New media studies have begun to take environmental topics into consideration. However, there has been little research that explores the origins of human psychological needs that motivate people to get exposed to nature on the Internet and gain satisfaction via social media uses related to nature. This study intended to investigate the uses and gratifications of and exposure to “nature 2.0” (a nature that is humanly created on Web 2.0) and the associated interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior. The results found that the needs to affiliate with nature 2.0 can be satisfied through functional, relational, and emotional gratifications. Exposure to nature 2.0 was associated with commitment to nature and pro-environmental self-reported behavior. Functional gratification was correlated with pro-environmental behavior, while relational and emotional gratifications were related to interdependence with nature.
AladwaniA. M. (2014). Gravitating towards Facebook (GoToFB): What it is? and How can it be measured?Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.005
2.
ArendtF.MatthesJ. (2016). Nature documentaries, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Communication, 10, 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.993415
3.
BallewM.OmotoA.WinterP. (2015). Using Web 2.0 and social media technologies to foster proenvironmental action. Sustainability, 7, 10620–10648. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810620
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
6.
BüscherB. (2016). Nature 2.0: Exploring and theorizing the links between new media and nature conservation. New Media & Society, 18, 726–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814545841
7.
ByrumK. (2019). “Hey friend, buy green”: Social media use to influence eco-purchasing involvement. Environmental Communication, 13, 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1308404
8.
CareyJ. W. (1998). The Internet and the end of the national communication system: Uncertain predictions of an uncertain future. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909807500106
9.
CaslerK.BickelL.HackettE. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
10.
ComreyA. L.LeeH. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Erlbaum.
11.
CoopmanT. M. (2011). Networks of dissent: Emergent forms in media based collective action. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28, 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2010.514934
12.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
13.
DavisJ. L.GreenJ. D.ReedA. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.001
14.
de VellisR. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.
15.
DhirA.ChenS.NieminenM. (2016). The effects of demographics, technology accessibility, and unwillingness to communicate in predicting Internet gratifications and heavy Internet use among adolescents. Social Science Computer Review, 34, 278–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315582854
16.
FriedmanB.FreierN. G.KahnP. H.LinP.SodemanR. (2008). Office window of the future?—Field-based analyses of a new use of a large display. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.12.005
17.
GuittonM. J. (2017). Rethinking the impact of new technologies in a climate change era: Challenges or opportunities?Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.005
18.
HamiltonC. (2016). Define the Anthropocene in terms of the whole Earth. Nature, 536, 251–251. https://doi.org/10.1038/536251a
KahnP. H.SeversonR. L.RuckertJ. H. (2009). The human relation with nature and technological nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01602.x
21.
KaiserF. G.DokaG.HofstetterP.RanneyM. A. (2003). Ecological behavior and its environmental consequences: A life cycle assessment of a self-report measure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00075-0
22.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109
23.
KatzE.GurevitchM.HaasH. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094393
24.
KatzM. H. (2011). Multivariable analysis: A practical guide for clinicians and public health researchers. Cambridge University Press.
25.
KellertS. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Island Press.
26.
KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
27.
KelleyH. H.ThibautJ. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. Wiley.
28.
KoteykoN.NerlichB.HellstenI. (2015). Climate change communication and the Internet: Challenges and opportunities for research. Environmental Communication, 9, 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1029297
29.
LandersR. N.BehrendT. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.13
30.
LaroseR.MastroD.EastinM. S. (2001). Understanding Internet usage: A social-cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930101900401
31.
LeB.AgnewC. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00035
32.
LeeF. L. F. (2015). Internet, citizen self-mobilisation, and social movement organisations in environmental collective action campaigns: Two Hong Kong cases. Environmental Politics, 24, 308–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.919749
NgY.-L. (2019). Toward an evolutionary perspective on social media use for cooperation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000172
36.
NgY.-L.ZhaoX. (2018). The human alarm system for sensational news, online news headlines, and associated generic digital footprints: A uses and gratifications approach. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218793739
37.
OakleyR. L.SalamA. F. (2014). Examining the impact of computer-mediated social networks on individual consumerism environmental behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.033
38.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598
PearsonE.TindleH.FergusonM.RyanJ.LitchfieldC. (2016). Can we tweet, post, and share our way to a more sustainable society? A review of the current contributions and future potential of #Socialmediaforsustainability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 363–397. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090000
41.
PeterJ.ValkenburgP. M. (2006). Adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit material on the Internet. Communication Research, 33, 178–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285369
42.
RolstonH. (1993). Biophilia, selfish genes, shared values. In KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis: A theoretical and empirical inquiry (pp. 381–414). Island Press.
SchultzP. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
45.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81–97.
UlrichR. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis: A theoretical and empirical inquiry (pp. 73–137). Island Press.
WhitingA.WilliamsD. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16, 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041
50.
WilsonE. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
51.
ZhangN.SkoricM. M. (2018). Media use and environmental engagement: Examining differential gains from news media and social media. International Journal of Communication, 12, 1–24.
