Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-2
Nature Connectedness and Nature Exposure Interactively Influence Social Dominance Orientation and Policy Support for Marginalized Groups during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Social dominance orientation (SDO) has been reported to predict attitudes and behavior toward the natural environment. This research investigated whether dispositional connectedness with and temporary exposure to nature would reversely alter SDO. Two studies reported consistent results: Nature connectedness predicted lower SDO, and exposure to nature (vs. urban) decreased SDO only among nature-connected people. Moreover, the effect of nature exposure was strongest when the environment registered high security features. Study 2 generalized the findings on SDO to people’s policy support for marginalized groups in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings are discussed in the light of the transition from people-to-nature connections to interpersonal connections and the heterogeneity of nature’s effect. We conclude by discussing the importance of nature exposure, of which people have been deprived since the global lockdown, in combating the COVID-19 pandemic.
AllenM. W.WilsonM.NgS. H.DunneM. (2000). Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600481
2.
AltemeyerB. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.
3.
AppletonJ. (1996). The experience of landscape. John Wiley.
4.
ArendtF.MatthesJ. (2016). Nature documentaries, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Communication, 10(4), 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.993415
5.
BassettJ. F. (2010). The effects of mortality salience and social dominance orientation on attitudes toward illegal immigrants. Social Psychology, 41(1), 52–55. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000008
6.
BastianB.CostelloK.LoughnanS.HodsonG. (2011). When closing the human-animal divide expands moral concern: The importance of framing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611425106
7.
BurkeB. L.MartensA.FaucherE. H. (2010). Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 155–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352321
8.
BushmanB. J. (1995). Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 950–960. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.950
9.
ClarkeE. J. R.LingM.KotheE. J.KlasA.RichardsonB. (2019). Mitigation system threat partially mediates the effects of right-wing ideologies on climate change beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(6), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12585
10.
CostelloK.HodsonG. (2009). Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal-human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347725
11.
De GrootW. T.Van den BornR. J. G. (2003). Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: An exploration in The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(3), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00184-6
12.
DuckittJ.FisherK. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199–222.
13.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2007). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21(2), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.614
14.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028540
15.
FerraroR.ShivB.BettmanJ. R. (2005). Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die: Effects of mortality salience and self-esteem on self-regulation in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/429601
16.
FisherM.BubolaE. (2020, March16). As coronavirus deepens inequality, inequality worsens its spread. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/
17.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
18.
GoslingE.WilliamsK. J. H. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behavior: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.005
19.
GuéguenN.StefanJ. (2016). “Green altruism”: Short immersion in natural green environments and helping behavior. Environment and Behavior, 48(2), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514536576
20.
HartmannP.Apaolaza-IbáñezV. (2010). Beyond savanna: An evolutionary and environmental psychology approach to behavioral effects of nature scenery in green advertising. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.001
21.
HayesA. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
22.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.FoelsR.StewardA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
23.
HodsonG.MacInnisC. C.BusseriM. A. (2017). Bowing and kicking: Rediscovering the fundamental link between generalized authoritarianism and generalized prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.018
24.
HyersL. L. (2006). Myths used to legitimize the exploitation of animals: An application of social dominance theory. Anthrozoös, 19(3), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415538
25.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
26.
KaurH. (2020, May18). California is now offering support to undocumented immigrants, in the first relief fund of its kind. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/
27.
KuoF. E. (2003). The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 148–155.
28.
KuoF. E.SullivanW. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916501333002
29.
LandmannH.GaschlerR.RohmannA. (2019). What is threatening about refugees? Identifying different types of threat and their association with emotional responses and attitudes towards refugee migration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(7), 1401–1420. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2593
30.
LiefländerA. K.FröhlichG.BognerF. X.SchultzP. W. (2013). Promoting connectedness with nature through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 19(3), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.697545
31.
MartinL.WhiteM. P.HuntA.RichardsonM.PahlS.BurtJ. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389
32.
MayerF. S.FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
33.
MayerF. S.FrantzC. M.Bruehlman-SenecalE.DolliverK. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745
MilfontT. L.BainP. G.KashimaY.Corral-VerdugoV.PasqualiC.JohanssonL.GuanY.GouveiaV. V.GarðarsdóttirR. B.DoronG.BilewiczM.UtsugiA.AragonesJ. I.StegL.SolandM.ParkJ.OttoS.DemarqueC.WagnerC.… EinarsdóttirG. (2018). On the relation between social dominance orientation and environmentalism: A 25-nation study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 802–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722832
36.
MilfontT. L.RichterI.SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S.FischerR. (2013). Environmental consequences of the desire to dominate and be superior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(9), 1127–1138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490805
MorrisonK. R.YbarraO. (2008). The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.006
39.
NgH. K. S.HongY.ChowT. S.LeungA. N. M. (2019). Nature does not always give you a helping hand: Comparing the prosocial effects of nature at different resource and security levels. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 616–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218794625
40.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
41.
SchmittM.EidM.MaesJ. (2003). Synergistic person × situation interaction in distributive justice behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202238379
42.
SchultzP. W. (2001). Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for the self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
43.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(3), 248–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226
44.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF.MitchellM. (1994). In-group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9711378
45.
StanleyS. K.WilsonM. S.SibleyC. G.MilfontT. L. (2017). Dimensions of social dominance and their associations with environmentalism. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.051
46.
SteinmanC. T.UpdegraffJ. A. (2015). Delay and death-thought accessibility: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1682–1696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215607843
47.
TamK. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004
48.
TamK.LeeS.ChaoM. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001
49.
WeinsteinN.PrzybylskiA. K.RyanR. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1315–1329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209341649
50.
WhiteM.SmithA.HumphreysK.PahlS.SnellingD.DepledgeM. (2010). Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004
51.
WilsonE. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Island Press.
52.
WolfL. J.HaddockG.MansteadA. S. R.MaioG. R. (2020). The importance of (shared) human values for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(3), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12401
53.
ZhangJ. W.PiffP. K.IyerR.KolevaS.KeltnerD. (2014). An occasion for unselfing: Beautiful nature leads to prosociality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.008
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.
