Biophilic simulation games designed to simulate natural environments could have the potential to promote eco-friendly attitudes and behaviors. By adopting the uses and gratifications approach, this study investigated gaming gratifications of a biophilic simulation game, Animal Crossing: New Horizons, and associated pro-animal attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors. Results showed that individuals played Animal Crossing to satisfy fantasy, social, diversion, and enjoyment gratifications. While fantasy and enjoyment gratifications were positively associated with pro-animal attitudes, fantasy, and social gratifications were positively correlated with pro-environmental behaviors.
AlcockI.WhiteM. P.PahlS.Duarte-DavidsonR.FlemingL. E. (2020). Associations between pro-environmental behaviour and neighbourhood nature, nature visit frequency and nature appreciation: Evidence from a nationally representative survey in England. Environment International, 136, 105441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105441
2.
AmiotC. E.BastianB. (2015). Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 6–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038147
3.
ArsenaultD. (2009). Video game genre, evolution and innovation. Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture, 3, 149–176. https://doi.org/10.7557/23.6003
4.
Bell-GawneK.StenersonM.ShapiroB.SquireK. (2013). Meaningful play: The intersection of video games and environmental policy. World Futures Review, 5, 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756713497472
5.
BradleyA.MennieN.BibbyP. A.CassadayH. J. (2020). Some animals are more equal than others: Validation of a new scale to measure how attitudes to animals depend on species and human purpose of use. PLoS One, 15, e0227948. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227948
6.
BuckleyK. E.AndersonC. A. (2006). A theoretical model of the effects and consequences of playing video games. In VordererP.BryantJ. (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 363–378). LEA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203873700
7.
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
8.
BuhrmesterM.TalaifarS.GoslingS. (2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516
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.
ChangB.-H.LeeS.-E.KimB.-S. (2006). Exploring factors affecting the adoption and continuance of online games among college students in South Korea. New Media & Society, 8, 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806059888
11.
ChangC.ChengG. J. Y.NghiemT.LeP.SongX. P.OhR. R. Y.RichardsD. R.CarrascoL. R. (2020). Social media, nature, and life satisfaction: Global evidence of the biophilia hypothesis. Scientific Reports, 10, 4125. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60902-w
12.
ChiricoA.PizzolanteM.BorghesiF.BartolottaS.SarcinellaE. D.CipressoP.GaggioliA. (2023). Standing up for earth rights”: Awe-inspiring virtual nature for promoting pro-environmental behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26, 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0260
13.
ChoS.KangH. (2017). Putting behavior into context: Exploring the contours of social capital influences on environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 49, 283–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516631801
14.
DavisM. A. (2022). An overview of environmental themes in the video game industry. Geographical Bulletin, 63, 97–108.
15.
DhontK.HodsonG.CostelloK.MacInnisC. C. (2014). Social dominance orientation connects prejudicial human–human and human–animal relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 61-62, 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.020
16.
DifallahD.FilatovaE.IpeirotisP. (2018). Demographics and dynamics of mechanical Turk workers. Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM, 18, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159652.3159661
17.
Díaz-SieferP.NeamanA.SalgadoE.Celis-DiezJ.OttoS. (2015). Human-environment system knowledge: A correlate of pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 7(1), 15510–15526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71115510
18.
FaisalA.PeltoniemiM. (2018). Establishing video game genres using data-driven modeling and product databases. Games and Culture, 13, 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015601541
19.
FergusonC. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808
20.
FisherJ. C.YohN.KuboT.RundleD. (2021). Could Nintendo’s animal crossing be a tool for conservation messaging?People and Nature, 3, 1218–1228. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10240
21.
FrowJ. (2015). Genre (2nd ed.). Routledge.
22.
GarrisR.AhlersR.DriskellJ. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607
23.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
HerzogH. A.BetchartN. S.PittmanR. B. (1991). Gender, sex role orientation, and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoös, 4, 184–191. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279391787057170
26.
HuangH. (2016). Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2206–2212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.031
27.
JanszJ.AvisC.VosmeerM. (2010). Playing the Sims2: An exploration of gender differences in players’ motivations and patterns of play. New Media & Society, 12, 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342267
28.
JugertP.GreenawayK. H.BarthM.BüchnerR.EisentrautS.FritscheI. (2016). Collective efficacy increases pro-environmental intentions through increasing self-efficacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.003
29.
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
30.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109
31.
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
32.
KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
33.
KiddA. H.KiddR. M. (1990). Social and environmental influences on children’s attitudes toward pets. Psychological Reports, 67, 807–818. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.67.7.807-818
34.
KimJ. (2014). Interactivity, user-generated content and video game: An ethnographic study of animal crossing: Wild world. Continuum, 28, 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2014.893984
35.
LiH.LiuY.XuX.HeikkiläJ.van der HeijdenH. (2015). Modeling hedonic is continuance through the uses and gratifications theory: An empirical study in online games. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.053
36.
LucasK.SherryJ. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31, 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204267930
37.
MaciasT.WilliamsK. (2016). Know your neighbors, save the planet: Social capital and the widening wedge of pro-environmental outcomes. Environment and Behavior, 48, 391–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514540458
38.
MarkowitzE. M.GoldbergL. R.AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2012). Profiling the “pro-environmental individual”: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80, 81–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00721.x
39.
MartinL.WhiteM. P.HuntA.RichardsonM.PahlS.BurtJ. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389
40.
McGonigalJ. (2010). Reality is broken: How can videogames save the world. Penguin Press.
41.
MorgantiL.PallaviciniF.CadelE.CandelieriA.ArchettiF.MantovaniF. (2017). Gaming for earth: Serious games and gamification to engage consumers in pro-environmental behaviours for energy efficiency. Energy Research & Social Science, 29, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.001
42.
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 Review, 40, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320901490
op de BekeL. (2021). Premediating climate change in videogames: Repetition, mastery, and failure. Nordic Journal of Media Studies, 3, 184–199. https://doi.org/10.2478/njms-2021-0010
46.
op de BekeL.RaessensJ.WerningS.FarcaG. (Eds.). (2024). Ecogames: Playful perspectives on the climate crisis (p. 612). Amsterdam University Press.
47.
OswaldT. K.RumboldA. R.KedziorS. G. E.MooreV. M. (2020). Psychological impacts of “screen time” and “green time” for children and adolescents: A systematic scoping review. PLoS One, 15, e0237725. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237725
48.
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
49.
PooleR.SpanglerS. (2020). ‘Eco this and recycle that’: An ecolinguistic analysis of a popular digital simulation game. Critical Discourse Studies, 17, 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1617177
50.
RosengrenK. E. (1974). Uses and gratifications: A paradigm outlined. In BlumlerJ.KatzE. (Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 269–286). Sage.
51.
RubinA. M. (2009). The uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 165–184). Routledge.
52.
SandbrookC.AdamsW. M.MonteferriB. (2015). Digital games and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Letters, 8, 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12113
53.
ScharkowM.FestlR.VogelgesangJ.QuandtT. (2015). Beyond the “core-gamer”: Genre preferences and gratifications in computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.020
ShenJ.LiangH.ZafarA. U.ShahzadM.AkramU.AshfaqM. (2023). Influence by osmosis: Social media green communities and pro-environmental behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 143, 107706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107706
56.
StegL.PerlaviciuteG.van der WerffE.LurvinkJ. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and Behavior, 46, 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512454730
57.
SundarS. S.LimperosA. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57, 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.845827
58.
TamboriniR.BowmanN. D.EdenA.GrizzardM.OrganA. (2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication, 60, 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x
59.
TanC. K. W.Woei LeeJ.HiiA.LooY. Y.Campos-ArceizA.MacdonaldD. W. (2018). The effect of using games in teaching conservation. PeerJ, 6, e4509. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4509
60.
van RiperC. J.LumC.KyleG. T.WallenK. E.AbsherJ.LandonA. C. (2020). Values, motivations, and intentions to engage in proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 52, 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518807963
WillsJ. (2002). Digital dinosaurs and artificial life: Exploring the culture of nature in computer and video games. Cultural Values, 6, 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362517022000047334
63.
WilsonE. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
64.
WilsonE. O. (1988). Biodiversity. National Academies Press.
65.
WilsonE. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethics. In KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Island Press.
66.
WuJ.-H.WangS.-C.TsaiH.-H. (2010). Falling in love with online games: The uses and gratifications perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1862–1871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.033
ZhuL (2021). The psychology behind video games during COVID-19 pandemic: A case study of Animal Crossing: New Horizons. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3, 157–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.221
