People use social media to gratify various needs, one of which is the need to affiliate with mediated nature. By combining the uses and gratifications approach and the biophilia hypothesis, this study coins this gratification as biophilia gratification. We computationally analyzed three million Facebook posts to test whether user reactions (likes, shares, loves, and cares) reflect biophilia gratification derived from human-created nature on social media, that is, mediated nature. Ten percent of posts that are image-based (approximately 170,000) were also randomly selected and analyzed. The results showed that social media users were more likely to react to most posts (particularly image-based posts) of mediated nature compared with nonmediated nature posts. These findings may imply that user reactions on social media may serve as indicators of biophilia gratification fulfilled through engagement with mediated nature.
AhnSJGBostickJOgleE, et al (2016) Experiencing nature: embodying animals in immersive virtual environments increases inclusion of nature in self and involvement with nature. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21: 399–419.
2.
AhnSJGFoxJDaleKR, et al (2015) Framing virtual experiences: effects on environmental efficacy and behavior over time. Communication Research42: 839–863.
3.
AlbertCLuqueGMCourchampF (2018) The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS ONE13: e0199149.
4.
AmiotCEBastianB (2015) Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychological Bulletin141: 6–47.
5.
AraujoTLockIvan de VeldeB (2020) Automated visual content analysis (AVCA) in communication research: a protocol for large scale image classification with pre-trained computer vision models. Communication Methods and Measures14: 239–265.
6.
ArendtFMatthesJ (2016) Nature documentaries, connectedness to nature, and pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Communication10: 453–472.
7.
ArtsIFischerADuckettD, et al (2021) Information technology and the optimisation of experience—the role of mobile devices and social media in human-nature interactions. Geoforum122: 55–62.
8.
BackesD (1995) The biosocial perspective and environmental communication research. Journal of Communication45: 147–163.
9.
BallewMOmotoAWinterP (2015) Using Web 2.0 and social media technologies to foster proenvironmental action. Sustainability7: 10620–10648.
10.
BangMMedinDLAtranS (2007) Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences104: 13868–13874.
11.
BarrettHC (2015) Adaptations to predators and prey. In: BussDM (ed.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 1–18.
12.
BednarekMRossASBoichakO, et al (2022) Winning the discursive struggle? The impact of a significant environmental crisis event on dominant climate discourses on Twitter. Discourse, Context & Media45: 100564.
13.
BoschOJRevillaMPauraE (2019) Answering mobile surveys with images: an exploration using a computer vision API. Social Science Computer Review37: 669–683.
14.
BritzolakisAKondylakisHPapadakisN (2020) A review on lexicon-based and machine learning political sentiment analysis using Tweets. International Journal of Semantic Computing14: 517–563.
15.
BrunsAHarringtonSHurcombeE (2020) “Corona? 5G? or both?” The dynamics of COVID-19/5G conspiracy theories on Facebook. Media International Australia177: 12–29.
16.
BüscherB (2016) Nature 2.0: exploring and theorizing the links between new media and nature conservation. New Media & Society18: 726–743.
17.
BüscherBKootSNelsonIL (2017) Introduction. Nature 2.0: new media, online activism and the cyberpolitics of environmental conservation. Geoforum79: 111–113.
18.
CapaldiCADopkoRLZelenskiJM (2014) The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology5: 1–15.
19.
CarbaughDCerulliT (2013) Cultural discourses of dwelling: investigating environmental communication as a place-based practice. Environmental Communication7: 4–23.
20.
ChangCChengGJYNghiemTP, et al (2020) Social media, nature, and life satisfaction: global evidence of the biophilia hypothesis. Scientific Reports10: 4125.
21.
ChenYSherrenKSmitM, et al (2023) Using social media images as data in social science research. New Media & Society25: 849–871.
22.
ChoSKangH (2017) Putting behavior into context: exploring the contours of social capital influences on environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior49: 283–313.
23.
ChristensenMNilssonAE (2018) Media, communication, and the environment in precarious times. Journal of Communication68: 267–277.
DennyMJSpirlingA (2018) Text preprocessing for unsupervised learning: why it matters, when it misleads, and what to do about it. Political Analysis26: 168–189.
FultonDCManfredoMJLipscombJ (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife1: 24–47.
29.
GoldySPPiffPK (2020) Toward a social ecology of prosociality: why, when, and where nature enhances social connection. Current Opinion in Psychology32: 27–31.
JoyeYDe BlockA (2011) ‘Nature and I are two’: a critical examination of the biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Values20: 189–215.
32.
JurgensonN (2019) The Social Photo: On Photography and Social Media. New York: Verso Books.
33.
KahnPHSeversonRLRuckertJH (2009) The human relation with nature and technological nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science18: 37–42.
34.
KatzEBlumlerJGGurevitchM (1973a) Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly37: 509–523.
35.
KatzEGurevitchMHaasH (1973b) On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review38: 164–181.
36.
KellertSRWilsonEO (1993) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
37.
KesebirSKesebirP (2017) A growing disconnection from nature is evident in cultural products. Perspectives on Psychological Science12: 258–269.
38.
KlostermannJPlumeyerABögerD, et al (2018) Extracting brand information from social networks: integrating image, text, and social tagging data. International Journal of Research in Marketing35: 538–556.
39.
KrcmarM (2017) Uses and gratifications: basic concepts. In: RösslerPHoffnerCAVan ZoonenL (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 1–13.
40.
LadleRJCorreiaRADoY, et al (2016) Conservation culturomics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment14: 269–275.
41.
MaciasTWilliamsK (2016) Know your neighbors, save the planet: social capital and the widening wedge of pro-environmental outcomes. Environment and Behavior48: 391–420.
42.
MammolaSFalaschiMFicetolaGF (2023) Biodiversity communication in the digital era through the Emoji tree of life. iScience26: 108569.
43.
ManfredoMJTeelTLHenryKL (2009) Linking society and environment: a multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the Western United States. Social Science Quarterly90: 407–427.
44.
MarkNWilliamK (eds) (1996) Mass Media and Environmental Conflict: America’s Green Crusades. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
MazloomMRietveldRRudinacS, et al (2016) Multimodal popularity prediction of brand-related social media posts. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on multimedia, Amsterdam, 15–19 October, pp. 197–201. New York: ACM.
46.
McClainCR (2019) Likes, comments, and shares of marine organism imagery on Facebook. PeerJ7: e6795.
47.
McMahanEAEstesD (2015) The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology10: 507–519.
48.
MulfariDCelestiAFazioM, et al (2016) Using Google Cloud vision in assistive technology scenarios. In: 2016 IEEE symposium on computers and communication (ISCC), Messina, 27–30 June, pp. 214–219. New York: IEEE.
49.
NassCMoonY (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues56: 81–103.
50.
NgY-L (2022) Uses and gratifications of and exposure to nature 2.0 and associated interdependence with nature and pro-environmental behavior. Social Science Computer Review40: 61–76.
51.
NgY-L (2024) Uses and gratifications of biophilic simulation games. Games and Culture. Epub ahead of print 24 April. DOI: 10.1177/15554120241249518.
52.
NimerJLundahlB (2007) Animal-assisted therapy: a Meta-analysis. Anthrozoös20: 225–238.
53.
OatesJMRederLM (2011) Memory for pictures: sometimes a picture is not worth a single word. In: BenjaminAS (ed.) Successful Remembering and Successful Forgetting: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert A. Bjork. London: Psychology Press, pp. 447–461.
54.
PearceWÖzkulaSMGreeneAK, et al (2020) Visual cross-platform analysis: digital methods to research social media images. Information, Communication & Society23: 161–180.
55.
PerkinsHE (2010) Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology30: 455–463.
56.
PerriARFeuerbornTRFrantzLAF, et al (2021) Dog domestication and the dual dispersal of people and dogs into the Americas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118: e2010083118.
57.
RangeFVirányiZ (2015) Tracking the evolutionary origins of dog-human cooperation: the “canine cooperation hypothesis.”Frontiers in Psychology5: 1582.
58.
ReevesBNassC (1996) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Place. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
RiordanMA (2017) Emojis as tools for emotion work: communicating affect in text messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology36: 549–567.
60.
RoedigerHLWeldonMS (1987) Reversing the picture superiority effect. In: McDanielMAPressleyM (eds) Imagery and Related Mnemonic Processes. New York: Springer, pp. 151–174.
61.
RolstonH (1993) Biophilia, selfish genes, shared values. In: KellertSRWilsonEO (eds) The Biophilia Hypothesis: A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 381–414.
62.
RubinAM (2009) The uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In: BryantJOliverMB (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 3rd ed.New York: Routledge, pp. 165–184.
63.
RuggieroTE (2000) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society3: 3–37.
SogaMGastonKJFukanoY, et al (2023) The vicious cycle of biophobia. Trends in Ecology & Evolution38: 512–520.
66.
SundarSSLimperosAM (2013) Uses and grats 2.0: new gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media57: 504–525.
67.
UlrichRS (1993) Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: KellertSRWilsonEO (eds) The Biophilia Hypothesis: A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 73–137.
68.
WalshF (2009a) Human-animal bonds I: the relational significance of companion animals. Family Process48: 462–480.
69.
WalshF (2009b) Human-animal bonds II: the role of pets in family systems and family therapy. Family Process48: 481–499.
70.
WilsonEO (1984) Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
WilsonEO (1993) Biophilia and the conservation ethics. In: KellertSRWilsonEO (eds) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 31–41.
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.
