). Post-ostracism interpersonal experience can also influence people's behavioral responses. When ostracized people's feelings of connection are restored through situational social interactions with other individuals, they will no longer have elevated aggressive urges. For example, Twenge et al. (2007) found that a brief reminder of a pleasant social interaction can make ostracized people behave less aggressively because it can boost ostracized people's trust in others. Similarly, DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, and Williams (2010) found that ostracized people behaved less aggressively when they experienced some social acceptance from the ostracizing group because these signals of acceptance can buffer the pain of ostracism. In short, previous studies have demonstrated that people would become aggressive after ostracism (e.g., DeWall et al., 2009; Twenge et al., 2001), and ostracized participants whose feelings of disconnection are reduced would eschew aggressive behaviors (e.g., DeWall et al., 2010; Twenge et al., 2007). The present research aimed to extend current knowledge by testing whether nature exposure can weaken the relationship between ostracism and aggression. 1.3. The psychological impacts of nature exposure According to the biophilia hypothesis (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984), humans have a strong innate motivation to connect to nature. People would experience various positive psychological outcomes when they feel connected to nature. For example, prior studies have shown that nature connectedness is positively associated with meaning in life, life satisfaction, innovative thinking, positive mood, mindfulness, and subjective well-being (e.g., Howell, Dopko, Passmore & Buro, 2011; Howell, Passmore & Buro, 2013; Leong, Fischer & McClure, 2014; Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Nature connectedness also carries behavioral implications as people who feel connected to nature are more inclined to behave in environmentally friendly ways (e.g., Davis, Le & Coy, 2011; Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Tam, 2013). People's perceived connection with nature can be enhanced by exposing them to natural environments (e.g., Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal & Dolliver, 2009; Weinstein, Przybylski & Ryan, 2009; Zelenski, Dopko & Capaldi, 2015). Moreover, previous research has consistently shown that exposing people to natural environments carry various benefits (see Gifford, 2014; Keniger, Gaston, Irvine & Fuller, 2013 for reviews). For instance, in one study (Berman, Jonides & Kaplan, 2008; Study 1), people who walked in a natural environment for around 50 minutes showed an improvement in memory span when compared to those who walked in an urban area. Not only does being in an actual natural environment bring benefits, the mere viewing of nature stimuli can also lead to many positive consequences. In particular, viewing photos or videos of trees or landscapes can increase people's positive mood, memory and attention capacity, and subjective wellbeing (e.g., Berman et al., 2008; Berto, 2005; Craig, Klein, Menon & Rinaldo, 2015; Mayer et al., 2009). Nature exposure can also help people cope better with life setbacks and stress. For example, recent studies showed that patients who engage in nature-related activities (e.g., walking in an area with a natural scene, having panoramic views of nature) tend to be less negatively influenced by their illnesses (e.g., Berman et al., 2012; Raanaas, Patil & Hartig, 2012). More broadly, prior studies showed that nature exposure can increase one's resilience in various stressful situations by increasing their positive emotions, reducing physiological reactivity, and improving executive functioning (e.g., Annerstedt et al., 2013; Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis & Garling, 2003; Ulrich, 1984; Ulrich et al., 1991).

K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168

Although past research has uncovered some psychological benefits that nature brings, little research has attempted to directly investigate how nature can help people cope with interpersonal setbacks. The present research aims to fill this knowledge gap. 1.4. Nature exposure moderates the relationship between ostracism and aggression There are at least two reasons why nature exposure can weaken the aggressive urges of ostracized people. First, nature exposure may counteract feelings of disconnection associated with ostracism. Nature is an important source of affiliation, which can readily provide feelings of acceptance (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984). After exposure to nature-related stimuli, people often report higher feelings of connection and acceptance from nature (e.g., Mayer et al., 2009; Zelenski et al., 2015) and they are more likely to engage in social activities in greener spaces (Sullivan, Kuo & DePooter, 2004). Indeed, recent research has shown that the higher motivation to seek reconnection can lead ostracized people to engage in nature-related activities (Poon, Teng, Chow & Chen, 2015), which provides further evidence that nature exposure can restore threatened feelings of connection following ostracism. As ostracism increases aggression because it threatens people's feelings of connection (e.g., Leary et al., 2006; Williams, 2009) and ostracized people's aggressiveness reduces when they do not feel disconnected (e.g., DeWall et al., 2010; Twenge et al., 2007), nature exposure may weaken the relationship between ostracism and aggression through restoring people's feelings of connection and acceptance. Second, nature exposure may promote self-regulation following ostracism. Prior studies have shown that ostracism can impair people's self-regulation (e.g., Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco & Twenge, 2005; Stenseng, Belsky, Skalicka & Wichstrøm, 2015), and poor self-regulation is often associated with aggressive and impulsive behaviors (e.g., DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman & Gailliot, 2007; Denson, DeWall & Finkel, 2012; Tangney, Baumeister & Boone, 2004). Importantly, according to the Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan & Berman, 2010; Kaplan, 1995), nature can help restore depleted mental resources, including those in which their deficiency would cause self-regulation failure. Consistent with this theory, recent experiments showed that people's ability to selfregulate following ego-depletion and frustration are enhanced after viewing some nature pictures (Beute & de Kort, 2014; Chow & Lau, 2015). Thus, nature exposure may weaken the association between ostracism and aggression through restoring people's ability to self-regulate. Our prediction that nature exposure can weaken the aggressive urges of ostracized people has received some indirect support from the literature. In particular, a field study provided preliminary evidence suggesting a link between nature exposure and lower aggressiveness by comparing crime rates in environments that have more green surroundings with those that have more barren surroundings, and the results indicated that residents that have nature in the area outside their homes reported significantly less mental fatigue and cases of violence and aggression than those that only had barren space outside (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). In addition, prior studies have also shown that nature exposure may inhibit people's aggressive and antisocial urges following frustrating situations. For example, Whall, Black, Groh, Yankou, and Kupferschmid (1997) found that dementia patients exhibited less aggressive behaviors during showers when they were exposed to natural elements. Similarly, drivers can tolerate more frustration after watching videotapes with more vegetation (Cackowski & Nasar, 2003) while male workers who worked in an office with decorations of nature posters were less likely to express anger

161

following frustrating and stressful tasks (Kweon, Ulrich, Walker & Tassinary, 2008). In sum, the literature has provided some indirect evidence suggesting that nature may inhibit people's antisocial urges following setbacks and stressful situations. Therefore, we hypothesized that nature exposure can weaken the link between ostracism and aggression. 1.5. Current research Three studies were conducted to examine the prediction that nature exposure can moderate the relationship of ostracism on aggression. Participants' feelings of ostracism were first measured (Study 1) or experimentally induced (Studies 2 and 3). Next, participants were exposed to the manipulation of nature exposure by viewing either ten nature or urban pictures at their own pace without any time limit. Finally, participants completed measures that aim at assessing their aggression. In all three studies, we hypothesized that compared with ostracized participants who viewed urban pictures, ostracized participants who viewed nature pictures would have lower levels of aggression. In contrast, as no aggression is elicited by non-ostracism experience, we expect that the manipulation of nature exposure would not reliably influence the aggressive levels of participants who did not experience ostracism. 2. Study 1 Study 1 aimed to examine whether nature exposure would weaken the relationship between chronic ostracism and aggression. 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants and design Ninety-three individuals in the United States completed this study via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which is an online platform that recruits nationally representative samples, in exchange for US$0.3 (see Buhrmester, Kwang & Gosling, 2011). Participants were randomly assigned to either the nature or urban condition. Seven participants were excluded from the analyses because they failed one of the two attention checks1 (c.f., Oppenheimer, Meyvis & Davidenko, 2009). However, keeping these participants in the analyses would not substantially alter the findings. Our final sample thus consisted of eighty-six participants (22 men; mean age ¼ 35.47; SD ¼ 14.05). The ethnic composition of the final sample consisted of Caucasians (75.6%), Asians (8.1%), Africans (8.1%), Hispanics (4.7%), and others (3.5%), and the educational attainments were of associate degree or below (52.3%), bachelor's degree (40.7%), and master's degree or above (7%). 2.1.2. Procedures and materials Participants were told that the study consisted of several unrelated parts. After providing their consent, participants first completed a modified version of the Workplace Ostracism Scale (Ferris et al., 2008), which was originally derived to assess

1 Participants were asked to respond to two attention check questions. First, they were asked to recall the theme of the pictures that they had viewed in the previous section of the study at the end of the study (1 ¼ nature scenes, 2 ¼ urban scenes, 3 ¼ furniture, 4 ¼ books, 5 ¼ animated figures). Second, participants read an instruction manipulation check question with a seven-point scale presented (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree), in which they were told not to respond to the item if they read it carefully. Participants' responses were excluded from the analyses if they incorrectly chose the theme of the pictures or if they responded to the instruction manipulation check question.

162

K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168

participants' feelings of ostracism in the workplace. We slightly modified this measure to assess participants' general feelings of ostracism. Sample items included, “Others refused to talk to you”, “You noticed that others would not look at you”, and “Others shut you out of the conversation” (1 ¼ never; 7 ¼ always). Participants' responses were averaged to index their chronic feelings of ostracism (a ¼ 0.94). Next, participants were exposed to the experimental manipulation of nature exposure, which was adopted from prior studies (e.g., Berman et al., 2008; Beute & de Kort, 2014; Chow & Lau, 2015). By random assignment, participants in the nature condition were asked to view ten pictures of nature scenes (e.g., lake, forest, grassland), whereas participants in the urban condition were asked to view ten pictures of urban scenes (e.g., buildings, apartment, plaza).2 In both conditions, participants could advance through the pictures at their own pace without any time limit. To avoid potential confounding effects, no discernible humans were present in both the nature and urban pictures. Finally, participants proceeded to the critical task that assesses their current aggression, which was adapted from prior studies (i.e., chilled water paradigm; e.g., Poon & Chen, 2014; Przybylski, Deci, Rigby & Ryan, 2014). Specifically, participants were told that the laboratory had another study about physiological experience and intellectual performance. Participants in that study needed to undergo a physiological stressor by putting their hand in a chilled water bath while working on intellectual cognitive tasks. Participants were further told that keeping one's hand in chilled water is very painful, especially when the water temperature is low and the duration is long. It was very important to let the participant assign the water temperature and duration for participants who participate in that physiological study. Participants then selected the water temperature (from 10  C to 0  C) and the duration (from 0 s to 50 s). The temperature and duration level was standardized and summed to index participants' aggression. A debriefing followed. 2.2. Results 2.2.1. Aggression A hierarchical multiple regression analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) was conducted to examine whether nature exposure moderated the positive relationship between ostracism and aggression. The experimental condition was coded as 1 (nature) and 1 (urban), the ostracism scores were centered, and the corresponding interaction term was created. In step 1, nature exposure and ostracism were included in the regression model to predict aggression. The results revealed a marginally significant main effect of nature exposure (b ¼ 0.31, se ¼ 0.16, t ¼ 1.92, p < 0.06). The main effect of ostracism was not statistically significant (b ¼ 0.12, se ¼ 0.15, t ¼ 0.83, p ¼ 0.41). In step 2, the interaction term was added into the regression model to predict aggression. The results revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between ostracism and aggression, such that

2 An independent sample of 57 participants in the United States was recruited from MTurk to examine the validity of our experimental manipulation of nature exposure. After viewing ten nature or urban pictures, participants responded to several items assessing the perceived nature-relatedness (e.g., “Natural elements make up a large part of the pictures”), pleasantness (e.g., “The pictures are very pleasant to look at”), quality (e.g., “The quality of the pictures are very high”), interest (e.g., “The pictures are able to attract my interest”), and familiarity (e.g., “I am familiar with the environment of the pictures”) of the two sets of pictures. The results showed that participants in the nature condition reported that the pictures had a higher degree of nature-relatedness than participants in the urban condition did, F(1, 55) ¼ 211.04, p < 0.001. In contrast, participants in the two conditions reported similar levels of perceived pleasantness, quality, interest, and familiarity, Fs(1, 55) < 2.31, ps > 0.13.

participants who had higher feelings of ostracism reported higher levels of aggression than participants who had lower feelings of ostracism (b ¼ 0.34, se ¼ 0.16, t ¼ 2.07, p ¼ 0.04). The main effect of nature exposure was also statistically significant (b ¼ 0.34, se ¼ 0.16, t ¼ 2.12, p < 0.04), such that participants who viewed nature pictures reported lower levels of aggression than participants who viewed urban pictures. More importantly, the expected moderation effect emerged (b ¼ 0.43, se ¼ 0.16, t ¼ 2.60, p ¼ 0.01, DR2 ¼ 0.07; see Fig. 1). Among participants with high feelings of ostracism (1 SD above the mean), participants who viewed nature pictures had lower levels of aggression than those who viewed urban pictures (b ¼ 0.81, se ¼ 0.25, t ¼ 3.26, p ¼ 0.002). Among participants with low feelings of ostracism (1 SD below the mean), participants who viewed nature pictures had similar levels of aggression to those who viewed urban pictures (b ¼ 0.14, se ¼ 0.24, t ¼ 0.61, p ¼ 0.54). Further analyses showed that among participants in the urban condition, ostracism was positively associated with aggression (b ¼ 0.77, se ¼ 0.29, t ¼ 2.68, p ¼ 0.009). In contrast, among participants in the nature condition, no statistically reliable relationship between ostracism and aggression was observed (b ¼ 0.09, se ¼ 0.16, t ¼ 0.53, p ¼ 0.60). 2.3. Discussion These findings provided initial evidence for our prediction that nature exposure could counteract the relationship between ostracism and aggression. Chronically ostracized people showed higher levels of aggression by indicating that they were willing to assign a longer and colder exposure of painful chilled water to another person after viewing some neutral urban pictures. However, ostracized participants did not show elevated aggressive levels after viewing nature pictures. Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Kweon et al., 2008; Whall et al., 1997), we found that the nature exposure manipulation can weaken the aggressive responses of people who are in stressful interpersonal situations. More importantly, the present study contributes to the literature by showing that nature exposure would weaken people's aggressive urges following ostracism, which is a ubiquitous adverse interpersonal experience. 3. Study 2 Study 2 aimed to extend the findings of Study 1 by testing whether nature exposure can weaken the effect of experimentally induced feelings of ostracism on aggression. We expected that following the ostracism manipulation, participants who were exposed to nature would report lower levels of aggression than

Fig. 1. Aggression as a function of ostracism and nature exposure (Study 1).

K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168

participants who did not have such exposure. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants and design One hundred and sixty participants in the United States completed this study via MTurk in exchange for US$0.3 (see Buhrmester et al., 2011). Participants were randomly assigned to one condition in a 2 (ostracism vs. control) by 2 (nature vs. urban) between subject design. Ten participants were excluded from the analyses because they failed one of the two attention checks.1 Keeping these participants in the analyses would not substantially alter the findings. Our final sample consisted of one hundred and fifty participants (48 men; mean age ¼ 36.87; SD ¼ 13.30). The ethnic composition of the final sample was made up of Caucasians (84%), Asians (6%), Africans (2%), Hispanics (6%), and others (2%), and the educational attainments were associate degree or below (55.3%), bachelor's degree (32%), and master's degree or above (12.7%). 3.1.2. Procedures and materials Participants were told that the study consisted of several unrelated parts. After providing their consent, participants were first exposed to the manipulation of ostracism, which was widely used in previous research (e.g., Filipkowski & Smyth, 2012; Kuehn, Chen & Gordon, 2015; Poon, Chen & DeWall, 2013). By random assignment, participants in the ostracism condition imagined that they experienced ostracism, whereas participants in the control condition imagined that they experienced general social acceptance. After the experimental manipulation, participants indicated the degree to which they agreed with five statements, which were “I feel socially excluded”, “I feel ignored”, “I feel ostracized”, “I vividly imagine this experience”, “I can well imagine this experience” (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree). The first three items were averaged to check whether the manipulation could effectively induce feelings of ostracism (a ¼ 0.98), and the last two items were averaged to check whether participants could effectively imagine the experience (r ¼ 0.79, p < 0.001). Participants were then exposed to the experimental manipulation of nature exposure, as in Study 1. Briefly, participants in the nature condition viewed ten nature pictures, whereas participants in the urban condition viewed ten urban pictures. Both groups went through the pictures at their own pace. Finally, participants were asked to imagine that they were the focal protagonist in eleven aggression-provoking situations and to report their likelihood of engaging in some aggressive behaviors after provocations3 (e.g., Chen et al., 2012; O'Connor, Archer & Wu, 2001). For example, in one scenario, participants were asked to imagine that they were sitting on a train quietly and reading the

3 For the vignettes used, participants imagined encountering anger-provoking situations and indicated their likelihood of engaging in aggressive behavior in response to these provocations (i.e., throwing a beer can back at a group of football supporters that have been annoying you, scratching the driver's car unnoticed after the driver cuts in and parks into the parking space that you have been waiting for, confronting and humiliating a stranger that grabbed your partner's backside, glaring at someone who pushed you while you were queuing to buy a lottery ticket, pressing the car horn repeatedly to annoy the driver that refused to move his car, shouting at your boss and telling him off after he insulted you in front of your colleagues, standing up and blocking the view of two lads watching a movie behind you in the cinema after they have disturbed you, confronting your partner after you find out from a friend that your partner has been unfaithful, dirtying the windows a cleaner has just cleaned after the cleaner accidentally spilled soapy, hot water on your newly dry-cleaned suit, flickering the headlights and blasting the horn of your car repeatedly after a reckless driver dangerously cuts into your lane, and insulting a person and his family loudly after he continually insulted yours).

163

newspaper. However, a couple of football supporters who were sitting a few rows in front were shouting, swearing, and generally being obnoxious. Suddenly, one of the supporters threw an empty beer can in the air and it accidentally hit the participant. Participants were then asked to indicate how likely they would throw the beer can back at them (1 ¼ very unlikely; 7 ¼ very likely). Participants' various aggressive responses toward different provocations (e.g., scratching another person's car and insulting another person and his family) were averaged to index aggression (a ¼ 0.75). Participants then received a debriefing. 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Manipulation checks Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 6.12; SD ¼ 1.32) reported higher feelings of ostracism than participants in the control condition did (M ¼ 1.30; SD ¼ 0.85), F(1, 148) ¼ 723.41, p < 0.001, h2p ¼ 0.83. Participants in both the ostracism condition (M ¼ 5.85; SD ¼ 1.44) and the control condition (M ¼ 5.70; SD ¼ 1.36) agreed that they could well and vividly imagine the experience as indicated by their scores that were statistically higher than the mid-point of the scale (ts > 10.78, ps < 0.001). Moreover, the two groups of participants reported a similar quality and vividness of the imagination, F(1, 148) ¼ 0.43, p ¼ 0.51, h2p ¼ 0.003. Therefore, the experimental manipulation was effective in inducing feelings of ostracism. 3.2.2. Aggression We hypothesized that nature exposure can weaken the effect of ostracism on aggression, such that ostracized participants who viewed urban pictures would have elevated levels of aggressive intention. In contrast, ostracized participants would not have elevated levels of aggressive intention after viewing some nature pictures. A 2 by 2 ANOVA was conducted to test these predictions. The main effect of ostracism was not statistically significant, F(1, 146) ¼ 1.79, p ¼ 0.18, h2p ¼ 0.01, and the main effect of nature exposure was also not statistically significant, F(1, 146) ¼ 0.79, p ¼ 0.38, h2p ¼ 0.01. However, these findings were qualified by the expected interaction effect between ostracism and nature exposure, F(1, 146) ¼ 4.24, p ¼ 0.04, h2p ¼ 0.03 (Fig. 2). Among participants in the ostracism condition, those who viewed urban pictures (M ¼ 4.03; SD ¼ 1.07) reported higher levels of aggressive intention than those who viewed nature pictures did (M ¼ 3.52; SD ¼ 0.89), F(1, 146) ¼ 4.31, p < 0.04. In contrast, among participants in the control condition, aggression did not differ between participants who viewed urban (M ¼ 3.46; SD ¼ 0.96) and nature pictures (M ¼ 3.64; SD ¼ 1.18), F(1, 146) ¼ 0.56, p ¼ 0.46. Further analyses revealed that among participants who viewed

Fig. 2. Aggression as a function of ostracism condition and nature exposure (Study 2).

164

K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168

urban pictures, participants in the ostracism condition reported higher levels of aggressive intention than participants in the control condition did, F(1, 146) ¼ 5.89, p < 0.02. In contrast, among participants who viewed nature pictures, participants in the ostracism condition reported similar levels of aggressive intention when compared to participants in the control condition, F(1, 146) ¼ 0.25, p ¼ 0.62. 3.3. Discussion The present findings provided additional evidence supporting our prediction that nature exposure would weaken the effect of ostracism on aggression. Consistent with the previous study, Study 2 showed that ostracized participants were less willing to behave aggressively after viewing some nature pictures. More importantly, this study extended the previous study by experimentally manipulating ostracism and measuring people's aggressive intention in various hypothetical situations, such as throwing a beer can towards other people and scratching another person's car. Although Study 2 extended our previous findings, it is desirable to replicate the results by adopting a different measure of aggression to increase the generalizability of the results. 4. Study 3 Study 3 adopted a design that mirrored Study 2 with the exception that participants' aggression was assessed by another popular paradigm (i.e., hot sauce paradigm; e.g., DeWall et al., 2010; Lieberman, Solomon, Greenberg & McGregor, 1999; Warburton et al., 2006). We expected an interaction effect between ostracism and nature exposure on aggression, such that viewing nature pictures would make ostracized people have lower levels of aggression. 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants and design One hundred and forty-nine participants completed this study via MTurk in exchange for US$0.3 (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Participants were randomly assigned to one condition in a 2 (ostracism vs. control) by 2 (nature vs. urban) between subject design. Five participants were excluded from the analyses because they failed one of the two attention checks.1 Keeping these participants in the analyses would not substantially alter the findings. Our final sample consisted of one hundred and forty-four participants (47 men; mean age ¼ 35.47; SD ¼ 11.99). The ethnic composition of the final sample consisted of Caucasians (79.2%), Asians (4.9%), Africans (6.2%), Hispanics (6.2%), and others (3.5%), and the educational attainments were of associate degree or below (44.4%), bachelor's degree (40.3%), and master's degree or above (15.3%). 4.1.2. Procedures and materials Participants were told that the study consisted of several unrelated parts. The feelings of ostracism versus control were again induced by imagination, which was identical to Study 2. Briefly, participants were asked to imagine that they were either ostracized or generally accepted by other people. After the manipulation, participants responded to the same manipulation check questions as in Study 2 [i.e., “I feel socially excluded”, “I feel ignored”, “I feel ostracized”, “I vividly imagine this experience”, “I can well imagine this experience” (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree)]. The first three questions were averaged to check whether participants in the ostracism condition felt more ostracized than participants in the control condition (a ¼ 0.98), and the last two items were averaged to check whether participants could effectively imagine the

experience (r ¼ 0.65, p < 0.001). Participants were then exposed to the experimental manipulation of nature exposure, which was identical to Studies 1 and 2. Briefly, participants either viewed 10 nature or 10 urban pictures and they advanced through the pictures at their own pace. Finally, participants' aggression was assessed by the hot sauce paradigm adapted from prior studies (e.g., DeWall et al., 2010; Lieberman et al., 1999; Warburton et al., 2006). Specifically, participants were told that a hot sauce manufacturer invited the laboratory to conduct a marketing research on its newly developed hot sauce. The manufacturer wanted to know whether people who disliked hot sauce would like this new product. Therefore, they wanted the laboratory help recruit a sample of people who disliked hot sauce to complete a taste test, in which they need to consume a certain amount of hot sauce. Participants were invited to determine the amount and spiciness of the hot sauce. Before they made the decision, they were reminded that consuming very spicy hot sauce in large amounts can be quite painful and uncomfortable, especially for those who disliked hot sauce, and all people in the taste test needed to consume the entire sample they received. They were then asked to assign the spiciness (level 1 ¼ not spicy at all; level 10 ¼ extremely spicy) and amount of the hot sauce (level 1 ¼ 0.0 g; Level 10 ¼ 25 g). The spiciness and amount were standardized and summed to form an aggression composite score. Participants then received a debriefing. 4.2. Results 4.2.1. Manipulation checks Participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 5.99; SD ¼ 1.55) reported higher feelings of ostracism than participants in the control condition did (M ¼ 1.21; SD ¼ 0.62), F(1, 142) ¼ 587.59, p < 0.001, h2p ¼ 0.81. Both participants in the ostracism condition (M ¼ 6.06; SD ¼ 1.25) and control condition (M ¼ 5.76; SD ¼ 1.23) agreed that they could well and vividly imagine the experience as depicted by their scores which were statistically higher than the mid-point of the scale (ts > 12.16, ps < 0.001). Moreover, the two groups of participants reported a similar quality and vividness of the imagination, F(1, 142) ¼ 1.99, p ¼ 0.16, h2p ¼ 0.01. Therefore, the experimental manipulation was effective in inducing feelings of ostracism. 4.2.2. Aggression We hypothesized that nature exposure can weaken the effect of ostracism on aggression, such that only ostracized participants who viewed urban pictures would report lower levels of aggression. In contrast, ostracized participants would not have elevated levels of aggression after viewing some nature pictures. A 2 by 2 ANOVA was conducted to test these predictions. The main effect of ostracism was not statistically significant, F(1, 140) ¼ 0.60, p ¼ 0.44, h2p ¼ 0.004, while the main effect of nature exposure was approaching significance, F(1, 140) ¼ 3.09, p ¼ 0.08, h2p ¼ 0.02. However, these findings were qualified by the expected interaction effect between ostracism and nature exposure, F(1, 140) ¼ 6.29, p ¼ 0.01, h2p ¼ 0.04 (Fig. 3). Among participants in the ostracism condition, those who viewed urban pictures (M ¼ 0.69; SD ¼ 1.69) reported higher levels of aggression than those who viewed nature pictures (M ¼ 0.46; SD ¼ 1.28), F(1, 140) ¼ 9.11, p ¼ 0.003. In contrast, among participants in the control condition, aggressive levels did not differ between participants who viewed urban (M ¼ 0.19; SD ¼ 1.57) and nature pictures (M ¼ 0.01; SD ¼ 1.86), F(1, 140) ¼ 0.28, p ¼ 0.60. Additional analyses revealed that among participants who viewed urban pictures, participants in the ostracism condition had higher levels of aggression than participants in the control condition did,

K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168

Fig. 3. Aggressive behavior as a function of ostracism condition and nature exposure (Study 3).

F(1, 140) ¼ 5.04, p < 0.03. In contrast, among participants who viewed nature pictures, participants in the ostracism condition had similar aggressive levels when compared to participants in the control condition, F(1, 140) ¼ 1.61, p ¼ 0.21. 4.3. Discussion Study 3 provided further evidence that nature exposure can weaken the effect of ostracism on aggression. Following ostracism, participants who viewed nature pictures were less willing to assign spicier and larger amounts of hot sauce to a person who hated hot sauce than their counterparts who viewed neutral urban pictures. 5. General discussion Many developed cities are now referred to as concrete jungles where high and dense buildings spring up along roads and streets. As economic factors become top priorities in these cities, green spaces are pushed aside to make way for skyscrapers owned by businesses and for closely-packed dwellings. However, humans have an evolved inclination to connect to nature (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Wilson, 1984), which urges people not to overlook the impacts of nature on people's psychosocial well-being. The present research aims to contribute to the literature by examining whether nature exposure can aid people to effectively cope with interpersonal setbacks by weakening the link between ostracism and aggression. 5.1. Extension of current knowledge Three studies provided convergent empirical evidence to our prediction that nature exposure weakens the relationship between ostracism and aggression. Specifically, in Study 1, we measured participants' chronic feelings of ostracism, assigned them to view either nature pictures or urban pictures, and then assessed their aggression. The result revealed that nature exposure moderated the relationship between chronic ostracism and aggression. Studies 2 and 3 extended this finding by experimentally manipulating ostracism and assessing participants' aggressive responses in different situations following the ostracism and nature exposure manipulation. The results showed that compared to ostracized participants who viewed urban pictures, ostracized participants who viewed nature pictures reported less aggressiveness. Taken together, these consistent findings from different research designs highlight the power of nature exposure in influencing people's behavioral responses following ostracism. The present findings dovetail nicely with previous studies

165

showing various positive benefits of nature. In these studies, participants who were exposed to an actual natural environment or were asked to view nature-related stimuli (e.g., pictures or videos), compared to those without these exposures, tended to perform better in cognitive tasks, perceive more meaning in life, report higher subjective well-being, and behave more generously (e.g., Berman et al., 2008; Berto, 2005; Craig et al., 2015; Mayer et al., 2009; Weinstein et al., 2009). Moreover, nature exposure often aid people to better cope with stressful personal situations, such as ego depletion (Beute & de Kort, 2014; Chow & Lau, 2015) and illnesses (e.g., Berman et al., 2012; Raanaas et al., 2012). Crucially, the present research advances existing knowledge by showing that nature can help people more adaptively respond to negative interpersonal setbacks as nature exposure can effectively weaken the notorious positive link between ostracism and aggression. The present research also extends current knowledge by identifying an innovative resource that can aid people to effectively cope with various negative consequences of ostracism. Prior studies have demonstrated that the pain of ostracism can be buffered through proactive interactions with supportive individuals (e.g., Onoda et al., 2009; Teng & Chen, 2012), animals (e.g., Aydin et al., 2012; McConnell, Brown, Shoda, Stayton & Martin, 2011), and God (e.g., Aydin, Fischer & Frey, 2010; Hales, Wesselmann & Williams, 2016). Importantly, our findings shed light on the critical role of nature in modulating the negative impacts of ostracism by showing that mere nature exposure can effectively weaken the effect of ostracism on aggression. 5.2. Implications of the present research The present research carries implications in how the government and environmental organizations should attempt to incorporate aspects of nature into citizen's lives. For example, the government may consider including more green elements in building designs and in city development plans, and environmental organizations may encourage people to grow plants in their homes and work environments through different ways. At the individual level, these attempts may help make people more resilient to incidences of ostracism and allow them to better adapt to the daily demands they face. At the collective level, these may help reduce crime and violence rates of the city. Aggressive people usually have interpersonal problems, which may further exacerbate their aggressive urges (e.g., Juvonen & Gross, 2005; Kurzban & Leary, 2001). The current findings may also have practical implications in providing more concrete guidelines and insights for eco-therapists to design nature-related intervention strategies for treating interpersonal maltreatments and aggression. Taking the current findings into consideration, systematically exposing victims of ostracism to suitable natural environments may help mitigate their aggressive urges, which is beneficial for their social reconnection and coping with ostracism. More broadly, we believe that nature exposure following ostracism carry implications beyond aggression as it may also buffer other negative consequences of ostracism or related forms of interpersonal maltreatment. In particular, victims of ostracism often engage in various maladaptive behaviors, such as irrational risk-taking (e.g., Duclos, Wan & Jiang, 2013; Twenge, Catanese & Baumeister, 2002) and dishonesty (e.g., Kouchaki & Wareham, 2015; Poon et al., 2013). Moreover, people often demonstrate impaired self-regulation and cognitive astuteness after they are ostracized (e.g., Baumeister, Twenge & Nuss, 2002; Baumeister et al., 2005). Exposing victims of ostracism to natural environments may reduce these negative impacts. Moreover, recent investigations have demonstrated that ostracism can also negatively impact those who ostracize other people (e.g., Chen, Poon,

166

K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168

Bernstein & Teng, 2014; Poon & Chen, 2015) and those who merely observe other people being ostracized (e.g., Wesselmann, Bagg & Williams, 2009). Future research may examine whether nature exposure can reduce these detrimental effects of ostracism from different perspectives, which can advance our current understanding about the adaptive role of nature in coping with various responses following interpersonal setbacks. 5.3. Limitations and future directions In three studies, the present research provided converging evidence that nature exposure weakens the relationship between ostracism and aggression. Although it advances our current knowledge, some limitations should be acknowledged to inform future research. In particular, one limitation is that the present research used MTurk to recruit online samples from the United States. Although data obtained from MTurk is highly reliable and comparable with data from traditional collection methods in faceto-face settings (e.g., Buhrmester et al., 2011; Casler, Bickel & Hackett, 2013; Paolacci, Chandler & Ipeirotis, 2010), our participants' responses might be influenced by the environment where they completed the study and the device they used (e.g., the resolution of the display). One way to address this limitation is to replicate the present findings in a controlled laboratory environment by using more representative samples in terms of age and culture in future experiments. Another limitation is that the present studies relied on one paradigm (i.e., viewing nature pictures) to manipulate nature exposure. Although prior research has shown that photos of a natural environmental setting and the actual natural environment itself can elicit similar effects (e.g., Berman et al., 2008; Kaplan & Berman, 2010), this manipulation cannot capture all aspects of nature (e.g., the feel of the natural breeze and the smell of trees and grass). Future studies may address this issue by testing whether ostracized people would behave less aggressively after exposing them to an actual natural environment or other nature-related stimuli (e.g., video). Similarly, we used the imagination paradigm to experimentally manipulate ostracism in Studies 2 and 3. Prior studies have shown that this paradigm can effectively induce feelings of ostracism and it often leads to similar effects when compared to using other paradigms that directly manipulate the actual experience of ostracism (e.g., Kuehn et al., 2015; Poon et al., 2013). Nevertheless, adopting other paradigms in further studies can increase the generalizability of the present findings. Moreover, the present studies adopted self-report hypothetical measures to examine participants' aggression. Despite these measures were widely used in prior studies (e.g., O'Connor et al., 2001; Poon & Chen, 2014) and behavioral intention is a good predictor of actual behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), it is important for future research to investigate whether nature exposure would reduce actual aggressive behavior following ostracism. Finally, the possibility that viewing urban pictures increase ostracized people's aggression (rather than viewing nature pictures would weaken the link between ostracism and aggression) cannot be completely ruled out because there was no control group that viewed no images or other neutral images. However, previous evidence that ostracism can increase aggression (e.g., DeWall et al., 2009; Twenge et al., 2001) and nature exposure can decrease aggressiveness (e.g., Kuo & Sullivan, 2001) may provide some support that the aggressive urges of participants in the ostracism and urban condition were not driven by the urban elements (but were driven by the ostracism elements) of the manipulation. Nevertheless, further research on this topic should provide evidence to empirically rule out such possibility by adopting other

control conditions. 6. Conclusion Ostracism is painful and often promotes aggressive responses. The present research extends current knowledge by providing the first empirical evidence that nature exposure can weaken the relationship between ostracism and aggression. Our findings carry both practical and theoretical implications for the role of nature in coping with various detrimental impacts of ostracism. They also create new insights for future research and emphasize the importance of greenery in urban societies in aiding people achieve psychosocial well-being following interpersonal setbacks. Acknowledgement This research was supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council's Early Career Scheme (28603715) and the Education University of Hong Kong's Departmental Research Grant. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179e211. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27e51. Annerstedt, M., Jonsson, P., Wallergard, M., Johansson, G., Karlson, B., Grahn, P., et al. (2013). Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest - Results from a pilot study. Physiology & Behavior, 118, 240e250. 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. Balliet, D., & Ferris, D. L. (2013). Ostracism and prosocial behavior: A social dilemma perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 298e308. Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589e604. 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. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207e1212. Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., et al. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 300e305. Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249e259. Beute, F., & de Kort, Y. (2014). Natural resistance: Exposure to nature and selfregulation, mood, and physiology after ego-depletion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 167e178. Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 14e28. 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. Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Aggression. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 833e863). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cackowski, J., & Nasar, J. (2003). The restorative effects of roadside vegetation: Implications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment & Behavior, 35, 736e751. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-toface behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156e2160. Chen, Z., DeWall, C. N., Poon, K. T., & Chen, E. W. (2012). When destiny hurts: Implicit theory of relationships moderate aggressive responses to ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1029e1036. Chen, Z., Poon, K. T., Bernstein, M. J., & Teng, F. (2014). Rejecting another pains the

K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168 self: The impact of perceived future rejection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 225e233. Chow, J. T., & Lau, S. (2015). Nature gives us strength: Exposure to nature counteracts ego-depletion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 70e85. Craig, C., Klein, M. I., Menon, C. V., & Rinaldo, S. B. (2015). Digital nature benefits typical individuals but not individuals with depressive symptoms. Ecopsychology, 7, 53e58. 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. Denson, T. F., DeWall, C. N., & Finkel, E. J. (2012). Self-control and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 20e25. DeWall, C. N., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). The general aggression model: Theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence, 1, 245e258. DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 62e76. DeWall, C. N., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 256e260. DeWall, C. N., Gilman, R., Sharif, V., Carboni, I., & Rice, K. G. (2012). Left out, sluggardly, and blue: Low self-control mediates the relationship between ostracism and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 832e837. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Bushman, B. J., Im, C., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Acceptance by one differs from acceptance by none: Applying social impact theory to the rejection-aggression link. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 168e174. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It's the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognitions in shaping aggression following rejection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45e59. 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. Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1348e1366. 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. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and Behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Garris, C. P., Ohbuchi, K., Oikawa, H., & Harris, M. J. (2011). Consequences of interpersonal rejection: A cross-cultural experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 1066e1083. Geen, R. G. (1995). Human motivation: A social psychological approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 541e579. Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won't let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1176e1186. Hales, A. H., Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2016). Prayer, self-affirmation, and distraction improve recovery from short-term ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 8e20. Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Garling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109e123. 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. Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2005). The rejected and the bullied: Lessons about social misfits from developmental psychology. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 155e170). New York: Psychology Press. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169e182. Kaplan, S., & Berman, M. G. (2010). Directed attention as a common resource for executive functioning and self-regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 43e57. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Keniger, L. E., Gaston, K. J., Irvine, K. N., & Fuller, R. A. (2013). What are the benefits of interacting with nature? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10, 913e935. Kouchaki, M., & Wareham, J. (2015). Excluded and behaving unethically: Social exclusion, physiological responses, and unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 547e556. Kross, E., Berman, M., Mischel, W., Smith, E. E., & Wager, T. (2011). Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 6270e6275. Kuehn, M. M., Chen, S., & Gordon, A. M. (2015). Having a thicker skin: Social power buffers the negative effects of social rejection. Social Psychological and

167

Personality Science, 6, 701e709. Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33, 343e367. Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187e208. Kweon, B., Ulrich, R. S., Walker, V. D., & Tassinary, L. G. (2008). Anger and stress: The role of landscape posters in an office setting. Environment and Behavior, 40, 355e381. Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202e214. Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111e132. Leong, L. Y. C., Fischer, R., & McClure, J. (2014). Are nature lovers more innovative? The relationship between connectedness with nature and cognitive styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 57e63. Lieberman, J. D., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). A hot new way to measure aggression: Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 331e348. Lundin, R. W. (1961). Deprivation and satiation. In Personality: An experimental approach (pp. 157e184). New York, NY, US: MacMillian Co. MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202e223. 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. Miller, G. (2011). Why loneliness is hazardous to your health. Science, 331, 138e140. Nezlek, J. B., Wesselmann, E. D., Wheeler, L., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Ostracism in everyday life. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16, 91e104. Onoda, K., Okamoto, Y., Nakashima, K., Nittono, H., Ura, M., & Yamawaki, S. (2009). Decreased ventral anterior cingulate cortex activity is associated with reduced social pain during emotional support. Social Neuroscience, 4, 443e454. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867e872. O'Connor, D. B., Archer, J., & Wu, F. W. C. (2001). Measuring aggression: Self-reports, partner reports, and responses to provoking scenarios. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 79e101. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411e419. Poon, K. T., & Chen, Z. (2014). When justice surrenders: The effect of just-world beliefs on aggression following ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 101e112. Poon, K. T., & Chen, Z. (2015). How does the source of rejection perceive innocent victims? The Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 515e526. Poon, K. T., & Chen, Z. (2016). Assuring a sense of growth: A cognitive strategy to weaken the effect of cyber-ostracism on aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 31e37. Poon, K. T., Chen, Z., & DeWall, C. N. (2013). Feeling entitled to more: Ostracism increases dishonest behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1227e1239. Poon, K. T., Teng, F., Chow, J. T., & Chen, Z. (2015). Desiring to connect to nature: The effect of ostracism on ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 116e122. Przybylski, A. K., Deci, E. L., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Competence-impeding electronic games and players' aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 441e457. Raanaas, R. K., Patil, G. G., & Hartig, T. (2012). Health benefits of a view of nature through the window: A quasi-experimental study of patients in a residential rehabilitation center. Clinical Rehabilitation, 26, 21e32. Shah, J., & Gardner, W. (2007). Handbook of motivation science. New York: Guilford Press. Stenseng, F., Belsky, J., Skalicka, V., & Wichstrøm, L. (2014). Preschool social exclusion, aggression, and cooperation: A longitudinal evaluation of the need-tobelong and the social-reconnection hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1637e1647. Stenseng, F., Belsky, J., Skalicka, V., & Wichstrøm, L. (2015). Social exclusion predicts impaired self-regulation: A 2-year longitudinal panel study including the transition from preschool to school. Journal of Personality, 83, 212e220. Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & DePooter, S. F. (2004). The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior, 36, 678e700. Tam, K. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64e78. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. G. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271e324. Teng, F., & Chen, Z. (2012). Does social support reduce distress caused by ostracism? It depends on the level of one's self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1192e1195. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't join

168

K.-T. Poon et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 48 (2016) 159e168

them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058e1069. Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social exclusion causes self-defeating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 606e615. Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., Catanese, K. R., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Lyche, L. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Replenishing connectedness: Reminders of social activity reduce aggression after social exclusion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 205e224. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420e421. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201e230. Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 213e220. 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., Bagg, D., & Williams, K. D. (2009). “I feel your pain”: The effects of observing ostracism on the ostracism detection system. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1308e1311. Wesselmann, E. D., Butler, F. A., Williams, K. D., & Pickett, C. L. (2010). Adding injury to insult: Unexpected rejection leads to more aggressive responses. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 1e6.

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. Whall, A. L., Black, A. E., Groh, C. J., Yankou, D. J., & Kupferschmid, B. J. (1997). The effect of natural environments upon agitation and aggression in late stage dementia patients. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 12, 216e220. 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., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 71e75. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University press. Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Eye gaze as relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 869e882. Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560e567. Zelenski, J. M., Dopko, R. L., & Capaldi, C. A. (2015). Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 24e31.