The number of individuals seeking help for environmentally related psychological distress (eco-distress) is rising. This study investigates the role of nature relatedness and social media in the etiology of eco-distress in Australian residents. In a between-groups experiment, 193 participants were randomly allocated into one of four social media nature image conditions. Experimental group participants were exposed to either distressing landscape or wildlife images. Control group participants were exposed to either neutral landscapes or wildlife images. Results reveal that exposure to distressing images caused increased psychological distress, with no significant difference between landscapes or wildlife images. Nature relatedness positively predicted both negative affect (R2 = 0.12) and positive affect (R2 = 0.18) after exposure to distressing images. These findings indicate that social media may be a contributing factor to eco-distress and that nature relatedness may act as both a causal mechanism and a protective buffer against eco-distress for those with high nature relatedness after exposure to environmental degradation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AertsR., HonnayO., & Van NieuwenhuyseA. (2018). Biodiversity and human health: Mechanisms and evidence of the positive health effects of diversity in nature and green spaces. British Medical Bulletin, 127, 5–22.
2.
AguinisH., GottfredsonR., & JooH. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 270–301.
BarbaroN., & PickettS. (2016). Mindfully green: Examining the effect of connectedness to nature on the relationship between mindfulness and engagement in pro-environmental behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 137–142.
6.
BasuA., DuvallJ., & KaplanR. (2019). Attention restoration theory: Exploring the role of soft fascination and mental bandwidth. Environment and Behavior, 51, 1055–1081.
7.
BertoR., BarbieroG., BarbieroP., & SenesG. (2018). An individual's connection to nature can affect perceived restorativeness of natural environments: Some observations about biophilia. Behavioral Sciences, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs803003
8.
Bissing-OlsonM., IyerA., FieldingK., & ZacherH. (2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 156–175.
9.
CapaldiC., DopkoR., & ZelenskiJ. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 976.
10.
CarneyA., & PatrickJ. (2019). Effects of age on connection to nature and positive affect. Innovation in Aging, 3(Supplement1), S278–S278.
11.
ChangC., ChengG., NghiemT., SongX., OhR., RichardsD., & CarrascoL. (2020). Social media, nature, and life satisfaction: Global evidence of the biophilia hypothesis. Scientific Reports, 10, 1–8.
ChenX. (2013). How perceived exposure to environmental harm influences environmental behavior in urban China. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 42, 52–60.
14.
CianconiP., BetròS., & JaniriL. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental health: A systematic descriptive review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 74.
15.
CookR. D., & WeisbergS. (1982). Residuals and Influence in Regression. New York: Chapman & Hall.
16.
CracknellD., PahlS., WhiteM., & DepledgeM. (2018). Reviewing the role of aquaria as restorative settings: How subaquatic diversity in public aquaria can influence preferences, and human health and well-being. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23, 446–460.
17.
DeanJ., ShanahanD., BushR., GastonK., LinB., BarberE., FrancoL., & FullerR. (2018). Is nature relatedness associated with better mental and physical health?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 1371.
18.
FaulF., ErdfelderE., LangA.-G., & BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
19.
FeldmanL., & HartP. (2018). Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis, 38, 585–602.
20.
FieldA. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. (5th ed). London: Sage Publications.
21.
FrancoL., ShanahanD., & FullerR. (2017). A review of the benefits of nature experiences: More than meets the eye. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14, 864.
22.
HallB., XiongY., YipP., LaoC., ShiW., SouE., ChangK., WangL., & LamA. (2019). The association between disaster exposure and media use on post-traumatic stress disorder following Typhoon Hato in Macao, China. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 10, 1558709.
23.
HamiltonB. L. (1977). An empirical investigation of the effects of heterogeneous regression slopes in analysis of covariance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 701–712.
24.
HolmanE., GarfinD., LubensP., & SilverR. (2020). Media exposure to collective trauma, mental health, and functioning: Does it matter what you see?. Clinical Psychological Science, 8, 111–124.
25.
InguiliK., & LindbloomG. (2013). Connection to nature and psychological resilience. Ecopsychology, 5, 52–55.
26.
KaplanS. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
27.
KaplanR., & KaplanS. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KellyA. (2017). Eco-anxiety at university: Student experiences and academic perspectives on cultivating healthy emotional responses to the climate crisis. [Independent Study thesis, The University of Colorado]. Independent Study Project Collection. Retrieved from https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/2642
29.
KeppelG., & WickensT. D. (2004). Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook. Pearson Education.
30.
KrettenauerT., WangW., JiaF., & YaoY. (2019). Connectedness with nature and the decline of pro-environmental behaviour in adolescence: A comparison of Canada and China. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101348
31.
LawtonE., BrymerE., CloughP., & DenovanA. (2017). The relationship between the physical activity environment, nature relatedness, anxiety, and the psychological well-being benefits of regular exercisers. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1058.
32.
LehmanB., ThompsonJ., DavisS., & CarlsonJ. (2019). Affective images of climate change. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 960.
33.
LeysC., DelacreM., MoraY. L., LakensD., & LeyC. (2019). How to classify, detect, and manage univariate and multivariate outliers, with emphasis on pre-registration. International Review of Social Psychology, 32, 5.
34.
LiuT., GengL., YeL., & ZhouK. (2019). “Mother Nature” enhances connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 37–45.
35.
LoyL., & SpenceA. (2020). Reducing, and bridging, the psychological distance of climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101388
36.
LückeC., BraumandlS., BeckerB., MoellerS., CustalC., PhilipsenA., & MüllerH. (2019). Effects of nature-based mindfulness training on resilience/symptom load in professionals with high work-related stress-levels: findings from the WIN-Study. Mental Illness, 11, 20–24.
37.
MagalhãesS., MirandaD., de MirandaD., Malloy-DinizL., Romano-SilvaM., & Leal-SotoF. (2018). The extreme climate event database (EXCEED): Development of a picture database composed of drought and flood stimuli. PLoS One, 13, e0204093.
38.
MahamidF., & BerteD. (2018). Portrayals of violence and at-risk populations: Symptoms of trauma in adolescents with high utilization of social media. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9999-0
39.
MarczakM., & SorokowskiP. (2018). Emotional connectedness to nature is meaningfully related to modernization. Evidence from the Meru of Kenya. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1789.
40.
MartinL., WhiteM., HuntA., RichardsonM., PahlS., & BurtJ. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389
41.
MartynP., & BrymerE. (2016). The relationship between nature relatedness and anxiety. Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 1436–1445.
MayerF., & FrantzC. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
44.
MayerF., FrantzC., Bruehlman-SenecalE., & DolliverK. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643.
45.
McMahanE., & EstesD. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 507–519.
46.
McMahanE., EstesD., MurfinJ., & BryanC. (2018). Nature connectedness moderates the effect of nature exposure on explicit and implicit measures of emotion. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing, 2, 128–148.
NeillC., GerardJ., & ArbuthnottK. (2019). Nature contact and mood benefits: Contact duration and mood type. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14, 756–767.
49.
NisbetE., ZelenskiJ., & MurphyS. (2009). The nature relatedness scale linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behaviour. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.
50.
NutsfordD., PearsonA., KinghamS., & ReitsmaF. (2016). Residential exposure to visible blue space (but not green space) associated with lower psychological distress in a capital city. Health and Place, 39, 70–78.
51.
O'NeillS. (2019). More than meets the eye: A longitudinal analysis of climate change imagery in the print media. Climatic Change, 1–18.
52.
PassmoreH., & HolderM. (2017). Noticing nature: Individual and social benefits of a two-week intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 537–546.
53.
PearceW., NiedererS., ÖzkulaS., & Sánchez QuerubínN. (2019). The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.569
54.
PennyK. (1996). Appropriate critical values when testing for a single multivariate outlier by using the Mahalanobis distance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics), 45, 73–81.
55.
PihkalaP. (2018). Eco-anxiety, tragedy, and hope: Psychological and spiritual dimensions of climate change. Zygon, 53, 545–569.
56.
PinchevskiA. (2016). Screen trauma: Visual media and post-traumatic stress disorder. Theory, Culture & Society, 33, 51–75.
57.
PritchardA., RichardsonM., SheffieldD., & McEwanK. (2020). The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 1145–1167.
58.
QiuL., LindbergS., & NielsenA. (2013). Is biodiversity attractive? On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 136–146.
59.
RosopaP., SchafferM., & SchroederA. (2013). Managing heteroscedasticity in general linear models. Psychological Methods, 18, 335–351.
60.
RoxburghN., GuanD., ShinK., RandW., ManagiS., LovelaceR., & MengJ. (2019). Characterising climate change discourse on social media during extreme weather events. Global Environmental Change, 54, 50–60.
61.
SarchetP. (2019). Stressed about the climate?. New Scientist, 244, 12–12.
62.
SchertzK., & BermanM. (2019). Understanding nature and its cognitive benefits. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 496–502.
63.
ShanahanD., BushR., GastonK., LinB., DeanJ., BarberE., & FullerR. (2016). Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Scientific Reports, 6, 28551.
64.
SouthonG., JorgensenA., DunnettN., HoyleH., & EvansK. (2018). Perceived species-richness in urban green spaces: Cues, accuracy and well-being impacts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 172(C), 1–10.
65.
StevensonM., SchilhabT., & BentsenP. (2018). Attention restoration theory II: A systematic review to clarify attention processes affected by exposure to natural environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 21, 227–268.
66.
TabachnickB., FidellL. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics. (Seventh edition.). New York: Pearson Education.
67.
TangI., SullivanW., & ChangC. (2015). Perceptual evaluation of natural landscapes: The role of the individual connection to nature. Environment and Behavior, 47, 595–617.
68.
ThakeC., BamblingM., EdirippuligeS., & MarxE. (2017). A psychoevolutionary approach to identifying preferred nature scenes with potential to provide restoration from stress. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 10, 111–124.
69.
UlrichR. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (eds.), Human behavior and environment, Volume 6, pp. 85–125. New York: Plenum Press
70.
ValtchanovD., & EllardC. (2015). Cognitive and affective responses to natural scenes: Effects of low level visual properties on preference, cognitive load and eye-movements. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 184–195.
71.
VerplankenB., & RoyD. (2013). “My worries are rational, climate change is not”: Habitual ecological worrying is an adaptive response. PLoS One, 8, e74708.
72.
VickersH. (2012). Social networks and media coverage are blamed for series of teenage suicides in Russia. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online), 344, e3110.
73.
VygotskyL., & ColeM. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Oxford: Harvard University Press.
74.
WangS., CornerA., ChapmanD., & MarkowitzE. (2018). Public engagement with climate imagery in a changing digital landscape. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.509
75.
WatsonD., ClarkL. A., & TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
76.
WhitburnJ., LinklaterW., & AbrahamseW. (2019a). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and pro-environmental behaviour. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 34, 180–193.
77.
WhitburnJ., LinklaterW., & MilfontT. (2019b). Exposure to urban nature and tree planting are related to pro-environmental behavior via connection to nature, the use of nature for psychological restoration, and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 51, 787–810.
78.
WhiteM., WeeksA., HooperT., BleakleyL., CracknellD., LovellR., & JeffersonR. (2017). Marine wildlife as an important component of coastal visits: The role of perceived biodiversity and species behaviour. Marine Policy, 78, 80–89.
79.
WilsonE. (1984). Biophilia. London: Harvard University Press.
80.
WolfL., zu ErmgassenS., BalmfordA., WhiteM., WeinsteinN., & TravisA. (2017). Is variety the spice of life? An experimental investigation into the effects of species richness on self-reported mental well-being. PLoS One, 12, e0170225.
81.
WuY. B. (1984). The effects of heterogenous regression slopes on the robustness of two test statistics in the analysis of covariance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 647–663.
82.
WylesK., PahlS., ThomasK., & ThompsonR. (2016). Factors that can undermine the psychological benefits of coastal environments: Exploring the effect of tidal state, presence, and type of litter. Environment and Behavior, 48, 1095–1126.
83.
WylesK., WhiteM., HattamC., PahlS., KingH., & AustenM. (2019). Are some natural environments more psychologically beneficial than others? The importance of type and quality on connectedness to nature and psychological restoration. Environment and Behavior, 51, 111–143.
84.
YuJ. (2019). Exploring the role of healthy green spaces, psychological resilience, attitude, brand attachment, and price reasonableness in increasing hotel guest retention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 133.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
