ارتباطات طبیعت: ارتباط با رفاه و ذهن آگاهی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32413||2011||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4699 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 51, Issue 2, July 2011, Pages 166–171
Wilson’s (1984)biophilia hypothesis predicts that people’s psychological health is associated with their relationship to nature. Two studies examined associations among nature connectedness, well-being, and mindfulness in samples of undergraduate students while socially desirable responding was controlled. Significant associations emerged among measures of nature connectedness and indices of well-being (in Study 1 and Study 2) and mindfulness (in Study 2). Results are discussed in relation to possible mediators and moderators of the association between nature connectedness and mental health.
“Appreciating the beauty of a blossom, the loveliness of a lilac, or the grace of a gazelle are all ways in which people can, in some small measure, fill their daily lives with evolutionarily inspired epiphanies of pleasure” (Buss, 2000, p. 22). It has been over 25 years since Wilson (1984) wrote Biophilia, in which he argued for an evolved inclination among humans to affiliate with nature. A substantial research base concerning biophilia has accrued within the field of environmental psychology, including the seminal work of Stephen and Rachel Kaplan and of Roger Ulrich. As reviewed by Joye (2007), supportive findings include human preference for savannah-like landscapes, favorable responses to natural environments relative to “built” environments, and restored cognitive functioning following immersion in nature. Wilson (1984) also spoke of an association between nature and psychological health, a position stated unequivocally by his colleague, Kellert (1993, p. 60): “The pursuit of ‘the good life’ is through our broadest valuational experience of nature”. Experiences in nature have recently emerged as an interest within positive psychology; for example, Shiota, Keltner, and Mossman (2007) identified nature as an elicitor of awe. 1.1. Nature and well-being Researchers have manipulated exposure to nature in order to examine nature’s impact on well-being. Saraglou, Buxant, and Tilquin (2008) showed that exposure to a nature-oriented film boosted levels of positive emotions such as enjoyment and wonder. Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, and Dolliver (2009) showed that immersion in a nature preserve boosted positive affect. Weinstein, Przybylski, and Ryan (2009) showed that exposure to nature-oriented slides or a plant-laden laboratory increased endorsement of intrinsic goals. And, Ryan et al. (2010) showed that immersion in either simulated or actual nature boosted vitality. In the Mayer et al., 2009 and Weinstein et al., 2009 studies, the temporary state of nature connectedness partially mediated effects of nature exposure on well-being. Nature connectedness has also been viewed as a trait, defined as “individuals’ experiential sense of oneness with the natural world” ( Mayer & Frantz, 2004, p. 504). Establishing associations between trait nature connectedness and well-being is important as such work complements experimental work by trading-off the strengths and weaknesses of each research approach. Mayer and Frantz (2004) demonstrated a significant correlation between trait nature connectedness and life satisfaction. Mayer et al. (2009) showed no associations between trait nature connectedness and positive affect in three studies. Leary, Tipsord, and Tate (2008) showed no association between a measure of nature connectedness and a measure of life satisfaction. Facets of well-being beyond positive affect and life satisfaction may be most associated with trait nature connectedness. Theorists have distinguished between aspects of well-being described as hedonic (e.g., feeling good) and those described as eudaimonic (e.g., living a fulfilled life; Ryan and Deci, 2001 and Waterman, 1993). Given that nature connectedness involves a sense of meaningful involvement in something larger than oneself, it may relate most strongly to eudaimonic aspects of well-being. In this vein, Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy (2011) showed that nature connectedness was consistently associated with autonomy, personal growth, and purpose in life; nature connectedness was also associated with positive affect but not with life satisfaction. The current work builds upon these recent findings by examining the relationship between nature connectedness and a comprehensive conceptualization of mental health which incorporates scales of emotional, psychological, and social well-being (Keyes, 2005). This allowed us to examine whether trait nature connectedness was associated with feeling well (i.e., hedonic well-being, as assessed with the emotional well-being scale) and with functioning well (i.e., eudaimonic well-being, as assessed with the psychological and social well-being scales; Keyes, 2005 and Keyes and Annas, 2009). In addition, we examined relations among nature connectedness and a second index of positive mental health, mindfulness. 1.2. Nature connectedness and mindfulness Mindfulness, as defined by Brown and Ryan (2003), is “being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present” (p. 822). Mindfulness enhances the richness and vitality of moment-to-moment experiences (Brown & Ryan, 2003; see also Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007). The enhanced sensory impact of experiences in nature fostered by mindfulness may strengthen nature connectedness among mindful individuals. For example, Wilson (1984) wrote, in describing the state of mind of a naturalist, “He goes alone into a field or woodland and closes his mind to everything but that time and place, so that life around him presses in on all the senses and small details grow in significance” (p. 103). Brown and Ryan further discuss that mindfulness enhances self-regulated functioning; that is, mindfulness sensitizes individuals to intrinsic needs, allowing people to better regulate themselves toward meeting those needs. In this vein, Kellert (1997) argued that key psychological needs can be met through affiliating with nature, including autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs. These needs are central to self-determination theory (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000), and have been shown by Brown and Ryan to correlate with mindfulness. Therefore, if mindfulness fosters the meeting of important needs, and if these needs can be met, in part, through experiences in nature, mindfulness and nature connectedness should be positively associated. No research has examined associations between mindfulness and nature connectedness. However, Nisbet, Zelenski, and Murphy (2009) showed that openness to experience is associated with nature connectedness; Mayer et al. (2009) showed that attentional capacity is related to nature connectedness; and Leary et al. (2008) showed that internal state awareness is related to nature connectedness. 1.3. The current research In Study 1, we examined correlations between nature connectedness and the emotional, psychological, and social scales of Keyes (2005) index of well-being; we examined associations between mindfulness and nature connectedness; and we controlled for the influence of social desirability. The hypothesis was that higher levels of nature connectedness would be associated both with higher levels of well-being and with greater mindfulness. 2. Study 1