Content uploaded by John Michael Zelenski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Michael Zelenski on Feb 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote
cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior
John M. Zelenski
*
, Raelyne L. Dopko, Colin A. Capaldi
Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
article info
Article history:
Available online 7 February 2015
Keywords:
Cooperation
Sustainability
Nature
Social dilemma
Mood
Nature relatedness
abstract
Theory and correlational research suggest that connecting with nature may facilitate prosocial and
environmentally sustainable behaviors. In three studies we test causal direction with experimental
manipulations of nature exposure and laboratory analogs of cooperative and sustainable behavior. Par-
ticipants who watched a nature video harvested more cooperatively and sustainably in a fishing-themed
commons dilemma, compared to participants who watched an architectural video (Study 1 and 2) or
geometric shapes with an audio podcast about writing (Study 2). The effects were not due to mood, and
this was corroborated in Study 3 where pleasantness and nature content were manipulated indepen-
dently in a 2 2 design. Participants exposed to nature videos responded more cooperatively on a
measure of social value orientation and indicated greater willingness to engage in environmentally
sustainable behaviors. Collectively, results suggest that exposure to nature may increase cooperation,
and, when considering environmental problems as social dilemmas, sustainable intentions and behavior.
©2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1. Introduction
We clearly face significant environmental challenges (e.g.,
climate change, pollution, accelerating extinctions). Although the
causes and solutions are obviously multifaceted and complex,
many have suggested that modern lifestyles contribute to envi-
ronmental destructiondnot only via excessive consumption, but
also by disconnecting people from nature. This scholarship often
draws on Wilson's (1984) biophilia hypothesis, which posits that
humans have an innate need to associate with other living things
due to our evolutionary history. We evolved in natural environ-
ments and, thus, they still support optimal human functioning
(Kellert, 1997). We do not need to accept the specific innate need
posited by biophilia to see a gap between humans' evolutionary
environments and the current living conditions of people in mod-
ern societies. This gap may be a source of suboptimal well-being.
Consistent with this idea, living near greenspace predicts higher
happiness (White, Alcock, Wheeler, &Depledge, 2013) and
longevity (Mitchell &Popham, 2008), and spending time in nature
seems to provide a variety of cognitive, mood, and physiological
benefits (reviewed by Hartig, Mitchell, de Vries, &Frumkin, 2014
and Selhub &Logan, 2012).
Despite nature's apparent benefits, most people spend the ma-
jority of their time indoors away from nature (MacKerron &
Mourato, 2013). This physical disconnection may also foster a
problematic psychological disconnection. That is, when humans do
not feel like they are part of larger ecosystems, they may be less
inclined to protect the natural environment (Schultz, 2000). Sup-
porting this idea, individual differences in subjective connected-
ness with nature consistently predict pro-environmental attitudes
and behaviors, as well as happiness (Capaldi, Dopko, &Zelenski,
2014; Mayer &Frantz, 2004; Nisbet, Zelenski, &Murphy, 2009;
Tam, 2013). Ironically, our threatened natural environments may
be critical to fostering the deep concern that would protect them.
Although suggestive, past research linking nature with sus-
tainable behavior is mostly correlational, qualitative, or relies on
subjective self-reports. In this research we take an experimental
approach by manipulating exposure to nature and observing effects
on a laboratory analog of sustainable behavior: a fishing-themed
commons dilemma (Gifford &Gifford, 2000). Dawes (1980)
described environmental problems as social dilemmas with two
key features: individuals benefit by behaving selfishly (e.g., over-
harvesting resources, polluting) regardless of others' choices, and
where all would benefit if everyone cooperated instead of pursuing
immediate or narrow self interest (see also Parks, Joireman, &Van
*Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125
Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada.
E-mail address: john_zelenski@carleton.ca (J.M. Zelenski).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.01.005
0272-4944/©2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 24e31
Lange, 2013). Said another way, broad participation and coopera-
tion are essential to resolving many environmental problems. We
hypothesize that participants exposed to nature will make more
cooperative, and thus sustainable, choices. We view cooperative
behavior as that which contributes to collective benefits (not
necessarily without simultaneous personal benefit), and, in this
context, sustaining resources.
This prediction is similar to ideas prevalent in environmental
psychologydthat time in nature and strong subjective connections
with nature promote sustainable attitudes (Gifford, 2014). Nonethe-
less, it departs from most research in the areaby suggesting thatthese
effects can be observed over the course of a few minutes in the lab-
oratory. The processes involved in a lifetime of accumulated nature
experience may well differ, but we nonetheless draw on the
personality-level correlations as part of the rationale for our predic-
tion. Fleeson (2001) has suggested that associations at the trait level
often apply at the state level too (e.g., trait extraversion predicts high
positive affect and most people experience positive emotions when
they behave in extraverted ways). Regarding nature and sustainabil-
ity, part of the link has been established. Brief exposures to natural
settings increase momentary feelings of nature relatedness (Mayer,
Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, &Dolliver, 2008; Nisbet &Zelenski,
2011; Schultz &Taba nico, 2 0 07 ). Because trait nature relatedness is
strongly associated with sustainable attitudes (Tam, 2 013), state na-
ture relatedness, caused by nature exposure, may be too.
Research on the short-term consequences of nature exposure
also suggests some reasons that nature could promote sustain-
ability, particularly when we think of sustainable behaviors that are
also cooperative behaviors. For example, nature exposure is often
associated with good moods (Mayer et al., 2008; Nisbet &Zelenski,
2011). Intuitively, and generally consistent with the ‘broaden and
build’view of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), good moods
may facilitate cooperative or prosocial behavior, actions that would
also be sustainable in resource dilemmas. Research on mood and
cooperation, however, suggests that the link may be complex and
depend on context (Hertel, Neuhof, Theuer, &Kerr, 2000).
Considering another route, Kaplan and Berman (2010) reviewed
nature's effects on attention restoration, crime reduction, subjec-
tive energy, frustration tolerance, etc., and suggested that they
share the common core of improved self-control. Nature may
facilitate cooperation in commons dilemmas by improving self-
control, thus curtailing temptations to cheat or overharvest.
Perhaps even more relevant, Weinstein, Przybylski, and Ryan
(2009) manipulated nature exposure with photographs (nature
vs. built environments) or plants (present or absent) and found that
nature increased participants' intrinsic aspirations and generosity,
and decreased extrinsic, materialistic aspirations. That is, nature
caused people to report valuing others and prosocial behavior
more, and wealth and fame less. This extended to actual behavior in
the ‘trust game’; participants exposed to nature gave more actual
money to another person that they could have kept for themselves
without negative consequence. These effects were mediated by
feelings of (state) nature relatedness and autonomy, and were
strongest among participants who felt most immersed in the na-
ture. Similar effects may not require deep immersion, however.
Mazar and Zhong (2011) found that participants merely exposed to
green products in a consumer study gave away more money than
participants who viewed more conventional products. Such effects
contrast with findings that money primes make people more self-
sufficient and less prosocial (Vohs, Mead, &Goode, 2006); nature
may function oppositely (Nisbet &Zelenski, 2009). Although sug-
gestive, none of this research has examined sustainability attitudes
or behaviors. Commons dilemmas provide a link between nature
effects and sustainability because they channel cooperation, trust,
and prosocial motivations into sustainable behaviors.
To be clear, cooperative behavior is not always sustainable.
Humans often cooperate in ways that ultimately threaten natural
environments; most current environmental crises result from
economic activity that requires some cooperation among in-
dividuals and groups. Moreover, not every sustainable behavior
requires cooperative intentions. The environmental benefits may
be diffuse (e.g., a reduction in greenhouse gasses benefits all), but
the intentions may be completely local and selfish (e.g., thinking, ‘a
tree would look nice in my backyard’). Said another way, altruism is
not required for cooperation or sustainable behaviors. Our primary
focus is the confluence of cooperation and sustainability. Environ-
mental problems are classic examples of commons dilemmas, and,
thus, research on commons dilemmas has much potential to inform
environmentally sustainable behavior and decision making. We
have focused on an environmentally themed commons dilemma
because it allows us to bridge different literatures in suggesting
nature exposure as a potential aid to cooperative or sustainable
behavior. We extend the theory and mostly correlational research
that suggests a strong link between connecting with nature and
sustainability by adding experimental manipulations that speak to
causal direction more directly. We extend experimental studies'
suggestive hints about nature's effects on mood, self-control, pro-
social motivation, and trust by testing them in contexts more
relevant to sustainability.
In sum, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to suspect
that exposure to natural (vs. built) environments may promote
cooperative, sustainable behavior. To test these ideas, we con-
ducted three studies. In the first, we randomly assigned partici-
pants to view videos of almost exclusively natural or built
environments. Participants were later asked to ‘play a fishing
game’, an iterative, fishing-themed commons dilemma where they
were paid for each fish harvested. We also included measures of
mood, state nature relatedness, and state trust (as possible medi-
ators), and trait measures of nature relatedness and trust as
exploratory predictors or moderators. Study 2 reports a close
replication. Study 3 provides a conceptual replication and exten-
sion; it begins to disentangle cooperation from sustainability by
measuring these outcomes independently. We report how we
determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations,
and all measures in all studies (Simmons, Nelson, &Simonsohn,
2012).
2. Study 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
Undergraduate students (n¼111) were recruited for a study
titled ‘Personality and Media’via our department online subject
pool system. Our goal was n¼120 for an exploratory study, and we
collected data to the end of a semester. The sample was 70.3% fe-
male with a mean age of 20.81 (SD ¼3.10). Participants received
course credit as compensation. They were also paid based on
fishing performance, but learned this only after arriving for the
study.
2.1.2. Materials
Videos. To manipulate exposure to natural vs. built environ-
ments, participants viewed one of two 12-min videos that included
educational narration and background music. The nature video
excerpted BBC's Planet Earth series, beginning in tundra forest with
images of trees and animals. It then proceeded to areas around the
world and showcased the plants and animals native to those areas,
ending in a jungle. We chose this particular excerpt because there
are no mentions of marine life or fish, as well as to avoid explicit
J.M. Zelenski et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 24e31 25
appeals for conservation. Planet Earth is easily described as a ‘nature
documentary.’It represents nature as environments relatively un-
touched by humans (lack of buildings), with abundant and beau-
tiful fauna and flora (see Vining, Merrick, &Price, 2008). The built
video excerpted Landmark Media's Walks with an Architect series,
and featured in-depth looks at buildings, their history, and loca-
tions in New York City. The buildings in New York City arguably
include some of the world's finest architecture, and we chose this
video to contrast with the nature in Planet Earth while still
conveying impressive content. The fact that nearly every part of the
video contains human-built spaces makes it antithetical to com-
mon conceptions of nature (Vining et al., 2008). Thus, these ex-
cerpts were relatively ‘pure’representations of nature and non-
nature (cf., a cultivated garden). No pilot data were collected on
the effects of these videos, yet some of their impacts (e.g., on mood
and subjective connection with nature) are described by this study.
Participants viewed videos on desktop computers with 17-inch
screens and received sound via headphones.
Commons dilemma. To assess cooperation, participants engaged
in a fishing-themed commons dilemma, specifically FISH 3.1
(Gifford &Gifford, 2000; see http://web.uvic.ca/~rgifford/fish/). In
this microworld simulation, participants make choices about how
many fish to harvest across multiple ‘seasons’. In our application,
participants harvested from an ocean shared by three other fishers
who were, unbeknownst to participants, actually simulated. Be-
tween each season, fish regenerated at a rate of 1.5, and fishing
continued until fish were gone or 15 rounds had passed, but par-
ticipants were not informed of this limit. The ocean began with 50
fish, and participants were paid $.10 per fish harvested. A fee of $.05
was charged to go to, and return from, sea, thus making it necessary
to catch at least two fish to profit in any one season (though par-
ticipants could stay ‘on shore’for free). Information about the
number of fish harvested, fish remaining in the ocean, profits, and
other fishers' catches were all displayed continuously on the screen.
Simulated fishers were programmed to behave relatively cooper-
atively (an average of .5 on the 0 to 1 ‘greed’setting). FISH yields
measures of fish harvested, total seasons, profits, as well as calcu-
lated indexes of efficiency and restraint (see Gifford &Gifford,
2000). The indexes were calculated in each season, and then
averaged across seasons so each participant received a single score.
Restraint tracks the raw number of fish harvested while accounting
for group size (but not regeneration rate); higher numbers (be-
tween 0 and 1) are necessary for a sustainable resource. Efficiency
tracks the number of fish taken relative to the current size of the fish
population and the regeneration rate. Scores above 1 indicate
‘unnecessary’efficiency, i.e., taking less than would regenerate,
whereas scores below 1 indicate that more fish were taken than
could be regenerated in the next season, thus shrinking the
population.
State Scales. To assess state nature relatedness, participants
completed the single-item Inclusion of Nature in Self measure (INS;
Schultz, 2002). Participants were presented with seven pairs of
circles labeled self and nature that differ in the degree of physical
overlap. Participants choose the pair that represented, “…your
relationship with the natural environment at this point in time.
How interconnected are you with nature right now?”As dis-
tractors, participants also rated pairs of circles labeled “self”and
“people, family, friends, community, an urban center, and to all
humanity.”
A mood questionnaire included the Positive and Negative Affect
Scales (PANAS; Watson, Clark, &Tellegen, 1988). Participants rated
adjectives on a Likert scale of 1 (very slightly or not at all)to5
(extremely) to describe their feelings “in the moment”. Because the
10-item positive affect (
a
¼.85) and negative affect (
a
¼.81) scales
assess only high arousal affects (e.g., enthusiastic,proud,interested,
and afraid,nervous,distressed, respectively), we added adjectives
that were lower in arousal, yet still pleasant, and intuitively asso-
ciated with nature experiences: fascination,peaceful,content,in
awe,curious, and relaxed. Although this scale is admittedly ad hoc, it
may capture aspects of the ‘soft fascination’described by Kaplan
(1995). Nature is also a prototypical trigger of awe (Keltner &
Haidt, 2003). This pleasant affect scale had good internal consis-
tency (
a
¼.79).
Following a practice round of the FISH simulation, participants
also completed a 3-item ad hoc measure of trust in other fishers
(
a
¼.79). They rated items like, “I expect that my group members
will be trustworthy”on a 5-point scale of agreement.
Trait Scales. Participants completed the 5-item Faith in People
Scale (trust; Rosenberg, 1957), and the 6-item Short Nature Relat-
edness Scale (Nisbet &Zelenski, 2013). These were embedded in
the 44-item Big Five Inventory (John &Srivastava, 1999), a broad
measure of personality traits, to avoid suggesting our interest in
specific individual differences.
2.1.3. Procedure
Participants arrived at the lab and were ushered to a small
testing room. One or two participants were tested simultaneously,
but the lab layout suggested the possibility of more. After informed
consent and a brief description of the study (framed as being about
personality and perceptions of media), participants completed the
trait measures. They were then randomly assigned to watch the
Planet Earth or Walks with an Architect video. Following the video,
they completed a brief questionnaire about their liking of the video
(cover story), the INS, and mood questionnaire. Next, participants
received detailed written and verbal instructions about FISH,
including a three-season practice session. They then completed the
state trust measure and began the actual FISH simulation of up to 15
seasons. Following FISH, participants completed a brief question-
naire about their impressions of the ‘fishing game’(cover story), a
demographics questionnaire, and a questionnaire that probed for
suspicion.
1
Finally, participants were debriefed and paid according
to their FISH performance.
2.2. Results
Our primary hypothesis was that exposure to natural (vs. built)
environments, operationalized as Planet Earth (vs. architecture)
videos, would produce higher rates of cooperative and sustainable
behavior. We tested this hypothesis across various FISH indicators.
Many had substantial skew, kurtosis, and outliers, so we present
comparisons in two ways: as t-tests with 15 outliers
2
excluded from
all tests, and nonparametric ManneWhitney's Uwith all partici-
pants (see Table 1). Results generally supported hypotheses. Par-
ticipants who watched the Planet Earth video harvested
significantly fewer fish per season and had commons pools that
lasted more seasons than those who watched the architecture
video. These differences are mirrored in the indices of restraint and
efficiency with the Planet Earth condition showing more of both.
Participants who viewed the architecture video made significantly
more money, suggesting that this scenario favored a short-term,
unsustainable strategy (i.e., large harvests across a few rounds).
By season 15, 49.09% of the architecture condition's oceans went
1
Depending on the criteria, between 4 and 11 participants (<10%) reported
somewhat accurate guesses about hypotheses. They were disproportionately (but
not exclusively) in the nature condition, yet omitting them from analyses did not
change results substantially (see Supplement).
2
We used ±3 SD as a loose criterion for outliers while also considering visual
inspection of frequency distributions (across studies).
J.M. Zelenski et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 24e3126
extinct, compared to 28.57% in the Planet Earth condition,
c
2
(1,
N¼111) ¼4.92, p¼.03.
We anticipated that the Planet Earth video might produce better
moods and more feelings of nature relatedness and trust compared
to the architecture video. These suspicions were only partially
confirmed (see Table 2). Participants who saw the Planet Earth
video reported significantly more pleasant affects and less negative
affect, but groups did not differ significantly on (high arousal)
positive affect, state nature relatedness, or trust. Given that the
Planet Earth video produced somewhat more pleasant states, we
conducted exploratory bootstrapping mediation analyses (Preacher
&Hayes, 2008) with all FISH indicators as dependent variables. In
no case was negative affect or pleasant affect a significant mediator.
(Said another way, controlling for mood made no difference.) In
other exploratory analyses, we tested whether relevant personality
variables (nature relatedness and trust) predicted FISH behavior or
moderated the effect of our experimental manipulation, but results
were almost uniformly not statistically significant.
2.3. Discussion
The results of Study 1 provide preliminary evidence that expo-
sure to nature can promote cooperative or sustainable decisions.
Participants who viewed the Earth video harvested more sustain-
ably (i.e., fewer fish per season and extinctions) than participants
who watched the architecture video. Although the mechanisms of
this effect are not clear, data suggest that mood, trust, and sub-
jective feelings of nature relatedness do not account for differences.
3. Study 2
In Study 2 we attempted a close replication with minor alter-
ations. First, we adjusted the FISH parameters slightly to see
whether results would extend to a context that did not favor a
short-term strategy (in terms of profits). That is, we reduced the
cost of going out to sea so each fish was more profitable, especially
in small catches. We also increased the maximum number of sea-
sons, giving fishers more time to benefit from a sustainable, long-
term strategydsmall profits in each season add up when there
are more seasons. In addition, we added another more neutral
control condition to confirm that the action of the effect was not
entirely due to the architecture video. Finally, we omitted some of
the exploratory measures from Study 1.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
With procedures identical to Study 1, 121 students (71% female)
were recruited and randomly assigned to either the nature, built, or
neutral conditions. Our goal was 40 subjects per condition, allow-
ing good power to detect the effect sizes observed in Study 1. All
received course credit (and money) as compensation.
3.1.2. Materials and procedure
The study was identical to Study 1 with the following
exceptions:
A new control condition consisted of watching the iTunes
visualizer (full screen) while listening to the Grammar Girl podcast,
The Rules of Story.
In FISH, the cost of going out to, and returning from, sea was
reduced to $.02, and the maximum number of seasons was
increased to 25.
Trait nature relatedness and both trust measures were omitted.
A Big Five personality measure remained (recall the cover story
about personality and media), but was changed to the 40-item
‘mini markers’(Saucier, 1994) as this was helpful to an unrelated
project.
3.2. Results
As in Study 1, our primary hypothesis was that the Planet Earth
video would produce more cooperative and sustainable FISH de-
cisions compared to the architecture video and grammar podcast.
Skew, kurtosis, and outliers were again concerns with FISH vari-
ables, so we conducted parametric analyses with three outliers
excluded and nonparametric analyses with no exclusions. (See
Supplementary Materials for more Study 2 analysis details.) When
comparing omnibus tests across the three conditions, we found
differences that were often marginally significant (e.g., ANOVA ps
from .06 to .14 and Kruskal-Wallace ps from .03 to .08), with the
exception of profits where there were somewhat smaller differ-
ences (ps¼.27 and .15). Across indicators, the architecture and
grammar conditions were most similar (comparisons produced ps
all >.26), and both tended to differ from the Earth condition.
Table 3 provides means, SD, and an indication of where differences
between two conditions are statistically significant. Unless one is
Table 1
Study 1 FISH outcomes by condition.
Variable Planet earth
(nature) n¼46)
Architecture
(built) (n¼50)
tUd
M(SD)M(SD)
Seasons 13.61 (3.35) 10.90 (5.01) 3.13** 1291.5
y
.63
Total fish 36.52 (3.30) 37.44 (2.43) 1.56 1232.0
y
.32
Fish/season 3.16 (2.06) 4.97 (3.66) 3.01** 1133.5** .60
Profits 2.50 (.46) 2.73 (.45) 2.58* 1261.0
y
.51
Restraint .39 (.38) -.02 (.66) 3.74** 1146.0** .75
Efficiency .42 (.39) -.002 (.70) 3.73** 1149.0** .74
Note. For U, nature n¼56, built n¼55 (all participants).
y
p<.10,*p <.05, **p<.01.
Table 2
Study 1 state measures by condition.
Variable Planet earth
(nature) (n¼46)
Architecture
(built) (n¼50)
td
M(SD)M(SD)
Positive affect 2.90 (.67) 2.79 (.82) .74 .15
Negative affect 1.28 (.34) 1.47 (.54) 2.16* .42
Pleasant affect 3.54 (.78) 3.11 (.72) 2.80** .57
Inclusion of nature 3.46 (1.41) 3.22 (1.28) .86 .18
State trust 3.37 (.73) 3.59 (.63) 1.60 .32
*p <.05, **p<.01.
Table 3
Study 2 FISH outcomes by condition.
Variable Planet earth
(nature)
(n¼39)
Architecture
(built)
(n¼39)
Grammar
(Control)
(n¼40)
dN-B dN-C dB-C
M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)
Seasons 21.97 (6.06)
a
19.00 (8.58)
ab
18.43 (8.78)
b
.40 .47 .07
Total fish 59.54 (9.51)
a
56.38 (11.53)
ab
54.83 (11.02)
b
.30 .46 .14
Fish/season 3.02 (1.22)
a
4.04 (2.70)
b
4.20 (2.91)
b
.49 .53 .06
Profits 5.14 (.82)
a
4.95 (.86)
a
4.84 (.78)
a
.23 .38 .13
Restraint .35 (.41)
a
.12 (.61)
ab
.10 (.63)
b
.44 .47 .03
Efficiency .38 (.42)
a
.13 (.66)
b
.12 (.67)
b
.45 .46 .02
Note: dN-B ¼Cohen's d for nature vs. built, dN-C for nature vs. control, and dB-C for
built vs. control. Within a row, means not sharing a superscript differ at p<.05; non-
parametric comparisons are in Supplementary Materials.
J.M. Zelenski et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 24e31 27
rigid about the p<.05 criterion, results replicate Study 1's finding
that Planet Earth produces more sustainable fishing behavior,
though effect sizes are somewhat smaller. Also, as anticipated,
adjustments to FISH parameters resulted in better outcomes for a
sustainable strategy; the Planet Earth condition now harvested
more fish than architecture or grammar conditions.
Mood differences were also similar to Study 1 with nature
somewhat more pleasant; the new grammar control produced
moods similar to the architecture condition. Exploratory mediation
analyses again failed to provide any evidence that mood was
responsible for the effects of videos on FISH outcomes.
4. Study 3
To build on two studies with very similar methods and findings,
Study 3 addressed some issues of generalizability (e.g., going
beyond the particular Planet Earth clip) and took a stronger
approach to ruling out mood as a possible (yet increasingly un-
likely) explanation for nature's effect on cooperation. To accom-
plish this, we created a new video manipulation that independently
varied pleasantness and nature content with a 2 2 design. In
addition, we replaced FISH, as a measure of cooperation, with social
value orientation, a conceptually similar and empirically related
measure (Balliet, Parks, &Joireman, 2009) that includes no envi-
ronmental connotations, followed by some more explicit questions
about sustainable behaviors.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
Undergraduate students were recruited via our department
online portal until 250 had completed the study. To ensure valid
responses, analyses excluded participants who finished in less than
10 min (median time was 21 min) and who did not comply with
two requests to leave items blank; thus, n¼228.
4.1.2. Materials
Videos. Drawing on videos from YouTube, we created 2 min clips
designed to independently manipulate pleasantness and natural
(vs. built) context. We used criteria similar to Study 1 to determine
nature and built contexts. To enhance the valence manipulation, we
replaced original sound with upbeat, pleasant music or minimalist,
foreboding music. Visual content included: Las Vegas strip
(pleasant, built) which included images and video from this street
at night with neon signs and edited in a fast, ‘upbeat’way; old-
growth forest (pleasant, nature) which showed a time lapse clip
of undergrowth sprouting and aerial shots of large, mature trees;
abandoned, decrepit house (unpleasant built) which slowly toured
a clearly abandoned and distressed building with minimal fur-
nishings; a flood (unpleasant nature 1) which showed expansive
and fast moving water in a clearly flooded landscape that included
some occasional damaged houses; a wolf pack (unpleasant nature
2) which showed wolves antagonizing a bison and bear, and
hunting and killing an elk. The ‘extra’unpleasant nature video was
included as a comparison because the flood video included brief
built elements, i.e., houses being washed away. They are sometimes
combined in results for efficiency, but yield similar results
individually.
Questionnaires. Cooperation was assessed with the social value
orientation slider measure (SVO; Murphy, Ackermann, &
Handgraaf, 2011). Across six items, participants allocated points
(imagined as money) to themselves and a hypothetical other via a
forced choice of nine alternatives that vary benefits to self vs. other.
Although typically conceptualized as an individual difference
measure, instructions do not imply anything trait-like, and similar
measures are sensitive to context (Bekkers, 2004). High scores
indicate more pro-social choices. SVO scores were missing for two
otherwise complete cases.
Willingness to behave sustainably was assessed with a 30-
item questionnaire developed by Ferguson, Branscombe, and
Reynolds (2011). Participants indicated their willingness to
engage in a variety of sustainable behaviors, such as, “Reduce the
amount of warm and hot water used”on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (extremely unwilling)to7(extremely willing).
Items cover transportation, energy and water use, social advo-
cacy, tax support, and regulation support. Scores reflect mean
ratings,
a
¼.94.
Similar to Study 1, mood was assessed with the 20-item PANAS
(PA and NA
a
s¼.91) interspersed with 6 vitality items; state nature
relatedness was assessed with the INS (plus family and society as
foils). The full 21-item trait nature relatedness scale (
a
¼.90) was
embedded in a 100-item IPIP (ipip.ori.org) Big Five personality
questionnaire, and, as a validity check, “Please leave this item
blank”was inserted twice.
4.1.3. Procedure
Participants were directed to a Qualtrics webpage that admin-
istered the study. Following consent, they completed the person-
ality measures and were then randomly assigned to view one of five
videos. Following the video, they completed measures of mood,
INS, cooperation, and willingness.
4.2. Results
Manipulation checks suggested that videos altered pleasantness
and nature exposure relatively independently. In 2 2 (valence by
environment) ANOVAs, we found significant effects of valence on
positive affect, F(1, 224) ¼12.61, p<.001,
h
p
2
¼.053, and negative
affect, F(1, 224) ¼33.70, p<.001,
h
p
2
¼.13 (see Table 4 for means).
Corresponding effects of environment were null for positive affect,
F(1, 224) ¼.01, p¼.92,
h
p
2
<.01, and marginally significant for
negative affect, with built videos producing slightly higher ratings,
F(1, 224) ¼3.49, p¼.06,
h
p
2
¼.015. We also observed a marginally
significant effect of environment on INS, F(1, 224) ¼3.46, p¼.06,
h
p
2
¼.015, with nature videos producing higher levels of subjective
nature relatedness. Thus, manipulations functioned largely as
expected.
Our primary hypothesis was that nature videos (forest, wolves,
and flood) would produce more cooperative choices than built
videos (Las Vegas and old house). A 2 2 ANOVA with SVO as the
dependent variable revealed that environment had a significant
effect, F(1, 222) ¼4.43, p¼.04,
h
p
2
¼.020, with nature videos
Table 4
Means (standard deviations) by video for study 3 outcomes.
Built Nature
Negative
(old house)
(n¼48)
Positive
(Las Vegas)
(n¼46)
Negative
(flood)
(n¼45)
Negative
(wolves)
(n¼44)
Positive
(forest)
(n¼45)
PANAS
PA 2.34 (.82) 2.69 (0.93) 2.36 (0.91) 2.16 (0.80) 2.79 (1.02)
NA 2.19 (0.96) 1.55 (0.61) 1.98 (0.85) 1.94 (0.76) 1.39 (0.50)
INS 3.06 (1.39) 2.78 (1.32) 3.29 (1.56) 3.48 (1.53) 3.22 (1.61)
SVO 28.70 (15.02) 28.41 (14.54) 30.58 (11.50) 32.45 (11.83) 33.06 (10.21)
WPSB 4.81 (0.85) 4.42 (1.07) 4.90 (1.08) 4.74 (0.99) 4.98 (0.85)
Note. PANAS ¼Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PA ¼Positive Affect;
NA ¼Negative Affect; INS ¼Inclusion of Nature in Self; SVO ¼Social Value Orien-
tation; WPSB ¼Willingness to Perform Sustainable Behaviors.
J.M. Zelenski et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 24e3128
producing more pro-social responses (and no effect of valence or
interaction).
3
We also tested whether this extended to willingness
to engage in environmentally sustainable behaviors, and found a
similar effect of environment, F(1, 224) ¼4.51, p¼.04,
h
p
2
¼.020.
However this was qualified by an interaction with valence, F(1,
224) ¼3.96, p¼.05,
h
p
2
¼.017.
4
Essentially, the built, pleasant, Las
Vegas video produced particularly low levels of willingness
compared to the other groups, which were similar (see Table 4).
Exploratory bootstrapping analyses suggested that state nature
relatedness (INS) mediated the effect of videos (nature vs. built) on
SVO (95% CI: .002, 1.45) and willingness (.01, .25; see Fig. 1), though
‘significance’depended somewhaton using this approach(cf. Baron &
Kenny) and combining the negative nature videos (see Supplement).
Thus, state nature relatedness may account for nature's effects on
cooperation and sustainability, but the evidence is somewhat
inconsistent. There was also a significant correlation between SVO
and willingness in this study (r¼.28). Thus, we tested the possibility
that SVO mediated the effect of videos on willingness. Bootstrapping
indicated a possible mediationpath when negative nature conditions
were combined (95% CI: .002, .16; see Fig. 1), though ‘significance’
again depended somewhat on this particular approach (see
Supplement). The films'effect on sustainability may be due to shiftsin
cooperation, but evidence is againsomewhat inconsistent. Finally, we
also explored the role of trait nature relatedness and found that it
correlated significantly with SVO (r¼.28), INS (r¼.61), willingness
(r¼.64), and positive affect (r¼.23), but typically did not interact
with manipulations in predicting these things.
In sum, this study provides a conceptual replication supporting
the idea that exposure to nature (in this case forest, flood, and wolf
videos) promotes cooperative decisions, even absent an environ-
mental context. These effects did not depend on nature's pleas-
antness, and also extended to explicit statements about
environmental behavior under some circumstances.
5. General discussion
After finding that short walks in nature produced both pleasant
moods and feelings of nature relatedness, Nisbet and Zelenski
(2011) suggested nature as a ‘happy path to sustainability’. This
research takes the critical next step by explicitly testing the link
between nature exposure and sustainable behaviors, rather than
inferring this from the traitelevel association between nature
relatedness and sustainable behavior. Across three studies, we
found consistent evidence for the idea that exposure to nature
(videos) can produce cooperative behavior, which was also sus-
tainable behavior in the context of commons dilemmas. Viewing
environmental problems as social dilemmas underscores the link
between cooperation and sustainability. Environmental issues are
classic examples of social dilemmas, and cooperation is essential in
solving them. In our lab analog, exposure to nature increased sus-
tainable fishing and helped determine whether or not fish stocks
collapsed. These effects appear to be due to nature per se as both
built and neutral control comparisons produced similar results.
Moreover, although pleasant moods are typically associated with
nature, they did not explain its effect on cooperation. Results held
using statistical mood controls, and when we directly manipulated
pleasant and unpleasant representations of nature.
The mediation results for state nature relatedness were incon-
sistent across studies (significant only in Study 3), and not robust
enough to provide strong evidence for this as the only path.
Although it remains plausible that time in nature fosters connect-
edness and sustainable attitudes over the long term (Schultz,
2000), different processes may explain nature's effect on coopera-
tive or sustainable behavior in the moment. That is, repeated ex-
periences in nature, especially pleasant ones, may foster a more
stable sense of nature relatedness, and then a desire to protect
nature, habits of spending more time in nature, associating with
individuals and groups that value nature and sustainable practices,
etc. (e.g., Bragg, 1996; Kals, Schumacher, &Montada, 1999; Mayer &
Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2009; Orr, 1993). Such connections likely
develop over time. A single exposure to nature will probably not
permanently change a person's attitudes or behavior, and it is
entirely possible that momentary feelings of connectedness with
nature do not cause sustainable choices in the same way that a
more stable sense of a nature related self does. Previous correla-
tional research on these topics likely speaks more to the stable
contents of personality, whereas the studies we report here deal
more with shifts in processing.
Momentary nature exposure may produce a set of changes in
emotion and cognition that are temporary and relatively distinct
from personality-level processes. Our studies found little support
for improved mood or trust as reasons that nature influences
momentary cooperation or sustainability. Other research has
Fig. 1. Path values for exploratory mediation models in Study 3. The effect of nature
(vs. built) videos on social value orientation and sustainability willingness may be
mediated by state ratings of inclusion of nature in self. The effect of nature videos on
sustainable willingness may be mediated by social value orientation. The coefficients
associated with nature exposure predicting inclusion of nature in self slightly change
between analyses due to exclusion of two participants with no score on social value
orientation in analyses involving social value orientation. Note:
ϯ
p<.10, *p<.05,
**p<.01, ***p<.001.
3
Considering the wolves and flood videos separately yields a similar pattern
with environment effects of F(1, 177) ¼4.65, p¼.03, and F(1, 179) ¼2.88, p¼.09,
respectively.
4
The pattern was similar between wolves and flood videos, for environment
effects, F(1, 179) ¼3.06, p¼.08 and F(1, 180) ¼5.14, p¼.03, respectively, and for
interactions, F(1, 179) ¼4.92, p¼.03 and F(1, 179) ¼2.38, p¼.11, respectively.
J.M. Zelenski et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 24e31 29
shown that nature exposure can help restore attention or self-
control resources (see Kaplan &Berman, 2010). Perhaps related
to this, two recent articles have found that nature reduces temporal
discounting (Berry, Sweeney, Morath, Odum, &Jordan, 2014; van
der Wal, Schade, Krabbendam, &van Vugt, 2013). That is, nature
appeared to shift people's preferences from immediate gratification
to larger but more distant payoffs. Nature's ability to improve self-
control in this way seems very consistent with the more sustainable
strategies we observed in the FISH studies (though our studies did
not guarantee a higher payoff with a long-term strategy). Addi-
tional research is needed, however, to determine which of these, or
other, changes are more fundamental to nature exposure. Said
another way, the improvements in sustainable behavior that we
observed in these studies may be due to (mediated by) more basic
shifts in delay of gratification. On the other hand, the measures in
Study 3 suggest that there is more than temporal discounting at
stake. The SVO measure is about immediate allocations and seems
to measure prosociality more than self-control (see also Gu
eguen &
Stefan, 2014). In addition, Study 3 included self-reported willing-
ness to perform sustainable behaviors. Nature seemed to increase
these, but the effect was qualified by an unexpected interaction. In
addition, the effect of nature on willingness appeared to be medi-
ated by SVO (prosociality or cooperation). Thus, we suggest a
cautious interpretation of possible momentary changes in explicit
environmental attitudes. Said another way, it is possible that na-
ture's ability to promote sustainable behavior ‘in the moment’ap-
plies primarily to cooperative contexts or commons dilemmas (or
possibly even an explicit understanding of the choice as a social
dilemma). Nature may shift cooperation more than sustainability
per se when the two are dissociated. As with all meditation claims,
determining the exact mechanism(s) of nature's effect on sustain-
ability and cooperation will take considerable (more) research (see
Bullock, Green, &Ha, 2010).
This research bridged gaps between experimental studies of
nature exposure that have notconsidered sustainable behavior, and
correlational studies that suggest a link between nature relatedness
and sustainable attitudes. Like most experimental studies, our
methods trade apparent external validity for methodological con-
trol. Although we argue that they maintain psychological realism,
testing generalizability is clearly an issue for future research. Our
participants were all Canadian students exposed to representations
of (not actual) nature, ‘fishing’in a simulation for relatively low
stakes and in relatively cooperative contexts, or completing ques-
tionnaires in Study 3. In addition, studying the effects and active
ingredients of ‘nature’is tricky given its nearly infinite exemplars
and the absence of clear or direct controls. We began to deal with
this issue of stimulus sampling (Wells &Windschitl, 1999)by
comparing four nature videos with four comparison conditions
across our studies (i.e., Planet Earth, forest, wolves, and flood vs.
architecture, grammar podcast, Las Vegas, and decrepit house). One
could develop hypotheses about why, for example, Las Vegas or
wolves might have particular effects beyond the natural-built
distinction (indeed, we believe they must in some ways), but
given a 4 vs. 4 comparison, the more parsimonious explanation
seems to be an effect of naturedthis is the consistent theme across
all stimuli. Still, despite some breadth across these studies, this
research begs for future conceptual replications, falsification at-
tempts, and search for boundary conditions. Collectively our results
suggest that nature may increase cooperation and sustainable
choices, yet additional exemplars should be tested in future work
before considering the matter settled.
As one specific and potentially important example, our nature
videos may have primed the idea of conservation, thus creating
demand. Although possible, some design choices argue against this
particular problem: 1) we chose nature videos that excluded
marine life and pro-environmental messages that might make the
link obvious; 2) we paid our research participants for each fish
harvested, giving them an incentive inconsistent with pleasing the
experimenter; 3) we used a between-subjects design so that the
video content could not be compared across conditions or become
an obvious cue; 4) we crafted a plausible cover story about the
study's purpose (i.e., about personality and reactions to media) that
included distracting measures to support that story. In addition,
Study 1 included a funneled debriefing for suspicion, and even with
a liberal criterion, less than 10% of participants could identify the
study's purpose, and removing these participants' data had little
effect on the results. Finally, there is nothing ‘environmental’about
the SVO measure in Study 3 where nature again produced coop-
erative responses. Thus, narrow priming or demand (i.e., nature
videos to conservation) seems like an incomplete explanation for
our results. It seems more plausible that nature could prime
cooperation broadly, similar to, but opposite, the self-sufficiency
primed by money (Vohs et al., 2006).
With these caveats in mind, we turn to more speculative im-
plications. As a methodological note for researchers, nature images
or videos are often used as ‘neutral’stimuli in control conditions.
Our results suggest that nature can produce psychologically
meaningful effects, and, thus, its ‘neutrality’may be unwisely
assumed in some research contexts. For example, a recent regis-
tered trial of ‘brain training’failed to find much benefit for the
cognitive exercises, but participants in a control condition, which
consisted of watching short nature videos, reported significant
improvements in psychological well-being and decreased stress
over time (Borness, Proudfoot, Crawford, &Valenzuela, 2013). Also,
three of nine studies in the money priming article just mentioned
included control conditions that seem like nature (e.g., images of
fish, a flower poster, and a seascape poster; Vohs et al., 2006).
Appropriate comparison conditions depend on context, but nature
may be appropriate less often than many assume.
Outside the lab, conservation activists have long used nature
imagery in persuasive appeals, but recent messaging around
climate change often prefers economic or security arguments.
Given the effects of priming money vs. nature, nature imagery may
produce more persuasive appeals or better reminders to behave
sustainablyeenvironmental problems are social dilemmas, and
cooperation is key to sustainable solutions. Future empirical work
could compare the relative efficacy of such appeals more directly.
Our research also contributes to a growing body of work that
suggests nature's benefits extend beyond individual well-being, for
example, to prosocial aspirations (Weinstein et al., 2009) and
behavior (Gu
eguen &Stefan, 2014) and reduced aggression and
crime (Kuo &Sullivan, 2001). Such findings, combined with na-
ture's salubrious effect on socioeconomic health disparities
(Mitchell &Popham, 2008), suggest that societies might consider
investing more in nature. Similar to arguments for public educa-
tion, providing nature access to all citizens could possibly provide a
net social or financial benefit.
Acknowledgment
We thank Zack Van Allen for assistance with data collection,
Craig Leth-Steensen for advice on analyses, and Carleton University
and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(#435-2014-1068) for funding.
Appendix A. Supplementary Materials
Supplementary materials and analyses related to this article can
be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.01.005.
J.M. Zelenski et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 24e3130
References
Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Joireman, J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation
in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes &Intergroup Relations, 12,
533e547.
Bekkers, R. (2004). Stability, reliability, and validity of social value orientation.
Retrieved September 3, 2011 from http://www.fss.uu.nl/soc/homes/bekkers/.
Berry, M. S., Sweeney, M. M., Morath, J., Odum, A. L., & Jordan, K. E. (2014). The
nature of impulsivity: Visual exposure to natural environments decreases
impulsive decision-making in a delay discounting task. PloS One, 9(5), e97915.
Borness, C., Proudfoot, J., Crawford, J., & Valenzuela, M. (2013). Putting brain training
to the test in the workplace: A randomized, blinded, multisite, active-controlled
trial. PloS One, 8(3), e59982.
Bragg, E. A. (1996). Towards ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist
self-theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16,93e108.
Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what's the mechanism? (Don't
expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,
550e558.
Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature
connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5,976.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31,169e193.
Ferguson, M. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). The effect of intergroup
comparison on willingness to perform sustainable behavior. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Psychology, 31,275e281.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of person-
ality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80,1011e1027.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
Broaden-and-Build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56,
218e226.
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology,
65,541e580.
Gifford, J., & Gifford, R. (2000). FISH 3: A microworld for studying social dilemmas
and resource management. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &Com-
puters, 32,417e422.
Gu
eguen, N., & Stefan, J. (2014). “Green Altruism”: Short immersion in natural
Green environments and helping behavior. Environment and Behavior.http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916514536576. Published online before print.
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual
Review of Public Health, 35, 207e228.
Hertel, G., Neuhof, J., Theuer, T., & Kerr, N. L. (2000). Mood effects on cooperation in
small groups: Does positive mood simply lead to more cooperation? Cognition
and Emotion, 14,441e472.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five inventory. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102e138). New York:
Guilford Press.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a
motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31,178e202.
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. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and develop-
ment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic
emotion. Cognition &Emotion, 17,297e314.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001b). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does
vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33, 343e367.
MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments.
Global Environmental Change, 23, 992e100 0.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of
individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 24, 503e515.
Mayer, S. F., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2008). Why is nature
beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41,
607e643.
Mazar, N., & Zhong, C. (2011). Do green products make us better people? Psycho-
logical Science, 21, 494e498.
Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on
health inequalities: An observational population study. The Lancet, 372,
1655e1660.
Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value
orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6,771e781.
Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2009, September). Individual differences in nature
relatedness, materialism, and affective forecasting. Paper presented at the 8th
Biennial Conference on Environmental psychology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2011). Underestimating nearby nature: Affective
forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological Sci-
ence, 22,1101e110 6 .
Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2013). The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature
relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4,813.http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2013.00813.
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale:
Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and
behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41,715e740 .
Orr, D. W. (1993). Love it or lose it: The coming biophilia revolution. In S. Kellert, &
E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 415e440). Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Parks, C. D., Joireman, J., & Van Lange, P. A. (2013). Cooperation, trust, and antag-
onism: How public goods are promoted. Psychological Science in the Public In-
terest, 14,119e165.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879e891.
Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and values (pp. 25e35). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five
markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506e516.
Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on
concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56,391e406.
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature re-
lations. In P. Schmuck, & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable devel-
opment (pp. 62e78). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Schultz, W. P., & Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment:
Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
37, 1219e1247.
Selhub, E. M., & Logan, A. C. (2012). Your brain on nature. Mississauga, ON: John
Wiley and Sons Canada, Ltd.
Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. Available at
SSRN 2160588.
Tam, K.-P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Simi-
larities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34,64e78.
Vining, J., Merrick, M. S., & Price, E. A. (2008). The distinction between humans and
nature: Human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the
natural and unnatural. Human Ecology Review, 15,1e11.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of
money. Science, 314,1154e1156.
van der Wal, A. J., Schade, H. M., Krabbendam, L., & van Vugt, M. (2013). Do natural
landscapes reduce future discounting in humans? Proceedings of the Royal So-
ciety B: Biological Sciences, 280,1e6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2295.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063e1070.
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.
Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological
experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,1115e112 5 .
White, M. P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B. W., & Depledge, M. H. (2013). Would you be
happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data.
Psychological Science, 24, 920e928.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
J.M. Zelenski et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 42 (2015) 24e31 31
