Access to this full-text is provided by Taylor & Francis.
Content available from Cogent Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE
COGENT PSYCHOLOGY
2024, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 2371024
What predicts well-being: connectedness to oneself, nature, others, or
the transcendent?
Martina Rahea and Petra Jansenb
aInstitute of Psychology, University of Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany; bFaculty of Human Sciences, University of Regensburg,
Regensburg, Germany
ABSTRACT
Well-being is essential for all people. Therefore, important factors influencing people’s
well-being must be investigated. Well-being is multifaceted and defined as, for example,
psychological, emotional, mental, physical, or social well-being. Here, we focus on psychological
well-being. The study aimed to analyze different aspects of connectedness as potential
predictors of psychological well-being. For this purpose, we conducted a study examining the
psychological well-being of 184 participants (130 women, 54 men, age: M = 31.39, SD = 15.24)
as well as their connectedness with oneself (self-love), with others (prosocialness), with nature
(nature connectedness), and with the transcendent (spirituality). First, significant positive
correlations appeared between psychological well-being and self-love, nature connectedness,
and spirituality. Furthermore, correlations between the four aspects of connectedness were
significant, except for the relationship between self-love and prosocialness. A regression
analysis revealed that self-love and nature connectedness positively predicted participants’
psychological well-being, while spirituality and prosocialness did not explain any incremental
variance. The strong relationship between self-love and well-being was partly mediated by
nature connectedness. Hence, self-love, understood as a positive attitude of self-kindness,
should be considered in more detail to enhance psychological well-being. Besides this, a more
vital connectedness to the surrounding nature could benefit people’s well-being.
Introduction
Nobody would deny that well-being is essential for
almost everyone, but it is still unclear what exactly
well-being is. There are many different definitions of
the concept. According to Diener (1984), well-being
is defined by evaluating one’s life in favorable terms,
external criteria such as virtue or holiness, and as a
predominance of positive affect over negative affect.
In some studies, well-being is used interchangeably
with happiness (Oishi et al., 2007). Besides happiness
or well-being, other concepts like flourishing or satis-
faction with life exist.
Ryan and Deci (2001) state that well-being is a
complex construct. It has been defined (among other
definitions) as subjective or psychological well-being
or as hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. In the pres-
ent study, we focus on psychological well-being, which
includes self-acceptance, purpose in life, environmen-
tal mastery, positive relations, autonomy, and personal
growth (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Subjective well-being
includes the components of positive affect, the relative
absence of negative affect, and life satisfaction (Diener
et al., 1985; Koydemir et al., 2021). According to
Joshanloo (2023), who uses hedonic and subjective
well-being interchangeably, subjective and psycholog-
ical well-being are positively and strongly correlated.
Therefore, the literature review of this study is based
mainly on subjective and psychological well-being.
Well-being can also be seen from two different
perspectives: the hedonic and the eudaimonic
approach (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2001). Lucas and Diener
(2009, p. 75) defined hedonic well-being as “the extent
to which people think and feel that their life is going
well.” Ryan and Deci (2001, p. 141) defined well-being
in the eudaimonic approach as “the degree to which
a person is fully functioning.” Other models under-
stand subjective well-being as the hedonic and psy-
chological well-being as the eudaimonic approach to
well-being (Koydemir et al., 2021).
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Martina Rahe rahe@uni-koblenz.de University of Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2024.2371024
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unre-
stricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the
posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 21 August 2023
Revised 29 May 2024
Accepted 3 June 2024
KEYWORDS
Connectedness; self-love;
prosocialness; nature
connectedness;
spirituality; well-being
REVIEWING EDITOR
Daryl O’Connor, University
of Leeds,
United Kingdom
SUBJECTS
Environmental
Psychology; Health
Psychology; Social
Psychology; Psychological
Science
2 M. RAHE AND P. JANSEN
Furthermore, thriving is defined as a state of men-
tal, physical, and social positive functioning (Su etal.,
2014). It is measured with the core psychological
well-being dimensions (subjective well-being, rela-
tionship, meaning, engagement, mastery, optimism).
Many studies have investigated factors that influ-
ence well-being. They found that well-being is asso-
ciated with optimism and emotion-focused coping
(Karademas, 2007). Moreover, self-efficacy and a pos-
itive approach were significant predictors of positive
well-being, while neuroticism and stress predicted
negative well-being (Karademas, 2007). Another
study could show that social support, emotional
intelligence, and an interaction of both predicted
subjective well-being (Gallagher & Vella-Brodrick,
2008). One meta-analysis examined personality fac-
tors as related factors of subjective well-being and
found that conscientiousness and neuroticism pre-
dicted subjective well-being (DeNeve & Cooper,
1998). Another meta-analysis determined predictors
of the cognitive (life satisfaction) and hedonic (hap-
piness) facet of subjective well-being across 97
nations (Minkov, 2009): Life satisfaction could be
explained by the perception of life control and
wealth, whereas happiness was predicted by per-
ceived life control, the importance of leisure, and
importance of thrift.
Next to these psychological factors, aspects that
have a transformational quality play a role: In
Australian adults (Trigwell et al., 2014), nature con-
nectedness and spirituality were correlated to all
aspects of eudaimonic well-being (autonomy, envi-
ronmental mastery, purpose in life, self-acceptance,
positive relations with others, personal growth).
Moreover, spirituality mediated the relationship
between nature connectedness and five of the six
aspects of eudaimonic well-being (all dimensions
except environmental mastery). In a study with US
students as participants, gratefulness predicted
social connectedness, which predicted subjective
well-being (Liao & Weng, 2018). However, connect-
edness is more than connectedness to nature and
something higher (“spirituality”); it also includes
connectedness to other people (prosocialness) and
connectedness to oneself (self-love). In this study,
we wanted to investigate the inner transformational
quality of connectedness and its relation to
well-being in more depth while focusing on the fol-
lowing four transformational factors: Connectedness
with oneself (self-love), with others (prosocialness),
with the surrounding nature (nature connected-
ness), and with the transcendent (spirituality).
Self-love (connectedness with oneself)
The construct of self-love has often been misunder-
stood in a way that it is understood as selfishness
(Fromm, 1939) or narcissism (Brown & Bosson, 2001;
Campbell et al., 2002). However, from early on,
Fromm (1939) postulated that self-love is a prerequi-
site for well-being. This aligns with a more recent
empirical study by Hernandez et al. (2016), who
interviewed Spanish-speaking adults from the US
and found that self-love was associated with
well-being. In that study, participants were asked
about their conceptions of happiness, psychological
well-being, and life satisfaction.
Henschke and Sedlmeier (2023) defined self-love
as an attitude of self-kindness, which includes
the aspects of self-contact, self-acceptance, and
self-care. Self-contact is understood as giving atten-
tion to and awareness of oneself. Self-acceptance is
defined as being at peace with oneself. Self-care
means being protective of and caring for oneself
(Henschke & Sedlmeier, 2023). Corral-Verdugo et al.
(2021) found positive associations between self-care
and altruism, a part of prosocialness, and proeco-
logical behavior. Torres-Soto etal. (2022) found that
sustainable behavior was related to human
well-being and contains the aspects of self-care
and altruism. In that study, human well-being was
measured with questionnaires assessing subjective
and psychological well-being. A recent study
showed that self-love was positively correlated with
flourishing and nature connectedness (Rahe &
Jansen, 2023).
There are only a few studies on self-love, but the
association between self-compassion (Neff, 2003) and
well-being has been explored more extensively.
Self-compassion is defined as an openness to one’s
suffering, not wanting to avoid it, the desire to heal
oneself with kindness, and offering a non-judgmental
understanding of one’s failures (Neff, 2003). Many
studies, a meta-analysis (Zessin etal., 2015), and the-
oretical considerations (Neff, 2003; Neff & Germer,
2017) suggest that self-compassion is associated with
aspects of well-being. Self-compassion is positively
linked to psychological well-being (Hollis-Walker &
Colosimo, 2011), hope, and life satisfaction (Yang
etal., 2016) and is negatively associated with anxiety,
stress, and negative affect (Bluth et al., 2016).
Furthermore, aspects of self-compassion are also
linked to prosocial behavior (Yang etal., 2021), spiri-
tual experiences (Akin & Akin, 2017), and nature
exposure (Swami et al., 2019).
COGENT PSYCHOLOGY 3
Prosocialness (connectedness with others)
Prosocial behavior or prosocialness is defined as
everyday kindness and inspiring acts of heroism
(Smith & Mackie, 2007). It has been found (Martela
& Ryan, 2016) that prosocial behavior positively
affects different aspects of people’s well-being (vital-
ity, meaningfulness, positive affect). Considering
altruism as a specific form of prosocialness, altruism
is related to life satisfaction (Becchetti et al., 2016)
and nature connectedness (Otto et al., 2021). The
autonomous motive for helping is related to subjec-
tive well-being and autonomous help, compared to
no help, and controlled help leads to higher subjec-
tive well-being in the helper (Weinstein & Ryan,
2010). Moreover, prosocial behavior was predicted
by spirituality in undergraduate college students
(Anderson & Costello, 2009).
Nature connectedness (connectedness with the
nature)
Nature connectedness can be defined as “an individ-
ual’s subjective sense of their relationship with the
natural world” (Pritchard etal., 2020, p. 1145). Nisbet
and Zelenski (2013) found relationships between
nature connectedness and aspects of well-being
(vitality, autonomy, positive affect, personal growth),
self-love (self-acceptance), and prosocialness (altruis-
tic concerns). Another study could show that nature
connectedness positively correlated with psychologi-
cal and social well-being (Howell et al., 2011).
Connectedness to nature was positively correlated to
psycho-physical well-being (measured with the
WHO-5, Topp et al., 2015), prosocial behavior, empa-
thy, and life satisfaction in students (Pirchio et al.,
2021). After participation in environmental programs,
students had more positive outcomes on well-being,
connectedness to nature, and prosocial behavior
than a control group without intervention. Besides,
two meta-analyses found correlations between nature
connectedness and hedonic and eudaimonic
well-being (Pritchard et al., 2020) and positive affect,
vitality, and life satisfaction as aspects of happiness
(Capaldi et al., 2014).
Spirituality (connectedness with the
transcendence)
Villani et al. (2019) defined spirituality, according to
King and Boyatzis (2015), as the human desire for
transcendence, introspection, interconnectedness,
and the quest for meaning in life and found a
substantial impact on subjective well-being. In a
sample of Israeli adolescents, Kor et al. (2019)
showed that spirituality was associated with higher
subjective well-being and prosociality. Subjective
well-being was measured using the positive affect
subscale of the PANAS-C (Ebesutani et al., 2012) and
the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985).
Comparable results were found in undergraduate
students, showing that spirituality was positively cor-
related to satisfaction with life and prosocial behav-
ior (Anderson & Costello, 2009). Wills (2009) found
that spirituality was positively correlated to personal
well-being (using the Personal Well-being Index,
Cummins, 1996) and life satisfaction. Contrary to
these results, some studies showed that aspects of
spirituality were negatively correlated to satisfaction
with life and happiness (Lun & Bond, 2013) and per-
sonal well-being (measured with the Australian Unity
well-being index, Cummins et al., 2003) and life sat-
isfaction (Highland et al., 2022). Besides these nega-
tive relationships, Highland et al. (2022) could also
show that belief in a spirit positively predicted life
satisfaction and personal well-being over time. Next
to the correlations mentioned above between spiri-
tuality and aspects of eudaimonic well-being, spiritu-
ality is also associated with nature connectedness
(Trigwell et al., 2014). de Jager Meezenbroek et al.
(2012) emphasized that spirituality is understood
along two approaches: A religious, theistic under-
standing on the one hand and a nontheistic
approach based on secular, humanistic, and existen-
tial elements on the other hand. They developed a
questionnaire (Spiritual Attitude and Involvement
List, SAIL) containing the three aspects of connect-
edness with oneself, the environment, and the
transcendent.
The goal of the study
The study’s primary goal is to investigate relation-
ships between the aspects of connectedness and
psychological well-being. The following hypotheses
will be investigated in detail: (1) The four aspects of
connectedness (self-love, prosocialness, nature con-
nectedness, and spirituality) are correlated to each
other and psychological well-being. (2) The four
aspects of connectedness (self-love, prosocialness,
nature connectedness, and spirituality) predict psy-
chological well-being. (3) The relationship between
self-love and psychological well-being is mediated
through prosocialness, nature connectedness, and
spirituality.
4 M. RAHE AND P. JANSEN
Methods
Participants
Participants were 184 German adults (130 women, 54
men) between 17 and 74 years old (M = 31.39,
SD = 15.24). People in the sample had a high level of
education; 132 participants had a high school leav-
ing diploma. G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) analyses
were conducted a priori: For the first hypothesis,
medium effect sizes for the correlations between the
four aspects of connectedness and well-being were
assumed to determine the sample size. Due to the
multiple testing of ten correlations, p was set to .005
(Bonferroni corrected). The G*Power analysis resulted
in 122 participants (1 − β = 0.80). For the second
hypothesis, a medium effect size of f2 = 0.15 was
assumed for the multiple regression analysis (1 −
β = 0.80, α = .05). Therefore, 85 participants were
required for the second hypothesis.
Material
Well-being
The Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT; Su et al., 2014,
German version: Hausler et al., 2017) was used to
measure psychological well-being. The question-
naire comprised ten items (example item: My life
has a clear sense of purpose). Participants rated
each item on a 5-point answer scale, ranging from
1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Hausler
et al. (2017) supported the reliability and validity of
the German scale. In our sample, two items had to
be eliminated because of low corrected Item-Total
Correlations (below .3). Internal consistency for the
remaining eight items was good (Cronbach’s Alpha
= .80, McDonald’s Omega = .80). A mean score of
the remaining eight items was calculated for
well-being.
Self-love (connectedness with oneself)
Self-love was measured with the Self-love ques-
tionnaire (Henschke, 2022). It consists of 27 items
(example item: I feel fine the way I am) and must
be answered on a 5-point rating scale ranging
from 1 = not true at all to 5 = completely true. Internal
consistency was excellent in a recent study
(Cronbach’s alpha = .92) (Jansen etal., 2024). In the
present study, internal consistency was excellent
(Cronbach’s Alpha = .93, McDonald’s Omega = .93).
A mean score of the 27 items was calculated for
self-love.
Prosocialness (connectedness with others)
Prosocial behavior was investigated with the
Prosocialness Scale for Adults (Caprara et al., 2005).
The questionnaire contains 16 items that must be
answered on a 5-point rating scale ranging from
1 = never/almost never true to 5 = almost always/always
true (example item: I try to console those who are
sad.). The questionnaire was developed using item
response theory (IRT). Reliability (α = .91), difficulty
parameter, and discrimination parameter were suit-
able, and the results of IRT analyses support effec-
tiveness and sensitivity (Caprara et al., 2005). For the
German version, the questionnaire was forward and
backward-translated. Internal consistency was good
in a recent German study (Cronbach’s alpha = .84)
(Jansen et al., 2024). In the present sample, internal
consistency was good (Cronbach’s Alpha = .87,
McDonald’s Omega = .87). A mean score of the 16
items was calculated for prosocialness.
Nature connectedness (connectedness with nature)
Nature connectedness was measured with the
Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS, Pasca et al.,
2017). It consists of 13 items, answered on a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree (example item: Like a tree can be part of a for-
est, I feel embedded within the broader natural
world.). Internal consistency was good in a recent
German study (Cronbach’s alpha = .84) (Jansen et al.,
2024). In our sample, three items had to be elimi-
nated because of low corrected Item-Total Correlations
(below .3). Internal consistency for the remaining ten
items was good (Cronbach’s Alpha = .86, McDonald’s
Omega = .87). A mean score of the remaining ten
items was calculated for nature connectedness.
Spirituality (connectedness with the transcendent)
Connectedness with the transcendence was mea-
sured with the subscales Spiritual Activities and
Transcendent Experiences of the Spiritual Attitude and
Involvement List (SAIL, de Jager Meezenbroek et al.,
2012). Transcendent Experiences were measured with
five items, and spiritual activities with four items. All
items were answered on a 6-point rating scale rang-
ing from 1 = not at all or never to 6 = to a very high
degree or very often. The questionnaire was validated,
and all subscales had acceptable internal consistency
(de Jager Meezenbroek et al., 2012). Internal consis-
tency for Transcendent Experiences (Cronbach’s Alpha
= .76, McDonald’s Omega = .74) and Spiritual Activities
(Cronbach’s Alpha = .78, McDonald’s Omega = .80)
COGENT PSYCHOLOGY 5
were acceptable. A mean score of all nine items was
calculated for spirituality (Cronbach’s Alpha = .81,
McDonald’s Omega = .81).
Procedure
The survey was conducted using SoSciSurvey (Leiner,
2019). Participants received an email with the link to
the study. First, all participants gave their informed
consent. Then, they filled out questionnaires regard-
ing socio-demographics (sex, age, education), psy-
chological well-being, connectedness to nature,
prosocialness, self-love, and spirituality. They were
then thanked for their participation. The study was
preregistered at osf (see also for data) (https://osf.io/
dg7nk/?view_only=f41659bab0aa4b898b41242998f39
e1e), conducted according to the ethical guidelines
of the Helsinki declaration, and approved by
the Ethic Research Board of the University (no.
22-3059-101).
Statistical analyses
First, correlations were calculated between the four
aspects of connectedness, self-love, prosocialness,
nature connectedness, and spirituality and psycho-
logical well-being. For the second hypothesis, a mul-
tiple regression analysis with the criterion of
well-being and the predictors of self-love, prosocial-
ness, nature connectedness, and spirituality was cal-
culated. A mediation analysis was conducted to
determine whether prosocialness, nature connected-
ness, and spirituality were possible mediators of the
relationship between self-love and well-being.
Results
Correlations for the four aspects of connectedness and
psychological well-being are shown in Table 1.
Well-being significantly correlates with self-love, nature
connectedness, and spirituality but not with prosocial-
ness. Significant correlations between the aspects
of connectedness appeared between self-love and
nature connectedness, self-love and spirituality, proso-
cialness and nature connectedness, prosocialness and
spirituality, and between nature connectedness and
spirituality. The correlation between self-love and pro-
socialness was not significant.
A regression analysis with enter method with the
criterion psychological well-being and the predictors
self-love, prosocialness, nature connectedness, and
spirituality revealed two significant predictors:
Self-love and nature connectedness (see Table 2).
Prosocialness and spirituality were non-significant
predictors. All aspects of connectedness predicted
43% of the variance of well-being, R2 = .431, F(4,
179) = 33.925, p < .001.
Because spirituality and prosocialness were
non-significant predictors of psychological well-being,
a mediation analysis was calculated with well-being
as the criterion, self-love as a predictor, and nature
connectedness as a possible mediator (Figure 1).
Model 4 of Hayes Process v 4.2 (Hayes, 2022) was
used. First, self-love significantly predicted nature
connectedness, β = .331, 95% CI [0.224, 0.543].
Second, self-love, β = .551, 95% CI [0.394, 0.608]
(direct effect), and nature connectedness, β = .212,
95% CI [0.074, 0.259], predicted well-being. The total
effect of self-love on well-being was β = .621, 95% CI
[0.461, 0.670]. The indirect effect of nature connect-
edness was β = .070, 95% CI [0.019, 0.132].
Discussion
To summarize the results, zero-order correlations
between psychological well-being and the four
aspects of connectedness (self-love, prosocialness,
Table 1. Correlations between psychological well-being,
self-love, prosocialness, nature connectedness, and spirituality.
Well-being Self-love Prosocialness
Nature
connectedness
Self-love .621**
Prosocialness .114 .041
Nature
connectedness
.395** .331** .298**
Spirituality .263** .229** .258** .324**
Note. **p < .01.
Table 2. Regression analysis: Predictors of psychological
well-being.
ßt p
Constant 4.251 <.001
Self-love .542 8.942 <.001
Nature connectedness .186 2.902 .004
Spirituality .075 1.217 .225
Prosocialness .017 0.286 .775
Figure 1. Mediation eect of nature connectedness on the
relation between self-love and psychological well-being (all
eects are standardized). Psychological well-being is pre-
dicted by self-love. This connection is partly mediated by
nature connectedness.
6 M. RAHE AND P. JANSEN
nature connectedness, and spirituality) showed sig-
nificant positive correlations between well-being and
self-love, nature connectedness, and spirituality but
not between well-being and prosocialness. Regarding
the correlations between the aspects of connected-
ness, nature connectedness was positively related to
self-love, spirituality, and prosocialness. Furthermore,
spirituality was positively associated with all other
aspects of connectedness (self-love, prosocialness,
and nature connectedness). Only the correlation
between self-love and prosocialness was not signifi-
cant. The regression analysis revealed self-love and
nature connectedness as significant positive predic-
tors of psychological well-being. A mediation analysis
found that nature connectedness partly mediated
the association between self-love and well-being.
The association between self-love and psychologi-
cal well-being aligns with the literature (Hernandez
et al., 2016). People who give attention to them-
selves and are at peace with and protective of them-
selves report higher subjective well-being. Self-love
seems to be a prerequisite for moderate well-being
(Hernandez et al., 2016). Nature connectedness was
also related to well-being (Capaldi et al., 2014;
Pritchard etal., 2020). If people are connected to the
surrounding nature and care about the natural world
(Pritchard et al., 2020), they could benefit from this
with higher well-being (Pirchio et al., 2021).
Zero-order correlations showed that spirituality
was also related to psychological well-being (Kor
et al., 2019). However, besides self-love and nature
connectedness, spirituality was not a significant pre-
dictor of well-being. A reason for these findings
could be that spirituality was correlated with nature
connectedness (Trigwell et al., 2014) and self-love as
well as with well-being (Kor et al., 2019). Both
self-love and nature connectedness showed stronger
associations with well-being than spirituality. People
who desire transcendence reported slightly better
well-being but were also more connected to nature
and showed more self-love than people with less
spirituality. Hence, spirituality could not explain any
incremental variance in people’s well-being. Other
research showed that spirituality fully mediated the
relationship between nature connectedness and psy-
chological well-being (Dillon & Lee, 2023). This was
not tested in the present study.
Prosocialness was not associated with psychological
well-being. Other studies showed a positive relation-
ship between prosocial behavior and positive affect
(Martela & Ryan, 2016). However, a computer game
experimentally influenced prosocial behavior in that
study. People either got points for a correct answer in
the game or were told that each correct answer would
lead to a rice donation to the United Nations World
Food Program. Hence, in the present study, we
assessed participants’ trait prosocialness whereas
Martela and Ryan (2016) experimentally influenced
people’s state prosocial behavior. It could be assumed
that a prosocial state or mood only affects someone’s
positive affect or well-being for a short time.
Regarding the relationships within the aspects of
connectedness, self-love was associated with nature
connectedness (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2021; Rahe &
Jansen, 2023) and spirituality, but not with prosocial-
ness. The construct of self-love, as defined by Henschke
and Sedlmeier (2023), is rather new, though little
research is known about correlations between spiritu-
ality and self-love. The non-significant correlation
between self-love and prosocialness is in line with
another study using the same methods (Rahe &
Jansen, 2023). It could be assumed that self-love leads
to love for others (Campbell et al., 2002), but again,
this would depend on the definition of self-love. The
results of the present study suggest that self-love and
love or kindness for others are unrelated.
Significant correlations were found between the
aspects of connectedness to others, to nature, and
the transcendent. A positive relationship between
prosocialness and nature connectedness is in line
with other studies (Otto et al., 2021). Being con-
nected to others and the surrounding nature seems
to be related. Prosocial behavior (Pursell et al., 2008)
and nature connectedness (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2021)
are both related to agreeableness. Hence, helping
others and being related to nature seems to be a
personality trait. Prosocialness is also connected to
spirituality (Anderson & Costello, 2009). One defini-
tion of spirituality concerns the human desire for
interconnectedness (Villani et al., 2019), so the asso-
ciation with prosocialness makes sense.
Spirituality was also positively correlated with
nature connectedness. This is in line with the study
conducted by Trigwell et al. (2014). They found that
nature connectedness was correlated with spirituality
and all six aspects of eudaimonic well-being. Here, it
has to be pointed out that Su et al. (2014) made no
reference from psychological well-being to
eudaimonia. Furthermore, spirituality mediated the
association between nature connectedness and five
of the six dimensions of eudaimonic well-being. In
the present study, the mediation effects of spiritual-
ity and nature connectedness on the relationship
between self-love and well-being could only be ana-
lyzed for nature connectedness because spirituality
was not a significant predictor of well-being. Results
COGENT PSYCHOLOGY 7
showed that nature connectedness partly mediated
the association between self-love and well-being.
More vital self-love was correlated with more nature
connectedness, which in turn was correlated with
higher well-being. Therefore, part of the association
between self-love and well-being can be explained
by nature connectedness.
The study’s results give first hints about what
aspects of connectedness could be trained to
enhance people’s well-being. As self-love is strongly
correlated with psychological well-being, people
should be guided to give more attention to them-
selves, accept themselves, and be more protective
and caring for themselves. Besides self-love, a more
vital connectedness to the surrounding nature could
enhance human well-being. People could be encour-
aged to spend some time in natural, non-urban sur-
roundings to strengthen their connection with nature
and—through that connection—their well-being.
The study’s limitations are that it is a relatively
young sample with a mean age of 31 years and a
high level of education. Furthermore, to ensure good
reliability, some items had to be eliminated in the
well-being and the nature connectedness scale. We
carried out the study with a correlational design;
thus, no conclusions about causality can be made.
Further studies should be conducted as interventions
or longitudinal studies to analyze whether aspects of
connectedness influence well-being or if higher
well-being could also predict people’s connectedness
to themselves, others, nature, or the transcendent.
To conclude, the concept of self-love as a posi-
tive attitude of self-kindness (Henschke & Sedlmeier,
2023) is strongly associated with people’s psycho-
logical well-being. Besides self-love, nature con-
nectedness positively predicts well-being and
mediates the association between self-love and
well-being. Furthermore, people who felt more con-
nected to the transcendent reported a higher psy-
chological well-being. A solid connectedness for
oneself, to nature, and the transcendent seems
essential for someone’s psychological well-being,
while the connectedness to others seems less criti-
cal. These three aspects of connectedness could be
approaches to enhance people’s psychological
well-being. It should be emphasized that results
could differ depending on the definition and oper-
ationalization of well-being.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Ethics statement
The Ethic Research Board of the University of Regensburg
(no. 22-3059-101) reviewed and approved this study involv-
ing human participants. The participants provided their
written informed consent to participate in this study.
Funding
No funding was granted.
About the authors
Martina Rahe is an experimental psychologist. Her research
interest includes spatial cognition and well-being.
Petra Jansen is an experimental psychologist who also
works in sports science. Her main research interests include
investigating the relationship between motor, emotional,
and cognitive aspects. She is also interested in the role of
inner sustainability in well-being and sustainable behavior.
ORCID
Martina Rahe http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0524-1703
References
Akin, A., & Akin, U. (2017). Does self-compassion predict
spiritual experiences of Turkish University students?
Journal of Religion and Health, 56(1), 109–117. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10943-015-0138-y
Anderson, K., & Costello, P. (2009). Relationships between
prosocial behavior, spirituality, narcissism, and satisfac-
tion with life. Journal of Gustavus Undergraduate
Psychology, 5, 1–28.
Becchetti, L., Corrado, L., & Conzo, P. (2016). Sociability,
altruism and well-being. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 41(2), bew033. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/
bew033
Bluth, K., Roberson, P. N., Gaylord, S. A., Faurot, K. R.,
Grewen, K. M., Arzon, S., & Girdler, S. S. (2016). Does
self-compassion protect adolescents from stress? Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 25(4), 1098–1109. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10826-015-0307-3
Brown, R. P., & Bosson, J. K. (2001). Narcissus meets
Sisyphus: Self-love, self-loathing, and the never-ending
pursuit of self-worth. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 210–
213. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1449474
Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does
self-love lead to love for others? A story of narcissistic
game playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83(2), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.340
Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002).
Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views:
Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0146167202286007
Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The
relationship between nature connectedness and happi-
8 M. RAHE AND P. JANSEN
ness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 92737.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976
Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A
new scale for measuring adults’ prosocialness. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 77–89. https://
doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77
Corral-Verdugo, V., Pato, C., & Torres-Soto, N. (2021). Testing
a tridimensional model of sustainable behavior: self-care,
caring for others, and caring for the planet. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 23(9), 12867–12882.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01189-9
Cummins, R. A. (1996). Assessing quality of life. In R. I.
Brown (eds.), Quality of life for handicapped people.
Chapman & Hall.
Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., &
Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of sub-
jective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index.
Social Indicators Research, 64(2), 159–190. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1024704320683
de Jager Meezenbroek, E., Garssen, B., Van den Berg, M.,
Tuytel, G., Van Dierendonck, D., Visser, A., & Schaufeli, W.
B. (2012). Measuring spirituality as a universal human ex-
perience: Development of the Spiritual Attitude and
Involvement List (SAIL). Journal of Psychosocial Oncology,
30(2), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2011.651
258
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality:
A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective
well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.197
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective Well-Being. Psychological
Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.95.3.542
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Grin, S. (1985).
The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa4901_13
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2021). Connectedness to na-
ture, personality traits and empathy from a sustainability
perspective. Current Psychology, 40(3), 1095–1106.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0031-4
Dillon, D., & Lee, S. T. (2023). Green spaces as healthy places:
Correlates of urban green space use in Singapore.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 20(17), 6711. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20176711
Ebesutani, C., Regan, J., Smith, A., Reise, S., Higa-McMillan,
C., & Chorpita, B. F. (2012). The 10-item positive and
negative aect schedule for children, child and parent
shortened versions: application of item response theory
for more ecient assessment. Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment, 34(2), 191–203. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10862-011-9273-2
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. -G., & Buchner, A. (2007).
G*power 3: A exible statistical power analysis program
for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.
Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.
org/10.3758/BF03193146
Gallagher, E. N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2008). Social support
and emotional intelligence as predictors of subjective
well-being. Personality and Individual Dierences, 44(7),
1551–1561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.011
Fromm, E. (1939). Selshness and self-love. William Alanson
White Psychiatric Foundation.
Hausler, M., Huber, A., Strecker, C., Brenner, M., Höge, T., &
Höfer, S. (2017). Validierung eines Fragebogens zur um-
fassenden Operationlisierung von Wohlbenden.
Diagnostica, 63(3), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-
1924/a00017
Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation,
and conditional process analysis: A regression-based ap-
proach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Henschke, E., & Sedlmeier, P. (2023). What is self-love?
Redenition of a controversial construct. The Humanistic
Psychologist, 51(3), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/
hum0000266
Henschke, E. (2022). Reconsidering self-love: Development
of a model and a questionnaire for measuring a contro-
versial construct.
Hernandez, R., Carnethon, M., Penedo, F. J., Martinez, L.,
Boehm, J., & Schueller, S. M. (2016). Exploring well-being
among US Hispanics/Latinos in a church-based institu-
tion: a qualitative study. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
11(5), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1
117132
Highland, B., Worthington, E. L., Davis, D. E., Sibley, C. G., &
Bulbulia, J. A. (2022). National longitudinal evidence for
growth in subjective well-being from spiritual beliefs.
Journal of Health Psychology, 27(7), 1738–1752. https://
doi.org/10.1177/13591053211009280
Hollis-Walker, L., & Colosimo, K. (2011). Mindfulness,
self-compassion, and happiness in non-meditators: A
theoretical and empirical examination. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 50(2), 222–227. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.033
Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H. A., & Buro, K.
(2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with
well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 51(2), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2011.03.037
Jansen, P., Hoja, S., & Rahe, M. (2024). The relationship be-
tween the aspects of connectedness and sustainable
consumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1216944.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1216944
Joshanloo, M. (2023). Stability and change in subjective,
psychological, and social well-being: A latent state-trait
analysis of mental health continuum–short form in
Korea and The Netherlands. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 105(3), 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/002
23891.2022.2098755
Karademas, E. C. (2007). Positive and negative aspects of
well-being: Common and specic predictors. Personality
and Individual Dierences, 43(2), 277–287. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.031
King, P. E., & Boyatzis, C. (2015). Religious and spiritual de-
velopment. In M. E. Lamb and R. M. Lerner (eds.),
Handbook of child psychology and developmental science:
Socioemotional processes (7th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 975–1021).
John Wiley and Sons.
Kor, A., Pirutinsky, S., Mikulincer, M., Shoshani, A., & Miller,
L. (2019). A longitudinal study of spirituality, character
strengths, subjective well-being, and prosociality in mid-
dle school adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 377.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00377
Koydemir, S., Sökmez, A. B., & Schütz, A. (2021). A
meta-analysis of the eectiveness of randomized con-
trolled positive psychological interventions on subjective
COGENT PSYCHOLOGY 9
and psychological well-being. Applied Research in Quality
of Life, 16(3), 1145–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-
019-09788-z
Leiner, D. J. (2019). SoSci Survey (Version 3.1.06) [Computer
software]. Available at https://www.soscisurvey.de
Liao, K. Y. H., & Weng, C. Y. (2018). Gratefulness and subjec-
tive well-being: Social connectedness and presence of
meaning as mediators. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
65(3), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000271
Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2009). Personality and subjective
well-being. In Ed Diener (Ed.), The science of wellbeing.
Springer.
Lun, V. M. C., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Examining the relation
of religion and spirituality to subjective well-being across
national cultures. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality,
5(4), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033641
Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Prosocial behavior increas-
es well-being and vitality even without contact with the
beneciary: Causal and behavioral evidence. Motivation
and Emotion, 40(3), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11031-016-9552-z
Minkov, M. (2009). Predictors of dierences in subjective
well-being across 97 nations. Cross-Cultural Research,
43(2), 152–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397109332233
Ne, K. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualiza-
tion of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity,
2(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860390129863
Ne, K., & Germer, C. (2017). Self-compassion and psycho-
logical. The Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science,
371–383.
Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2013). The NR-6: A new brief
measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4,
813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813
Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2007). The optimum lev-
el of well-being. Can people be too happy? Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 2(4), 346–360. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00048.x
Otto, S., Pensini, P., Zabel, S., Diaz-Siefer, P., Burnham, E.,
Navarro-Villarroel, C., & Neaman, A. (2021). The proso-
cial origin of sustainable behavior: A case study in the
ecological domain. Global Environmental Change, 69,
102312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102312
Pasca, L., Aragonés, J. I., & Coello, M. T. (2017). An analysis
of the connectedness to nature scale based on item re-
sponse theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1330. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.201701330
Pirchio, S., Passiatore, Y., Panno, A., Cipparone, M., & Carrus, G.
(2021). The eects of contact with nature during outdoor
environmental education on students’ wellbeing, connect-
edness to nature and pro-sociality. Frontiers in Psychology,
12, 648458. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648458
Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheeld, D., & McEwan, K.
(2020). The relationship between nature connectedness
and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 21(3), 1145–1167. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10902-019-00118-6
Pursell, G. R., Laursen, B., Rubin, K. H., Booth-LaForce, C., &
Rose-Krasnor, L. (2008). Gender dierences in patterns of
association between prosocial behavior, personality, and
externalizing problems. Journal of Research in Personality,
42(2), 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.06.003
Rahe, M., & Jansen, P. (2023). A closer look at the relation-
ships between aspects of connectedness and ourish-
ing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1137752. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1137752
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human
potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eu-
daimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1),
141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Ry, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psycho-
logical well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.69.4.719
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Social psychology.
Taylor and Francis Group.
Su, R., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). The development and
validation of the Comprehensive Inventory of Thriving
(CIT) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT). Applied
Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6(3), 251–279. https://
doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12027
Swami, V., Barron, D., Hari, R., Grover, S., Smith, L., &
Furnham, A. (2019). The nature of positive body image:
Examining associations between nature exposure,
self-compassion, functionality appreciation, and body
appreciation. Ecopsychology, 11(4), 243–253. https://doi.
org/10.1089/eco.2019.0019
Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P.
(2015). The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: a systematic review
of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3),
167–176. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585
Torres-Soto, N. Y., Corral-Verdugo, V., & Corral-Frías, N. S.
(2022). The relationship between self-care, positive fami-
ly environment, and human wellbeing. Wellbeing, Space
and Society, 3, 100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2022.
100076
Trigwell, J. L., Francis, A. J., & Bagot, K. L. (2014). Nature
connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: Spirituality
as a potential mediator. Ecopsychology, 6(4), 241–251.
https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2014.0025
Villani, D., Sorgente, A., Iannello, P., & Antonietti, A. (2019).
The role of spirituality and religiosity in subjective
well-being of individuals with dierent religious status.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1525. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.01525
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps:
Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its
inuence on well-being for the helper and recipient.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222–
244. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016984
Wills, E. (2009). Spirituality and subjective well-being:
Evidences for a new domain in the personal well-being
index. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(1), 49–69. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9061-6
Yang, Y., Kong, X., Guo, Z., & Kou, Y. (2021). Can
self-compassion promote gratitude and prosocial behav-
ior in adolescents? A 3-year longitudinal study from
China. Mindfulness, 12(6), 1377–1386. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12671-021-01605-9
Yang, Y., Zhang, M., & Kou, Y. (2016). Self-compassion and
life satisfaction: The mediating role of hope. Personality
and Individual Dierences, 98, 91–95. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.086
Zessin, U., Dickhäuser, O., & Garbade, S. (2015). The relation-
ship between selfcompassion and wellbeing: A meta
analysis. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 7(3),
340–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12051
Content uploaded by Petra Jansen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Petra Jansen on Jul 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
