Content uploaded by Holli-Anne Passmore
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Holli-Anne Passmore on Jul 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 1
Noticing nature: Individual and social benefits of a two-week intervention
Holli-Anne Passmore and Mark D. Holder
University of British Columbia
corresponding author:
Holli-Anne Passmore
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
ART 280-H 1147 Research Road
Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V 1V7
ph: 780-240-1899
email: PassmoreH@alumni.ubc.ca
Mark D. Holder
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.
Passmore, H.-A., & Holder, M. D. (in press). Noticing nature: Individual and social benefits of a
two-week intervention. Journal of Positive Psychology. (accepted July 5, 2016).
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 2
Abstract
We examined the effects of a two-week nature-based well-being intervention.
Undergraduates (N = 395) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: nature, human-
built, or a business-as-usual control. Participants paid attention to how nature (or human-built
objects, depending on assignment) in their everyday surroundings made them feel, photographed
the objects/scenes that evoked emotion in them, and provided a description of emotions evoked.
Post-intervention levels of net-positive affect, elevating experiences, a general sense of
connectedness (to other people, to nature, and to life as a whole), and prosocial orientation were
significantly higher in the nature group compared to the human-built and control groups. Trait
levels of nature connectedness and engagement with beauty did not moderate nature's beneficial
impact on well-being. Qualitative findings revealed significant differences in the emotional
themes evoked by nature versus human-built objects/scenes. This research provides important
empirical support for nature involvement as an effective positive psychology intervention.
Keywords: nature involvement, positive psychology intervention, connectedness, qualitative
research, elevating experiences
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 3
Noticing nature: Individual and social benefits of a two-week intervention
'I found that nature gave me an underlying appreciation for both the people I have in my life and
the world in which I live in.' (Participant N155)
Several theoretical models and perspectives have been developed to describe and explain
how our relationship with nature plays a fundamentally important role in our well-being. For
example, Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) details how
natural environments are rich in stimuli that effortlessly engage our involuntary attention ('soft
fascination') and thus restore our directed attention/cognitive capabilities. Additionally, the
biophilia hypothesis (Shepard, 1982; Ulrich, 1983; Wilson, 1984) sets forth that we have an
evolved inclination to affiliate with, and respond with emotional intensity to, the non-human
natural world. Expanding on this hypothesis, the Eco-Existential Positive Psychology (Passmore
& Howell, 2014a) perspective proposes that cultivating our innate biophilic tendencies through
involvement with the natural world increases our well-being by helping to address existential
anxieties, such as those concerning isolation and happiness.
A solid, and growing, body of empirical studies supports these theoretical positions.
Contact with nature has been shown to enhance a variety of aspects of well-being, including life
satisfaction, positive affect, meaning in life, feelings of elevation, vitality, and both psychological
and social well-being (see literature reviews by Capaldi, Passmore, Nisbet, Zelenski, & Dopko,
2015; Howell & Passmore, 2013; McMahan & Estes, 2015; Russell et al., 2013). Even after
controlling for variables including weather, time of day, activity, companionship, location type,
and day of the week, people are, in general, substantially happier when they are in nature,
compared to when they are in a human-built environment (MacKerron & Mourato, 2013).
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 4
Nature's beneficial influence appears to extend beyond the individual. Evidence in
support of a positive relationship between exposure to natural environments and other-oriented
prosocial behaviour is also accumulating. For example, in laboratory experiments, participants
in nature conditions—who rested in plant-filled rooms (Weinstein, Przybylski, & Ryan, 2009) or
watched a brief nature video (Zelenski, Dopko, and Capaldi, 2015)—exhibited more generous
behaviour towards others, compared to participants in control conditions. Prosocial effects of
immersion in nature have also emerged in field experiments. For example, Guéguen and Stefan
(2016) reported that individuals who were leaving a heavily treed urban park, and thus had been
immersed in nature, helped a passer-by (in reality, a confederate) more frequently and more
readily than those who were entering the park, and thus had not been immersed in nature.
Although an increasing number of counselling professionals are, as Milton (2009)
phrased it, “waking up” to the importance of the natural environment to their clients' well-being
(Berger, 2008; Berger & McLeod, 2006; Besthorn, 2002; Buzzell & Chalquist, 2009; Hasbach,
2012; Jordan, 2009; Rollins, 2009), nature involvement is under-utilized as a well-being activity
(Walsh, 2011). One reason for this under-utilization could be that, as McMahon and Estes
(2015) noted in their recent meta-analysis examining the effect of contact with nature on positive
and negative affect, most experimental studies have used only brief, single exposures to natural
environments and assessed well-being directly after exposure to nature. They called for, as did
Capaldi et al. (2015), experimental studies assessing the positive effects of nature involvement
on well-being over more extended periods of time. One such study was a two-week nature
intervention conducted by Passmore and Howell (2014b), in which participants were randomly
assigned to either a control or nature-intervention condition. They reported that, at the end of the
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 5
two-week period, well-being (i.e., net-positive affect, feelings of elevation, and sense of meaning
in life) were higher for those in the nature condition.
The current study helped address the need for further experimental research examining
the effects of longer-term nature involvement. Our study differs from previous studies in a
number of ways. Rather than simply measuring the immediate “stimulus-response” effect on
well-being of a brief, single exposure to nature, we measured effects of a longer-duration,
ongoing nature intervention, similar to Passmore and Howell (2014b). However, the control
group employed by Passmore and Howell (i.e., solving anagram puzzles) may have biased
results in favour of the nature condition; therefore, we utilized two control conditions which
included a business-as-usual condition. Previous studies have encouraged participants to spend
more time in nature, taken participants to natural areas, or incorporated nature into indoor
environments. We employed a unique methodology that involved participants merely noticing
and attending to the nature they encountered during their everyday routines.
Specifically, we examined whether, at the end of a two-week period, participants in a
noticing-nature condition experienced greater individual and social benefits compared to
participants in control conditions. We hypothesized that levels of individual well-being (net-
positive affect, elevation, meaning), a general sense of connectedness (to other people, to nature,
to life as a whole), and prosocial orientation would be higher in participants who were randomly
assigned to pay attention to how the natural objects they encountered in their daily lives made
them feel (and then to photograph those objects/scenes), compared to participants randomly
assigned to a similar condition but with a focus on human-built objects and scenes, and
compared to participants randomly assigned to a condition akin to a wait-list control.
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 6
Although some research suggests possible moderators for the effects of nature
involvement on well-being, additional studies examining individual difference measures as
potential moderators of nature's beneficial effects are needed (Zhang, Howell, & Iyer, 2014).
This is particularly the case given inconsistent findings across studies. For example, Nisbet,
Nealis, & Zelenski (2011) found that, following 15 minutes of relaxing in a nature setting, people
who scored high in trait nature-relatedness reported a greater increase in positive affect than did
individuals who were less related to nature. However, Passmore and Howell (2014b) did not
find that connectedness to nature moderated the relationship between longer-term exposure to
nature and well-being. Correlational research by Zhang et al., (2014) evidenced a moderator
effect of engagement with natural beauty on the relationship between connectedness to nature
and life satisfaction and self-esteem. Therefore, we tested whether trait levels of connectedness
to nature or engagement with beauty moderated the effect of longer-term nature involvement on
well-being.
In order to gain insight into the emotions evoked by natural objects/scenes compared to
human-built objects/scenes, and in line with McMahan and Estes' (2015) recommendation to
examine 'a more nuanced picture of the effect of nature on emotional well-being' (p. 516), we
asked participants to upload photos they took of the objects/scenes that had evoked emotion in
them and to provide a brief description of those emotions. These emotional descriptions were
coded for valence and theme, and analyses were conducted to examine differences evoked by
nature compared to human-built objects/scenes.
Method
Participants
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 7
A total of 395 undergraduates participated in the study for partial credit in a psychology
course. Data from 31 participants were excluded from analyses due to missing information or
substantial nonconformance to instructions. Of the remaining 364 (n control condition = 133; n
human-built condition = 110, n nature condition = 121), 67.6% were female. The mean age of
participants was 20.09 years (SD = 4.08, range: 17-52); 78.8% of participants identified English
as their first language.
Measures
Well-being. Three scales were used to assess well-being.
Positive and negative affect. The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANASWatson,
Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is a 20-item scale which lists ten words each pertaining to positive and
negative emotions (e.g., strong, enthusiastic, irritable, guilty). Respondents rate the extent to
which they experienced each of the listed emotions over the past two weeks on a 5-point Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely. In order to provide an
overall assessment of mood, a single index of affect balance, net-positive affect (netPA), was
calculated by subtracting the sum of the ratings of the negative affect items from the sum of the
ratings of the positive affect items (Baumeister, Vohs, Aaker, & Garbinsky, 2013). The PANAS
is a widely used measure that has been validated on both student and psychiatric inpatient
samples. Watson et al. reported Cronbach's αs ranging from .84 to .90 (α in the current study
was .76).
Elevation. The Elevating Experiences Scale (EES; Huta & Ryan, 2010) is a 13-item scale
in which items are either words or phrases that describe feelings related to elevation (e.g.,
inspired, in wonder). Respondents rate each item using a 7-point Likert-type scale with
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 8
endpoints 1 (not at all) and 7 (extremely), according to the degree to which each item describes
how they typically felt during the past two weeks. The EES was validated on samples of
undergraduate students; principal component analyses showed that elevating experience was a
distinct aspect of well-being. Huta and Ryan reported a Cronbach's α of .93 (α in the current
study was .92). In order to avoid cross-contamination between measures, three items in this
scale were removed that pertain to a sense of meaning.
Meaning. The Sense of Meaning Scale (SMS; Huta & Ryan, 2010) is a 12-item scale in
which items are either words or phrases that pertain to elements of meaning and purpose in life
(e.g., meaningful, fitting into the bigger picture). Using a 7-point Likert-type scale with
endpoints of 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely), respondents rate the degree to which each item
describes how they typically felt about their activities and experiences over the past two weeks.
The SMS was validated by Huta and Ryan on samples of undergraduate students concurrently
with the EES, described above. In these studies, principal component analyses evidenced that a
sense of meaning was a distinct aspect of well-being. Huta and Ryan reported a Cronbach's α
of .94 (α in the current study was .95), and demonstrated convergent validity against related
measures.
General Sense of Connectedness. A composite measure of a general sense of
connectedness (GSC) was created by combining four established questionnaires assessing
subjective connectedness to other people, to nature, and to life as a whole (see below). To create
the measure, we standardized scores on each scale and computed a mean (as per Zelenski &
Nisbet, 2014). The composite had acceptable internal consistency (α = .91).
The following four questionnaires were used in the GSC composite. The interdependent
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 9
subscale from Singelis' (1994) Self-Construal Scale assesses the degree to which individuals
view themselves as being part of a broader social context (α = .77). The Metapersonal Self Scale
(DeCicco & Stroink, 2007) assesses the extent to which individuals feel connected to wider
aspects of humankind and life in general (α = .81). Leary, Tipsord, and Tate's (2008) Allo-
Inclusive Indentity Scale assesses individual differences in self-identification with both the
human and the nonhuman world (α = .86); Mayer and Frantz's (2004) Connectedness to Nature
Scale (CNS) assesses a sense of unity with the natural world (α = .85).
Prosocial orientation. A composite measure of prosocial orientation (PSO) was created
by combining two established measures assessing other-oriented prosocial orientation (see
below). Similar to the construction of the GSC composite, we standardized scores on each scale
and computed a mean (as per Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014). The composite had acceptable internal
consistency (α = .81).
The following two questionnaires were used in the PSO composite. The Social Value
Orientation Slider Measure (Murphy, Ackermann, & Handgraaf, 2011) is a recently developed
measure of prosocial orientation akin to classic give-some measures of cooperative or prosocial
behaviour; it involves six rounds of a decision making task in which participants make a resource
allocation choice from a pre-defined continuum of joint payoffs. The Aspiration Index (Kasser
& Ryan, 1993, 1996) is a multidimensional measure that assesses the personal importance of
several categories of extrinsic and intrinsic life goals. In the present study, the five-item
Financial Success (extrinsic) and five-item Community Feeling (intrinsic) subscales were used,
as Kasser and Ryan recommended, to assess the relative importance of extrinsic values to
intrinsic (socially oriented) values for participants.
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 10
Moderator Measures. Two measures were utilized to assess potential moderating
effects. Trait levels of connectedness to nature were assessed with the CNS (Mayer & Frantz,
2004; see above for description). Trait levels of engaging with beauty were assessed with the
Engagement with Beauty Scale (EWB; Diessner et al., 2008), a 14-item measure that assesses
the individual's self-reported tendency to perceive natural, artistic, and moral beauty. For the
purposes of this study, the Natural Beauty and the Artistic Beauty subscales were used. Each of
these subscales consists of four items (e.g., “I notice beauty in one or more aspects of nature”; “I
notice beauty in art or human made objects”) that participants rate on a 7-point Likert-type scale
with endpoints of 1 = very much unlike me to 7 = very much like me. The EWB scale as a whole
was originally validated on student samples. Diessner et al. reported Cronbach's αs for the
Natural Beauty and Artistic Beauty subscales of .80 and .87 respectively (αs in the current study
were .83 and .85 respectively).
Procedure
Several initial group sessions were held between mid-September and mid-October; each
session consisted of a maximum of 20 people. Participants were given an information package
that indicated their random assignment to one of three conditions (i.e., Nature, Human-Built, or
Control), and included an information sheet explaining the requirements of the study, a consent
form, and a take-home instruction sheet. Requirements of the study were also explained
verbally.
Participants assigned to the nature or human-built conditions were instructed to be
mindful, over the next two weeks, of how the natural or human-built objects/scenes (depending
on random assignment) they encountered on a daily basis made them feel. Participants were
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 11
further instructed that when they noticed that a specific object or scene evoked a strong emotion
in them, they were to take a photo, and upload it to the study's website along with a brief
description of the emotions that were evoked. It was stressed that the researchers were not
concerned with the photos per se (e.g., quality, creativity), but rather with the participants'
emotional experience and reaction to how the objects/scenes made them feel. Based on research
utilizing a similar photo methodology (Dollinger & Clancy, 1993; Hull & Stewart, 1995; Steger
et al., 2013; Ziller & Lewis, 1981), participants were asked to take, and upload, a minimum of 10
photos spaced over the course of the two-week study. Participants in the control condition were
instructed to continue with their regular routine for the next two-weeks, at the end of which they
would be provided with instructions for the 'emotional photography' portion of the study (in
actuality, these participants were merely debriefed). All participants, regardless of condition,
were told that they would receive an email in two weeks with a separate link to the study's
website where they were to log-in within 24 hours and complete a series of questionnaires.
In order to confirm that participants in the different conditions were initially equivalent in
emotional well-being, participants completed the PANAS measure at the initial in-person
session. Each participant took their study instruction sheet with them when they left the session.
Over the course of the next two-weeks, participants in the nature and human-built conditions
received reminder emails every second day. At the end of the two-weeks, all participants logged-
in to the study's website and completed the post-intervention measures of affect, elevation, sense
of meaning, general connectedness, prosocial orientation, and engagement with beauty.
Quantitative Results
Preliminary Analyses
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 12
We first examined if pre-intervention levels of affect differed by condition. As expected
due to random assignment, pre-intervention netPA was not significantly different across the three
conditions (nature: M = 12.10, SD = 6.41; human-built: M = 11.86, SD = 8.30; control: M =
11.54, SD = 8.90), F(2, 340) = 0.14, p = .866; ps = .825, .594, .764; ds = 0.03, 0.07, 0.04.
Nonetheless, in subsequent analyses involving post-intervention levels of netPA, pre-intervention
netPA was used as a covariate.
Hypothesis Tests
In order to examine if post-intervention levels of well-being, a general sense of
connectedness, and prosocial orientation differed between the conditions, we conducted a series
of ANOVAs/ANCOVAs with post-hoc analyses (see Table 1 for detailed statistics). With regard
to individual well-being, post-hoc analyses revealed that netPA was significantly higher in the
nature condition compared to the human-built (d = 0.47) and control (d = 0.46) conditions.
Levels of elevating experiences were also significantly higher in the nature condition compared
to the human-built (d = 0.49) and control (d = 0.38) conditions. Analyses did not reveal a
significant difference in participants' sense of meaning between the nature condition and either
the human-built (d = 0.07) or the control (d = 0.11) condition.
Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants' general sense of connectedness was higher in
the nature condition compared to the human-built (d = 0.29) and control (d = 0.42) conditions.
Analyses also revealed that prosocial orientation was significantly higher in the nature condition
compared to the human-built (d = 0.30) and control (d = 0.38) conditions. No significant
differences were evidenced between the human-built and control conditions for any of the
dependent variables (.283 < ps < .820; 0.03 < ds < 0.15).
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 13
Moderation Analyses
We examined whether the well-being benefits (i.e., higher levels of netPA and elevating
experiences) that participants received from noticing nature were moderated by individual
differences in trait levels of connectedness to nature or engagement with beauty. Moderation
analyses were conducted using Hayes' (2013) PROCESS macro. Given that no significant
differences were found between the human-built and control groups, only the human-built and
nature groups were included in the moderation analyses. There was no evidence that the
relationship between condition and netPA or elevating experiences was significantly moderated
by either connectedness to nature (ps = .621, .646) or engagement with beauty (ps = .108, .309).
(See Table 2 for detailed statistics.) Thus, the significant effects of noticing nature on well-being
were not dependent upon trait levels of connectedness to nature or engagement with beauty.
Findings Related to Time Spent in Nature
Following the intervention period, participants were asked to estimate the amount of time
they had spent in nature over the past two weeks. Post-hoc analyses revealed no significant
differences between the three groups (ps = .355, .815, .255; see Table 1 for detailed statistics).
Thus, participants in the nature condition did not spend significantly more time in nature over the
course of the two weeks than did participants in either the human-built or control conditions.
Qualitative Findings
Participants submitted a total of 2,591 photos (nature = 49%, built = 51%). Each photo
was accompanied by a description of the emotions that had been evoked by the object/scene for
the participant. While some participants simply listed their emotions (e.g.,'I felt awe, wonder,
and strength'; 'Nervous, inspired, Proud'), many provided rich, explanatory details such as:
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 14
'My friend got me these two bracelets when she went to Africa this summer.
They're hand made out of paper! They make me feel happy when I wear them,
and they also make me miss my friends back home.'
and
'I saw this little flower as I was coming back from my class. In the midst of all the
other dying roses, this one was holding strong, and it really gave me a strong
sense of hope. I had been through a long day and I was really tired, and seeing the
flower just gave me a renewed sense of energy for the day.'
Responses were first coded for overall valence as either positive (e.g., 'fresh, happy,
relaxed') or negative (e.g. 'overwhelmed and stressed'). Photo type (nature versus human-built)
had a significant impact on emotional valence χ2(1) = 86.10, p < .001, V = .20. Examination of
the standardized residuals in the contingency table revealed that nature photos were significantly
more likely to be associated with positive emotions (z = 2.9) and less likely to be associated with
negative emotions (z = -5.4), while the opposite pattern was evidenced for built photos (positive
emotions: z = -3.3; negative emotions: z = 6.2). These findings are in line with the quantitative
results demonstrating that netPA was significantly higher in the nature condition than in the built
condition.
Responses were then coded for emotional themes; 16 positive and 14 negative themes
emerged. There was a significant association between photo type and emotional theme χ2(29) =
434.33 p < .001, V = .35. Examination of the contingency table revealed that nature photos were
significantly more likely to be associated with emotional themes of awe (z = 3.6), freedom (z =
2.2), hope (z = 2.7), peacefulness (z = 4.8), and rejuvenation (z = 4.0). Examples of such
responses are:
'In complete awe. Reverence at the vastness and constant flux of life. At peace
with my infinitesimally small role in the universe.'
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 15
'It made me feel free because the sky is endless.'
'Made me feel hopeful, the Sun never stops rising. Corny I know.'
Photos of human-built objects/scenes were significantly more likely to be associated with
emotional themes of fashion (z = 3.0), safety (z = 5.8), pride (z = 2.2), disgust (z = 2.0), envy (z =
2.9), stress (z = 6.4), fatigue (z = 3.2), guilt (z = 2.0) and annoyance (z = 5.2). Examples of such
responses are:
'These are my glasses that I got last month when I was in Taiwan. Jennifer
Aniston has the same pair so it makes me feel stylish.'
'When I look at this bookcase, I feel proud (I designed it - with the assistance of a
friend who is a cabinetmaker), and happy. It also makes me feel cosy & at home,
and warm and secure.'
'Jealous, envy, frustration, most emotions due to the fact I cannot afford a vehicle
of that sort and see mostly younger individuals driving them.'
'Stressed, anxious because there are a lot of vehicles/congestion.'
'I felt guilty for having a closet full of so many clothes yet I continue to buy more
to add when others are so underprivileged.'
(See Figures 1 and 2 for wordcloud graphics illustrating the prevalence of emotional themes
associated with nature photos compared to photos of human-built objects/scenes.)
Descriptions that accompanied the built photos were often emotional reactions that
appeared to be a response to a memory, activity, or function that the individual associated with
the built object/scene, rather than an emotion evoked directly by the built object/scene itself. For
example,
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 16
'Happy and connected to past experiences. Both of these bottles were consumed
in celebratory settings and when I look at them I'm instantly brought back to these
good times with friends and family.'
'I felt a sense of freedom associated with this backpack.'
'I felt very thankful for this whiteout because no matter how many times I mess up
or make a mistake, I can always white it out and pretend like it never happened
and start over.'
In contrast, descriptions associated with nature photos were, for the most part, emotional
reactions that appeared to be evoked directly by the nature object/scene. For example:
'A chipmunk!! Soo cute and made me happy to see it in my environment.'
'Watching the water flow down the creek; it made me feel optimistic for my
future. I also enjoyed the sound of the water rushing onwards.'
'The two rainbows induced feelings of happiness and creativity. Seeing all the
colours made me joyous and calm and peaceful.'
It appeared that it was nature itself that people were reacting to, rather than, as noted for
the human-built condition, a memory, activity, or function that the individual associated with the
object/scene
Following the post-intervention assessments, participants in the nature and human-built
conditions were asked if they had learned anything from participating in the study. The majority
(65.8%) of students responded in the affirmative. Participants in both conditions reported being
more aware of the impact that their immediate environment had on their emotions. Nature was
mentioned by one-third of the participants in the human-built condition who indicated that they
had learned something from the study. These comments generally expressed the sentiment that
human-built objects were not as emotionally evocative or as pleasant as natural objects are. For
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 17
example:
'I realized that the human built objects around me don't move me nearly as much
as the mountains and the water and the beauty of nature.'
'Focusing on human built objects did not have much of an affect on me. I think if
I had to focus on nature there would be a positive shift in attitude, happiness, etc.'
'I definitely felt somewhat neutral to most objects in my environment that were
human built, especially structural features or disposable objects. I did feel a
connection to human made objects that were from people I loved or that
symbolized something greater. I know, though, as I look at natural settings, I get a
much more complete feeling.'
Post-intervention comments from participants in the nature condition, who had indicated
that they had learned something from the study, expressed two common sentiments. One
sentiment referred to the reinforcement of previous feelings towards nature. For example:
'I was already aware that being in nature made me feel more at ease and happy, so
this study just helped reinforce how being in a natural setting can change my day.'
'I would say the feeling of peacefulness and calming of beauty in nature was
reinforced during being in the nature environment.'
The other sentiment expressed was that of surprise, at how, and to what degree, nature
affected their emotions. This is consistent with previous research (Nisbet & Zelenski, 2011)
suggesting that on average, people tend to underestimate the well-being benefits of brief nature
contact. For example:
'I learnt that nature gave me a sense of relaxation and calm and that i should go to
it more often if i'm stressed.'
'That nature impacts me more than I thought.'
'I'm a very introverted person and I'm somewhat of a homebody. I actually
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 18
originally dreaded getting this label--"nature"--because I knew it would make me
leave my house! But I was VERY pleasantly surprised and found my
anxiety/stress levels decreasingly rapidly the more time I spent outside. Outside
seems welcoming now and I look forward to spending more time outdoors with
nature and animals. It's fun and relaxing.'
Discussion
We examined the individual and social effects of a two-week nature-based well-being
intervention. Undergraduates were instructed to be mindful of the emotions that everyday
natural (or human-built, depending on assignment) objects/scenes evoked in them, and to then
photograph evocative objects/scenes. A third group of participants were assigned to a business-
as-usual control condition. As predicted, participants in the nature condition reported
significantly higher levels of post-intervention net-positive affect, feelings related to elevation, a
general sense of connectedness, and a greater prosocial orientation, compared to those in the
human-built and control conditions. Effect sizes (ds from 0.29 to 0.49) were at the high-end of,
or larger than, the average effect size of positive psychology interventions (ds from 0.20 to 0.34,
Bolier et al., 2013). Paying increased attention to everyday nature significantly increased
individual well-being regardless of trait levels of connectedness to nature and engagement with
beauty. Moreover, the beneficial effects on individual well-being, sense of general
connectedness, and prosocial orientation were evidenced despite that participants in the nature
condition did not report spending more time in natural settings over the course of the
intervention than other participants did; they simply noticed, and attended to, the nature they
encountered in their daily routines.
Participants also provided descriptions of emotions evoked by the natural and human-
built object/scenes they encountered. This provided a rich, qualitative data set from which a
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 19
variety of emotional themes emerged. The prevalence of specific themes was different for
photos of nature versus photos of human-built objects/scenes. Positive emotions such as
hopefulness, peacefulness, rejuvenation, and awe (which includes feelings of wonder,
spirituality, and transcendence) were significantly more likely to be associated with nature
photos, while negative emotions such as disgust, envy, stress, and feeling annoyed were
significantly more likely to be associated with photos of human-built objects/scenes. These
findings are consistent with the quantitative results which evidenced significantly higher levels
of post-intervention netPA and feelings related to elevation reported by participants in the nature
condition compared to those in the human-built and control conditions. Coupled with the
quantitative results demonstrating boosts in a general sense of connectedness and prosocial
orientation, these findings lend additional support to the Eco-Existential Positive Psychology
(EEPP; Passmore & Howell, 2014a) perspective, which postulates that cultivating our biophilic
tendencies through nature experiences can help address existential anxieties, such as those
relating to isolation and happiness.
Qualitative findings also demonstrated the intrinsic appeal that nature seems to have for
most people. Participants' written comments that accompanied their nature photos tended to
describe emotional reactions evoked directly by the natural object/scene, whereas comments
accompanying the photos of human-built objects/scenes tended to describe emotional reactions
to a memory, activity, or function associated with the built object/scene, rather than an emotion
inherently evoked by the built object/scene itself. Furthermore, in post-intervention comments,
many participants in the human-built condition expressed their affinity for nature and their
difficulty in connecting emotionally with a built environment. These comments generally
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 20
expressed the sentiment that human-built objects were not as emotionally evocative or as
pleasant as natural objects were. These findings are consistent with the biophilia hypothesis
(Wilson, 1984), which posits that people are inherently drawn to nature and are inclined to
respond with emotional intensity to the greater-than-human natural world. This has practical
implications for practitioners who prescribe nature activities to their clients in order to boost
well-being. Clients are likely to remain motivated and committed to their nature-guided
therapeutic assignments, and are thus likely to experience a boost in mood from which therapists
can build upon to address other therapeutic goals (Burns, 1998).
Results generated from this study make a unique contribution to the current literature. In
particular, it bears worth repeating that this intervention did not appear to involve an increase in
the amount of time spent in nature. Rather, increases in well-being were achieved simply by
asking participants to pay attention to, and reflect on, emotions evoked by natural objects/scenes,
everyday nature encountered, but so often overlooked. Additionally, our findings suggest that
nature-based well-being interventions do not necessarily have to involve wholescale lifestyle
changes, travelling to more “natural” areas, nor modification of one's immediate environment in
order to be effective. Thus, there are significant practical implications with regard to ease of
implementation for this intervention.
As with all research, limitations of the current study should be considered. The sample
was restricted to undergraduate students who were primarily female, possibly limiting the
generalizability of the results. However, many positive psychology interventions have been
validated on student populations (Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirksky, 2009), and results of
this study are consistent with research examining the beneficial effects of brief involvement in
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 21
nature with non-student samples (e.g., Berman et al., 2012; Guéguen & Stefan, 2016).
Contrary to our prediction, post-intervention levels of meaning did not differ between the
three conditions. Given that previous research has linked nature affiliation with higher meaning
in life (e.g., Howell, Passmore, & Buro, 2013; O'Connor & Chamberlain, 1996), and that a
previous nature-intervention study (Passmore & Howell, 2014b) demonstrated an effect size of d
= 0.37 of nature on meaning, this finding was surprising. Further experimental studies are
needed to assess the impact of nature involvement on this important dimension of well-being.
Perhaps a more traditional, and widely-used, measure of meaning in life (e.g., Meaning in Life
Questionnaire, Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006) would have shown differences between
conditions.
Nonetheless, measures used in the current study did demonstrate the individual and social
benefits of involvement with nature, and were chosen, in part, in order to replicate previous
research findings. Future studies could utilize a more comprehensive set of pre-post measures,
and could incorporate a behaviour-based assessment of prosocial behaviour.
Additional experimental studies are needed to further examine and establish the long-
term effects of ongoing nature involvement (or attentiveness to everyday nature) on well-being.
For example, studies conducted over a course of two or more weeks, with follow-up
assessments, would help to determine any lasting effects of nature involvement, and would
provide additional empirical evidence regarding sustained adherence to therapeutic nature
'assignments'. Nature involvement also needs to be compared directly, in a single study, to
established positive psychology interventions in order to ascertain its relative effectiveness in
increasing well-being. Further experimental research also should explore in greater depth the
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 22
prosocial benefits of nature involvement. Longer-term studies, with follow-up assessments, are
needed to determine how long the prosocial effects (i.e., increases in generosity, kindness, and/or
helping behaviours) are maintained after exposure to nature.
A growing body of research findings indicate that involvement with nature affords us the
opportunity to be more fully flourishing human beings—individually and collectively. Further
studies, such as those suggested above, are necessary to augment the current study's findings
that, over the course of a two-week period, the simple act of noticing everyday nature
significantly increased well-being, a general sense of connectedness, and prosocial orientation.
Such studies will contribute to validating the effectiveness of exposure to (and perhaps even
merely attending to) nature as a simple, inherently enjoyable way to promote both individual and
social well-being.
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 23
References
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences
between a happy life and a meaningful life. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 505-516.
Berger, R. (2008). Building a home in nature: An innovative framework for practice. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 48, 264–279.
Berger, R., & McLeod, J. (2006). Incorporating nature into therapy: A framework for practice.
Journal of Systemic Therapies, 25, 80–94.
Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, J. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., …. Jonides, J.
(2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with
depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 300–305.
Besthorn, F. H. (2002). Natural environment and the practice of psychotherapy. Annals of the
American Psychotherapy Association, 5, 19-20.
Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive
psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public
Health, 13, 119–138.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007) Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and
evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211-237.
Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C. (2009). Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind. San Francisco,
CA: Sierra Club Books.
Burns, G. W. (1998). Nature-guided therapy: Brief integrative strategies for health and well-
being. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Capaldi, C. A., Passmore, H.-A., Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Dopko, R. L. (2015).
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 24
Flourishing in nature: A review of the well-being benefits of connecting with nature and
its application as a positive psychology intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing,
5, 1-16.
DeCicco, T. L., & Stroink, M. L. (2007). A third model of self-construal: The metapersonal self.
International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 26, 82-104.
Diessner, R., Solom, R. C., Frost, N. K., Parsons, L., & Davidson, J. (2008). Engagement with
beauty: Appreciating natural, artistic, and moral beauty. The Journal of Psychology, 142,
303-329.
Dollinger, S. J., & Clancy, S. J. (1993). Identity, self, and personality: Glimpses through the
autophotographic eye. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1064-1071.
Guéguen, N., & Stefan, J. (2016). “Green Altruism”: Short immersion in natural green
environments and helping behavior. Environment and Behavior, 48, 324-342.
Hasbach, P. H. (2012). Ecotherapy. In P. H. Kahn, Jr., & P. H. Hasbach (Eds.), Ecopsychology:
Science, totems, and the technological species (pp. 115–140). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H.-A., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness:
Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences,
51, 166-171.
Howell, A. J., & Passmore, H.-A. (2013). The nature of happiness: Nature affiliation and mental
well-being. In C. L. M. Keyes (Ed.), Mental well-being: International contributions to
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 25
the study of positive mental health (pp. 231-257). New York, NY: Springer.
Howell, A. J., Passmore, H.-A., & Buro, K. (2013). Meaning in nature: Meaning in life as a
mediator of the relationship between nature connectedness and well-being. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 14, 1681-1696.
Hull, R. B., & Stewart, W. P. (1995). The landscape encountered and experienced while hiking.
Environment and Behavior, 27, 404-426.
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping
well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies,
11, 735-762.
Ingram, R. E. (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: Review and a conceptual
model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 156-176.
Jordan, M. (2009). Back to nature. Therapy Today, 20, 26-28.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward in integrative framework. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial
success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
410-422.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates
of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280-287.
Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., & Tate, E. M. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 26
social and natural worlds into one's sense of self. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.),
Transcending self-interest: Psychological exploration of the quiet ego (pp. 137-147).
Washington, DC: APA.
MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global
Environmental Change, 23, 992-1000.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of
individuals' feelings in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,
504-515.
Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature
beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 604-643.
McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive
and negative affect: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 507–519.
Milton, M. (2009). Waking up to nature: Exploring a new direction for psychological practice.
Ecopsychology, 1, 8-13.
Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value
orientation. Judgement and Decision Making, 6, 771-781.
Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2011). Underestimating nearby nature: Affective forecasting
errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological Science, 22, 1101-1106.
Nisbet, E. K., Nealis, L. J., & Zelenski, J. M. (2011). Nature related people benefit most from
nature contact: Trait connectedness moderates the happiness benefits of time in nature.
Paper presented at the 9th Bienneial Conference on Environmental Psychology,
Eindaven, The Netherlands.
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 27
O’Connor, K., & Chamberlain, K. (1996). Dimensions of life meaning: A qualitative
investigation at midlife. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 461–477.
Passmore, H.-A., & Howell, A. J. (2014a). Eco-existential Positive Psychology: Experiences in
nature, existential anxieties, and well-being. The Humanistic Psychologist, 42, 370-388.
Passmore, H.-A., & Howell, A. J. (2014b). Nature involvement increases hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being: A two-week experimental study. Ecopsychology, 6, 148-154.
Rollins, J. (2009). A natural resource. Counseling Today, October 20, Retrieved from
http://ct.counseling.org/2009/10/a-natural-resource/
Russell, R., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Gould, R. K., Basurto, X., Chan, K. M. A., … Tam, J.
(2013). Humans and nature: How knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 473-502.
Sato, I., & Conner, T. S. (2013). The quality of time in nature: How fascination explains and
enhances the relationship between nature experiences and daily affect. Ecopsychology, 5,
197-204.
Shepard, P. (1982). Nature and madness. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive
symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly metaanalysis.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire:
Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 28
Psychology, 53, 80-93.
Steger, M. F., Shim, Y., Rush, B. R., Brueske, L. A., Shin, J. Y., & Merriman, L. A. (2013). The
mind's eye: A photographic method for understanding meaning in people's lives. Journal
of Positive Psychology, 8, 530-542.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman, & J.
Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum
Press.
Walsh, R. (2011). Lifestyle and mental health. American Psychologist, 66, 579–592.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring?
Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1315-1329.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Zelenski, J. M., Dopko, R. L., & Capaldi, C. A. (2015). Cooperation is in our nature: Nature
exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 42, 24-31.
Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of
nature relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 46, 3–23.
Zhang, J. W., Howell, R. T., & Iyer, R. (2014). Engagement with natural beauty moderates the
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 29
relation between connectedness with nature and well-being. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 38, 55-63.
Ziller, R. C., & Lewis. D. (1981). Orientations: Self, social, and environmental percepts through
auto-photography. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 338-343.
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 30
Table 1
Between group differences
ANCOVA/
ANOVA
M (SD) Post-hoc Statistics [95%CI mean difference]
Nature Built Control Nature-Built Nature-Control Built-Control
netPA F(2, 309) = 9.268
p < .001
12.75 (8.35) 8.76 (8.41) 8.50 (9.87) p = .001, [1.499, 5.339]
d = 0.47, [0.19, 0.76]
p < .001, [1.811, 5.462]
d = 0.46, [0.19, 0.73]
p = .820, [-1.657, 2.092]
d = 0.03, [-0.24, 0.30]
Elvtn F(2, 341) = 7.335
p = .001
39.92 (12.22) 34.06 (11.45) 35.12 (12.79) p < .001, [2.598, 9.128]
d = 0.49, [0.22, 0.76]
p = .002, [1.704, 7.901]
d = 0.38, [0.13, 0.64]
p = .513, [-4.244, 2.125]
d = 0.09, [-.035, 0.17]
Mng F(2, 345) = 0.413
p = .662
48.00 (14.77) 46.99 (13.94) 46.26 (15.98) p = .620, [-2.995, 5.014]
d = 0.07, [-0.20, 0.34]
p = .365, [-2.030, 5.507]
d = 0.11, [-0.14, 0.36]
p = .714, [-3.174, 4.631]
d = 0.05, [-0.21, 0.31]
GSC F(2, 286) = 4.914
p = .008
0.17 (0.66) -0.02 (0.59) -0.12 (0.68) p = .054, [-0.003, 0.373]
d = 0.29, [0.00, 0.59]
p = .002, [0.104, 0.465]
d = 0.42, [0.14, 0.71]
p = .283, [-0.083, 0.282]
d = 0.15, [-0.13, 0.44]
PSO F(2, 288) = 3.408
p = .034
0.30 (0.49) 0.11 (0.69) 0.08 (0.64) p = .047, [0.003, 0.367]
d = 0.30, [0.01, 0.60]
p = 0.13, [0.047, 0.397]
d = 0.38, [0.10, 0.66]
p = .668, [-0.134, 0.208]
d = 0.06, [-0.22, 0.33]
time in
nature
F(2, 231) = 0.17
p = .489
6.05 (4.10) 6.71 (5.22) 5.89 (3.86) p = .355, [-0.743, 2.063]
d = 0.14, [-0.46, 0.18]
p = .815, [-1.505, 1.185]
d = 0.04, [-0.27, 0.35]
p = .255, [-0.595, 2.234]
d = 0.16, [-0.14, 0.50]
netPA = net-Positive Affect; Elvtn = Elevating Experiences; Mng = Sense of Meaning; GSC = General Sense of Connectedness; PSO = Prosocial Orientation
time in nature = hours spent in nature over past 2 weeks
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 31
Table 2
Moderation analyses
condition Connectedness to Nature Interaction Term
βSE t p βSE t p βSE t p ΔR2
netPA F(4, 171) = 24.954, p < .001, R2 = .369 .403 .114 3.540 .001 -.024 .063 -0.384 .702 .062 .123 0.496 .621 .001
Elvtn F(3, 189) = 8.386, p < .001, R2 = .118 .494 .131 3.786 < .001 .225 .073 3.109 .002 -.067 .145 -0.461 .646 .001
condition Engagement with Beauty Interaction Term
βSE t p βSE t p βSE t p ΔR2
netPA F(4, 184) = 27.273, p < .001, R2 = .372 .370 .108 3.442 .001 .124 .056 2.208 .029 .181 .112 1.616 .108 .009
Elvtn F(3, 203) = 13.382, p < .001, R2 = .165 .443 .126 3.516 .001 .306 .065 4.679 < .001 .133 .130 1.021 .309 .004
netPA = net-Positive Affect; Elvtn = Elevating Experiences
pre-intervention netPA was used as covariable in analyses with netPA
Running head: NOTICING NATURE 32
Figure 1. Wordcloud of emotions significantly more likely to be associated with nature photos.
Wordsize is proportionate to standardized residual from contingency table.
Figure 2. Wordcloud of emotions significantly more likely to be associated with built photos.
Wordsize is proportionate to standardized residual from contingency table.
