Nature Does Not Always Give You a Helping Hand: Comparing the Prosocial Effects of Nature at Different Resource and Security Levels

Abstract

Humans become more prosocial after nature exposure. We proposed that the prosocial effect pertains to resource (e.g., food, water) and security (e.g., shelter, concealment) features in natural environments. Four studies tested the idea that prosociality changes with variations in environmental resource and security. Study 1 reported that urban greenspace, a resource feature to urban dwellers, predicted more volunteering in low-crime cities, but less so in high-crime cities. Studies 2 and 3 compared prosociality after exposure to natural sceneries in a Resource (high/low) × Security (high/low) design. Participants were more prosocial in the high-resource-high-security and low-resource-low-security conditions. Study 4 compared the four natural environments with two control conditions (urban, shape). It reported that not all natural environments led to higher prosociality, nor did any of them undermine prosociality. The findings supported heterogeneity in nature's prosocial effect. Implications are discussed in relation to urban greening and the evolutionary basis of nature's effect.

Nature Connectedness and Nature Exposure Interactively Influence Social Dominance Orientation and Policy Support for Marginalized Groups during the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Lastly, similar to Study 1, perceived beauty was significantly correlated with survival likelihood (r = .42, p < .001). Together with Study 1, the preliminary analysis supports the resource-security model (Ng et al, 2019) in accounting for the connection between esthetic experience and survival in perceiving natural environments (Appleton, 1996;Wilson, 1993).…”

“…The findings supported Appleton's (1996) view that esthetic response to nature was a proxy for surveying the habitability of a place. It added that resource and security features were important antecedents of such responses, which is in line with the resource-security model (Ng et al, 2019).…”

“…Research on the nature exposure effect has been overrepresented by green sceneries, and the variation in nature has been inadequately addressed (Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2010). Ng et al (2019) proposed from an evolutionary perspective that nature’s prosocial effect rests on its ability to provide resources and security. The sight of vegetation often implies the presence of water and food (resources), as well as places for concealment (security).…”

On the relationship between green space and civic engagement: The roles of well‐being, outgroup trust, and activity level

“…Living in greener neighborhoods strengthened people's tie to the community (Sullivan et al, 2004). Moreover, people assigned to nature‐intensive conditions reported higher intrinsic social aspirations and prosocial decision‐making (Ng et al, 2019; Weinstein et al, 2009). Although the effect of green space on prosocial behavior is generally supported, there are issues that have not been fully addressed by previous research.…”

“…Interpersonal trust is thus a potential construct to explain the effect of urban green space on civic engagement. Laboratory studies have established the positive effect of seeing nature pictures on trust (Weinstein et al, 2009), which mediated the nature exposure effect on prosociality (Ng et al, 2019). Not only did interpersonal trust predict general prosocial behavior, but it also predicted civic engagement such as volunteerism and participation in community organizations (Dang et al, 2022; Takagi et al, 2016).…”