UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Noticing nature : individual and social benefits of a two-week photography intervention Passmore, Holli-Anne 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2015_september_Passmore_Holli-Anne.pdf [ 1.32MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0166501.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0166501-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166501-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166501-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0166501-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0166501-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0166501-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0166501-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0166501.ris

Full Text

Noticing nature:  Individual and social benefits of a two-week photography interventionbyHolli-Anne PassmoreA THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Psychology)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA(Okanagan)August 2015© Holli-Anne Passmore, 2015AbstractBivariate relationships have previously been established between exposure to nature and individual well-being, prosocial behaviour, and a general sense of connectedness, and between a general sense of connectedness and connectedness to nature.  However, no model has been proposed to account for the patterning of these bivariate relationships.  Research examining the relationship between exposure to nature and materialism is also lacking.The present research addressed these gaps by: a) manipulating the degree to which participants noticed and paid attention to nature over a two-week period; b) measuring participants' levels of post-intervention well-being (i.e., net-positive affect, elevating feelings, and sense of meaning), general connectedness, prosocial behaviour, and materialism; and, c) examining the pattern of relationships between these variables.  Participants were randomly assigned to take photographs of either natural or built scenes/features that evoked in them strong emotions, or they were assigned to a no-photograph control condition.  Participants uploaded their photos to a research website and indicated what feelings were evoked by the scenes.  Following the two-week period, participants completed post-intervention measures of the dependent variables.Results showed that noticing nature over the course of a two-week period had beneficial individual and social effects.  Post-intervention levels of well-being (i.e., net-positive affect and feelings related to elevation), general connectedness, and prosocial behaviour were higher for participants in the nature condition, compared to participants in the built and control conditions.  These effects were not moderated by trait levels of connectedness to nature or engagement with beauty, nor were they moderated by dosage of nature.  Post-intervention levels of sense of iimeaning and materialism did not differ between conditions.  Mediation analyses did not reveal significant mediation pathways.iiiPrefaceThe ethics application for the study described in this document was approved by the Okanagan Research Ethics Board - Office of Research Services, and was assigned the tracking number H14-01780.ivTable of ContentsAbstract..........................................................................................................................................iiPreface............................................................................................................................................ivTable of Contents...........................................................................................................................vList of Tables...................................................................................................................................xList of Figures..............................................................................................................................xiiGlossary.......................................................................................................................................xiiiAcknowledgements.....................................................................................................................xivDedication.....................................................................................................................................xvChapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................1      Individual Well-being and Nature..........................................................................................2      Prosociality...............................................................................................................................3            Prosociality and nature......................................................................................................3            Prosociality and individual well-being.............................................................................4            Prosociality and interdependent self-construal...............................................................5      Self-Construals, Nature, and Prosociality..............................................................................6      Recapping the Research to Date.............................................................................................7Chapter 2: Research Gaps............................................................................................................8      Nature and Materialism..........................................................................................................8Chapter 3: The Proposed Research............................................................................................10      Mediators................................................................................................................................10      Hypotheses..............................................................................................................................11v      Moderators.............................................................................................................................14      Covariables.............................................................................................................................16Chapter 4: Method.......................................................................................................................18      Procedure................................................................................................................................18      Measures.................................................................................................................................23            Well-being.........................................................................................................................23                  Positive and negative affect.........................................................................................23                  Elevation......................................................................................................................24                  Meaning.......................................................................................................................24            Connectedness-oriented self-construal (COSC)............................................................25            Prosocial behaviour.........................................................................................................27            Materialism.......................................................................................................................28            Nature connectedness......................................................................................................28            Engagement with beauty.................................................................................................28            Dosage...............................................................................................................................29            Covariables.......................................................................................................................29                  Stress............................................................................................................................29                  Self-esteem...................................................................................................................29      Quantitative Analytic Methodology.....................................................................................30            Sample size and description............................................................................................30            Statistical programs.........................................................................................................31            Data cleaning and calculation of variable scores..........................................................31vi            Assessment of normality and identification of outliers.................................................31            Assessment of homogeneity of variance.........................................................................32            ANOVA, ANCOVA, and post-hoc analyses....................................................................32            Mediation analyses...........................................................................................................33            Moderation analyses........................................................................................................34      Qualitative Analytic Methodology........................................................................................36Chapter 5: Quantitative Results.................................................................................................37      Correlations............................................................................................................................37      Preliminary Analyses.............................................................................................................37      Hypothesis Tests.....................................................................................................................39            Hypothesis 1 – group differences in well-being.............................................................39                  Hypothesis 1a – group differences in netPA................................................................39                  Hypothesis 1b – group differences in elevation...........................................................40                  Hypothesis 1c – group differences in meaning............................................................40            Hypothesis 2 – group differences in COSC...................................................................41            Hypothesis 3 – group differences in prosocial behaviour.............................................41            Hypothesis 4 – group differences in materialism..........................................................42            Hypothesis 5 – mediation of nature—prosocial behaviour..........................................42                  Hypothesis 5ai – netPA as a mediator..........................................................................42                  Hypothesis 5aii – elevation as a mediator....................................................................43                  Hypothesis 5aiii – meaning as a mediator...................................................................43                  Hypothesis 5b – COSC as a mediator..........................................................................43vii                  Hypothesis 5c – materialism as a mediator..................................................................43            Hypothesis 6 – COSC as mediator of nature—well-being...........................................44                  Hypothesis 6a – netPA as an outcome variable............................................................44                  Hypothesis 6b – elevation as an outcome variable......................................................44                  Hypothesis 6c – meaning as an outcome variable.......................................................45      Moderation Analyses.............................................................................................................45            Moderation 1a and 1b – CNS as moderator..................................................................46            Moderation 2a and 2b – EWB as moderator.................................................................46            Moderation 3a and 3b – Dosage as moderator..............................................................47      Findings Related to Photos and Time in Setting.................................................................48Chapter 6: Qualitative Findings.................................................................................................50Chapter 7: Discussion..................................................................................................................57      Limitations of the Current Study.........................................................................................63      Implications of the Current Study........................................................................................64      Future Research Directions...................................................................................................67References...................................................................................................................................108Appendices..................................................................................................................................127      Appendix A: SONA Recruitment Ad..................................................................................127      Appendix B:  Sample Participant Packet (For Nature Condition)..................................128      Appendix C:  Positive and Negative Affect Scale..............................................................135      Appendix D:  Elevating Experiences Scale........................................................................136      Appendix E:  Sense of Meaning Scale................................................................................137viii      Appendix F:  Interdependent Subscale from Self-Construal Scale.................................138      Appendix G:  The Metapersonal Self Scale.......................................................................139      Appendix H:  Allo-Inclusive Identity Scale........................................................................140      Appendix I:  Connectedness to Nature Scale.....................................................................141      Appendix J:  Social Value Orientation Slider Measure....................................................142      Appendix K:  Aspiration Index...........................................................................................143      Appendix L:  Materials Values Scale..................................................................................144      Appendix M:  Engagement with Beauty Scale..................................................................145      Appendix N:  Stress Overload Scale...................................................................................146      Appendix O:  Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale......................................................................147ixList of TablesTable 1: Descriptive statistics for all variables by condition.........................................................71Table 2: Skew, kurtosis and Shapiro-Wilk statistics for all variables by condition.......................72Table 3: Descriptive statistics for all variables (aggregate data)...................................................73Table 4: Test statistics for homogeneity of variance......................................................................74Table 5: Correlations between variables (aggregate data).............................................................75Table 6: ANOVA and post-hoc analyses on pre-intervention measures........................................76Table 7: ANCOVA /ANOVA and post-hoc analyses for Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, & 4.........................77Table 8: Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5ai........................................78Table 9: Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5aii.......................................79Table 10: Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5aii.....................................80Table 11: Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5b.......................................81Table 12: Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5c........................................82Table 13: Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 6a........................................83Table 14: Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 6b.......................................84Table 15: Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 6c........................................85Table 16: Summary of effect sizes between nature and built conditions.......................................86Table 17: Regression coefficients for Moderation 1a....................................................................87Table 18: Regression coefficients for Moderation 1b....................................................................88Table 19: Regression coefficients for Moderation 2a....................................................................89Table 20: Regression coefficients for Moderation 2b....................................................................90Table 21: Regression coefficients for Moderation 3a....................................................................91xTable 22: Regression coefficients for Moderation 3b....................................................................92Table 23: ANOVA and post-hoc analyses for time spent in nature................................................93Table 24: Contingency table for future time spent in setting.........................................................94Table 25: Contingency table for emotional valence of photos......................................................95Table 26: Positive emotional themes from photo descriptions......................................................96Table 27: Negative emotional themes from photo descriptions.....................................................97Table 28: Contingency table for emotional themes: Significant positive emotions......................98Table 29: Contingency table for emotional theme: Significant negative emotions.......................99Table 30: Contingency table for emotional themes: Non-significant positive emotions.............100Table 31: Contingency table for emotional themes: Non-significant negative emotions............101xiList of FiguresFigure 1: Non-significant indirect pathways for mediation Hypotheses 5ai, 5aii, 5aiii..............102Figure 2:  Non-significant indirect pathway for mediation Hypothesis 5b.................................102Figure 3:  Non-significant indirect pathway for mediation Hypothesis 5c..................................103Figure 4:  Non-significant indirect pathways for mediation Hypotheses 6a, 6b, 6c....................103Figure 5:  Non-significant moderation effects.............................................................................104Figure 6: Time spent in setting reported by participants in the nature group..............................105Figure 7: Responses regarding future time spent in setting.........................................................106Figure 8: Wordcloud of emotions more likely to be associated with nature photos....................107Figure 9: Wordcloud of emotions more likely to be associated with built photos.......................107xiiGlossaryBuiltFor the purposes of this thesis, the term “built” refers to human-built objects.  These include objects such as furniture, clothes, buildings, vehicles, houses, sidewalks, computers.  In the research presented in this thesis, the experimental condition and photography category of “built” stands in contrast to the experimental condition and photography category of “nature” or “natural” (see below).Nature / NaturalFor the purposes of this thesis, the terms “nature” or “natural” refer to objects that are notconsidered by the general population to be human-built.  This category includes objects such as trees, plants, flowers, grass, water, the sun, the moon, rainbows, and non-human animals.  Nature, thus defined, can, and does, exist in human-built environments.  For example, dandelionsgrow out of cement sidewalks, water flows in concrete fountains.These conceptualizations of “built” and “nature” are in line with how nature is commonlyoperationalized by researchers in this field.xiiiAcknowledgements“We come into the world as the result of others’ actions. We survive here in dependence on others … there is hardly a moment of our lives when we do not benefit from others’ activities.”  (Dalai Lama XIV)Although only my name appears on the front of this thesis, endeavours such as these are never solo efforts.  Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to bring a thesis to fruition.  There is not enough space here to thank each person in my “village” whose actions and kindness, in ways great and small, known (and at times, likely unknown) to them and me, that I have benefited from.  I would, however, like to extend special acknowledgment to a few.My heartfelt thanks goes to my supervisor, Mark Holder, who provided me with not only sound advice, guidance, and many reassurances, but who also gave me the freedom to pursue many research ideas and projects with his full support.  Mark's office was always the perfect balance of seriousness, encouragement, laughter, and openness.  He created an environment in which it was easy to thrive.I want to acknowledge and thank my committee members, Brian O'Connor and Liane Gabora, for their feedback, unique perspectives, and encouragement throughout the past two years.  For their time and efforts, I am truly appreciative.Without the camaraderie, hearts, ears, and minds of my HappyLab friends at UBCO, Maxine Crawford and Carmela White, I would have been a rather stressed-out and lonely grad student.  Your friendship and grounding advice has meant (and means) the world to me.Lastly, I would like to acknowledge all of the undergraduate students who participated in my research.  Without engaged participants who do the best they can to complete the tasks we setfor them, no research would occur.  What a loss to the world that would be.xivDedicationTo Andrew:• you started me on this journey• you provided me with the foundational tools and opportunities to succeed• you have shown unwavering faith and confidence in my abilities• you have shared your time, your knowledge, and your wisdom with me• you have always enthusiastically shared in my successes• you have been my teacher, my mentor, my colleague, and my friendThank you.For my FWG—who has made me a better person in so many ways.  I couldn't, and wouldn't want to, do this without you.  We did it, Buddy!  We did it! xvChapter 1: Introduction“I found that nature gave me an underlying appreciation for both the people I have in my lifeand the world in which I live in.”  (Participant N155)It has been suggested that our relationship with nature is essential to our well-being (Fromm, 1968; Kellert, 1993; Searles, 1960), and some have suggested that we have an evolved inclination to affiliate with nature (Shepard, 1982; Ulrich, 1983; Wilson, 1984).  Wilson termed this inclination biophilia.  Growing evidence substantiates the biophilia hypothesis and the notion that affiliating with nature is beneficial to our well-being (see literature reviews by Howell & Passmore, 2013; Joye, 2007).An Eco-Existential Positive Psychology (Passmore & Howell, 2014a) framework has been put forth which proposes that “cultivating our innate biophilic tendencies through experiences with natur[e]” (p. 370) increases our well-being by helping to address existential anxieties such as those concerning identity, meaning, isolation, and happiness.  For example, we have a long history of developing our identity and sense of self through relationships with, comparisons to, and even blurred boundaries with nonhuman others and the larger natural world (Kalof, 2003; Shepard, 1996).  We describe some people as being “grounded”, while others are merely “chasing rainbows”; we call people “wise old owls”, “rays of sunshine”, or conversely, “sly foxes” and even “real turkeys”.  We wade through “mountains” of paperwork in researching our family “trees”, and we take vacations from “swimming upstream” in frustrating jobs in order to feel “fresh as a summer's breeze” again.  We play in the “spring time” of our lives, and reminisce in the “autumn” of our lives.Experiences in nature can, by eliciting awe and feelings of elevation and transcendence, help us shift our perspective and find meaning in life (Cohen, Gruber, & Keltner, 2010; Kalnin, 12008).  Meaning in life is also enhanced by situating individual, personal events within “a larger, overarching meaning system” (Steger, 2009, p. 682), such as the cycles of the natural world.  Additionally, it has been posited that “the essence of meaning is connection” (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002, p. 608), that is, connecting one's self to the external world (Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006).  Thus, feeling connected to the world, feeling that one is part of a larger, functioning system—be it a social network of people or the natural environment—not only assuages existential concerns of meaning, it also reduces our sense of existential isolation and separateness(Clayton, 2003).  Involvement with nature may increase happiness by presenting us with opportunities to satisfy these key elements of well-being—meaning and connectedness (Clayton, 2003; Kellert, 1997).  Extant research supports these notions (for reviews see Capaldi, Dopko, & Zelenski, 2014; Howell & Passmore, 2013; Russell et al., 2013).Individual Well-being and NatureA positive relationship between nature and individual well-being has been clearly established.  Contact with nature and/or feelings of connectedness to nature have been linked with life satisfaction (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014), positive affect (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; Berman et al., 2012; Herzog & Strevey, 2008; Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009; Nisbet, Zelenski, & Murphy, 2011; Passmore & Howell, 2014b), happiness (Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014), meaning in life (Howell, Passmore, & Buro, 2013; Nisbet et al., 2011; O’Connor & Chamberlain, 1996; Passmore & Howell, 2014b), awe (Keltner & Haidt, 2003; Shiota, Keltner, & Mossman, 2007), elevation (Passmore & Howell, 2014b), vitality (Cervinka, Röderer, & Hefler, 2012; Ryan et al., 2010), and both psychological and socialwell-being (Cervinka et al., 2012; Howell, Dopko, Passmore, & Buro, 2011).  Even after 2controlling 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 built environment (MacKerron & Mourato, 2013).ProsocialityProsociality and nature.  Nature's beneficial influence extends beyond the individual.  Evidence in support of a positive relationship between exposure to natural environments and other-oriented prosocial behaviour has also accumulated.  The amount of green space in neighbourhoods is positively correlated with the strength of social ties reported among neighbours, the amount of concern neighbours express with helping and supporting each other, and with the amount of prosocial activity in the neighbourhood (Kuo, 2003; Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998; Sommer, 2003; Sullivan, Kuo, & Depooter, 2004).Even within built environments, brief exposure to natural elements improves prosocial behaviour.  For example, Ruso & Atzwanger (2003) conducted naturalistic observations of people in a shopping mall corridor where they had installed a water fountain.  When the fountain was filled with water (compared to when the fountain was empty), people were more likely to interact with each other.  Additionally, trait connectedness and relatedness to nature have been demonstrated to predict perspective taking, empathic concern (Zhang, Piff, Iyer, Koleva, & Keltner, 2014), and prosocial value orientation (Zelesnki, Dopko, & Capaldi, 2015).This prosocial effect of exposure to nature has also been demonstrated in experimental studies in the laboratory and in the field.  Weinstein, Przybylski, & Ryan (2009) reported that participants who rested for  five minutes in a laboratory containing plants endorsed goals relatingto closeness and community to a greater degree, and exhibited more generous behaviour towards 3others, than did participants who rested in a laboratory with no plants.  Zelesnki et al. (2015) reported a similar prosocial effect of exposure to nature.  Participants were randomly assigned to view a two-minute video of either a pleasant nature scene, a pleasant urban scene, a negative nature scene, or a negative urban scene.  Participants who watched either the positive or negativenature videos scored higher in social value orientation than did participants who had watched either the pleasant or negative urban videos.  Guéguen and Stefan (2014) tested the prosocial effects of immersion in nature in two field experiments involving over 400 participants.  These studies took place in a large, heavily treed urban park.  A confederate approached individuals as they entered or left the park.  When the passerby was approximately three metres away, the confederate “accidentally” dropped a glove but continued walking without showing awareness ofthe dropped item.  Observer confederates recorded whether the passersby informed the confederate of the dropped glove within ten seconds.  Individuals who were leaving the park, andthus had been immersed in nature, helped more frequently than those who were entering the park, and thus had not been immersed in nature.Prosociality and individual well-being.  Prosociality is enhanced not only by exposure to nature, but also by positive emotions and affect.  Compared to people with lower positive affect, happy people tend to express a greater desire to contribute to society and help others, to volunteer more often, and to perform more altruistic acts (see Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005 for a review).  Theoretically, it has been proposed that happy people engage in these prosocial acts because they are more emotionally capable of giving to others (Wang & Graddy, 2008), and because they have more energy to invest in others, than do less happy people (Konow& Earley, 2008).  It may be that exposure to nature increases prosociality via its beneficial effect 4on emotions.  Indeed, Zhang, Piff, et al. (2014) reported that, in two experiments, positive affect mediated the relationship between exposure to photographs of beautiful nature and subsequent prosociality as measured by the number of points given away in a dictator game and in a trust game.  In a third experiment, positive affect mediated the relationship between exposure to beautiful live houseplants and subsequent prosociality, as measured by the number of origami paper cranes that participants helped the researcher fold after the study was supposedly over.  Additionally, in the field experiments of Guéguen and Stefan (2014) noted above, positive mood was found to mediate the relationship between walking in the park and helping a stranger.Prosociality and interdependent self-construal.  Prosociality also has a strong relationship with an interdependent self-construal (Ashton-James, van Baaren, Chartrand, Decety, & Karremans, 2007).  An interdependent self-construal emphasizes one's relatedness andconnections to other people; this is in comparison to an independent self-construal, which emphasizes a unique self that is autonomous and separate from other people (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).  These self-concept dimensions co-exist within individuals.  However, individuals with a high sense of interdependence tend to experience more other-focused emotions, and function in a “selfless” manner, to a greater extent than do those with a more independent self-construal (Dambrun & Ricard, 2011).  For example, compared to participants primed with independent self-construals, participants primed with interdependent self-construals were more generous and cooperated more with their partner in a social dilemma game, in addition to expressing greater concern for their partner's outcome than for their own outcome in the game (Utz, 2004).5Self-Construals, Nature, and ProsocialityAn interdependent self-construal has been associated with connectedness to nature.  Milfont, Davis, and Konrad (2011) reported that priming individuals with independent self-construals decreased their levels of connectedness to nature, while priming participants with interdependent self-construals increased levels of connectedness to nature.  These findings support the idea that connectedness to nature is one facet of an interdependent self-construal.Connectedness with nature is an important part of an individual's self-concept (Clayton &Opotow, 2003; Dambrun & Ricard, 2011; Leary, Tipsord, & Tate, 2008; Mayer & Frantz, 2004).  Clayton (2003) likened a natural-world identity to a human-interdependent identity.  Dambrun and Ricard (2011) suggested that the independent–interdependent self-construal continuum encompasses identity connections not only with other humans, but also with the greater-than-human natural world.  In this vein, Leary, Tipsord, and Tate (2008) proposed the construct of an “allo-inclusive identity”, which is a self-construal comprised of self-identification with both the human (i.e., social) and the nonhuman (i.e., natural) worlds.  High levels of allo-inclusive identity have been positively correlated with the prosocial orientation of kindness.  Interestingly, Milfont et al. (2011) reported that, after making natural environment issues salient, levels of human interdependent orientation increased, thus providing further evidence that self-construals regarding other humans and self-construals regarding nature are interconnected.Extending beyond the initial binary categories of independence and interdependence withother humans that Markus and Kitayama (1991) proposed, are notions of “profound interdependence” (Dambrun & Ricard, 2011) or “cosmic consciousness” (James, 1902/1982), in which one's self-construal encompasses connections with human beings, nonhuman animals, 6elements of nature, life, and even the cosmos (Maslow, 1971)—in essence, a sense of being connected to the whole of life.  Metapersonal (DeCicco & Stroink, 2007), transpersonal (Friedman, 1983; Pappas & Friedman, 2007), and transcendent (King & DeCicco, 2009; Piedmont, 1999) self-construals fall within this category.  A metapersonal/transcendent self-construal has been demonstrated to positively correlate with nature connectedness (Hoot & Friedman, 2011; Passmore, Howell, & Buro, 2012) and with prosocial behaviour (Piedmont, 1999).A common thread runs through all of these frameworks of self-construal—each is concerned with the degree to which an individual construes his or her sense of self as being separate from, or connected to, aspects of his or her world.  Although each of these is a unique facet of self-construal, higher scores on measures of interdependent, allo-inclusive, and metapersonal/transcendent self-construal scales can be considered conceptually similar.  I consider such a facet of self-concept to be a “connectedness-oriented self-construal” (COSC).Recapping the Research to DateTo recap, bivariate relationships have been established between: exposure/connectedness to nature and individual well-being, exposure/connectedness to nature and prosocial behaviour, prosocial behaviour and a connectedness-oriented self-construal, and  a connectedness-oriented self-construal and connectedness to nature.7Chapter 2: Research GapsA gap exists in the research, however, in that no model has yet been suggested to account for the patterning of these bivariate relationships.  For example, theoretically it has been suggested that of the three key psychological needs put forth in Ryan and Deci's (2000) Self-Determination Theory (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness), it is relatedness that is especially important for promoting prosocial behaviour (Pavey, Greitemeyer, & Sparks, 2011).  Results of a series of three studies supported Pavey et al.'s supposition; in all three studies, increasing participants' sense of connectedness to others enhanced engagement in prosocial behaviour.  This theoretical position and evidence, coupled with Passmore and Howell's (2014a) theoretical supposition that affiliating with nature reduces our existential isolation by increasing feelings of connectedness, along with preliminary empirical evidence that both exposure to nature and a COSC predict prosocial behaviour (e.g., Guéguen & Stefan, 2014; Milfont et al., 2011; Piedmont, 1999), suggest that a COSC may act as a mediator of the relationship between exposure to nature and prosocial behaviour.Additionally, although there is a growing body of literature regarding the relationship between exposure to nature and pro-environmental behaviour, such as purchasing environmentally friendly products (e.g., Duerden & Witt, 2010; Ewert, Place, & Sibthorp, 2005),research examining exposure to nature and general prosocial behaviour is limited, as is research linking a COSC to nature.Nature and MaterialismThere is also a paucity of research examining the relationship between exposure to natureand general materialistic values.  As with research examining links between exposure to nature 8and prosocial behaviour, most of the nature–materialism research to date has focused on how exposure to nature relates to materialistic values with regard to pro-environmental attitudes (see meta-analysis by Hurst, Dittmar, Bond, & Kasser, 2013).  However, correlational studies have evidenced a negative relationship between exposure to nature and materialistic values (Gatersleben, Meadows, Abrahamse, & Jackson, 2008), between materialistic values and biophilia (Saunders & Munro, 2000), and between trait levels of engagement with natural beauty and materialistic values (Diessner, Solom, Frost, Parsons, & Davidson, 2008).  While exposure to nature is linked to higher well-being and greater prosocial behaviour, endorsement of materialistic values is linked to lower well-being (Gatersleben et al., 2008; Passmore, Holder, & Lambert D'raven, 2014) and less prosocial behaviour (Kasser, Ryan, Couchman, & Sheldon, 2004).Furthermore, circumplex models of values (Grouzet et al., 2005; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004) position materialistic and self-enhancing values opposite to values relating to nature, universalism, and self-transcendence.  This suggests that a connectedness-oriented self-construal (COSC) would negatively correlate with materialism, and positively correlate with exposure to nature.  Perhaps exposure to nature causes a decrease in materialism, which, in turn, causes an increase in prosocial behaviour.  Experimental studies in this area are needed to explore the patterning of relationships between exposure to nature and resulting changes in general materialism, COSC, individual well-being, and prosocial behaviour.9Chapter 3: The Proposed ResearchThe current research addressed these gaps in the research literature by manipulating the degree to which participants noticed and paid attention to nature via a photography exercise, and then examining resultant levels of individual well-being, connectedness-oriented self construal, materialism, and prosocial behaviour.  Over a two-week period, participants took photos of eithernatural (nature condition) or human-made (built condition) elements and environments that evoked strong emotion in them.  A third group of participants was assigned to a control conditionakin to a waiting list condition.  A similar photography-based methodology has previously been effective in exploring issues of self-identity and interpersonal orientations (Dollinger & Clancy, 1993; Noland, 2006; Ziller & Lewis, 1981), emotional responses to natural (Hull & Stewart, 1995) and urban (Haywood, 1990) environments, meaning in life (Steger et al., 2013), and enhancing individual well-being (Steger, Shim, Barenz, & Shin, 2014).MediatorsAs described above, three mediated pathways between noticing/paying attention to natureand prosocial behaviour are suggested by research to date: a pathway via an increase in individual well-being, a pathway via an increase in connectedness-oriented self-construal, and a pathway via a reduction in materialism.  In such instances where multiple hypotheses are equallytheoretically valid, Platt (1964) recommended constructing an experiment in which each hypothesis could be tested, an approach known as “the strong inference method”.  This approach has been used in psychological research to examine alternative hypotheses regarding, for example, the interaction of job stress and social support (Seers, McGee, Serey, & Graen, 1983), and the influence on risk perception of appraisal schemes similar in content but differing in 10valence (Lerner & Keltner, 2001).  Therefore, each of these mediated pathways was examined in the current study.A mediated pathway between noticing/paying attention to nature and individual well-being was also examined.  Previous research (Mayer et al., 2009) has demonstrated that connectedness to nature mediated the relationship between exposure to nature and individual well-being.  Kasser (2002) noted how “it is clear from [a] corpus of work that our psychological health [and well-being] depends in part on whether we feel close and connected with other people” (p. 61).  Therefore, to explore the notion that connectedness to nature is one facet of a connectedness-oriented self-construal, in the current study, the expected pathway between noticing/paying attention to nature and individual well-being was examined for a mediation effect of COSC.  Additional bivariate relationships were also examined.HypothesesAs outlined in the sections above, the following hypotheses are driven not only by previous research findings, but are also grounded in theory.  A brief recap follows to explicitly link the hypotheses set forth below to their grounding theories.  The biophilia hypothesis (Wilson, 1984) sets forth that as individuals we have an emotional need to affiliate with nature; thus, it follows that fulfilling this innate need by noticing nature would lead to an increase in individual well-being (Hypothesis 1).  Embedded within the biophilia hypothesis is the evolutionary fact that we are social animals and, as such, we have an innate need to feel connected—to other humans and to the greater-than-human natural world.  Ryan and Deci's (2000) Self-Determination Theory also proposes that a sense of connectedness (or relatedness) is an innate psychological need.  Given these two innate needs—to affiliate with nature and to feel 11connected—the theoretical framework of Eco-Existential Positive Psychology (EEPP; Passmore & Howell, 2014a) proposed that by meeting our need to affiliate with nature, we also address ourinnate need to feel connected (Hypothesis 2).  The EEPP framework also proposed that not only does affiliating with nature lead to feelings of greater connectedness, but also to more frequent prosocial behaviour in an effort to enhance our relationship with that which we feel connected to (Hypothesis 3).  Hypothesis 4 is grounded in theory put forth by Kasser (2002), who proposed that an emphasis on materialistic pursuits and values not only leaves our innate needs related to well-being and connectedness unfilled, but indeed is detrimental to them.  Encompassed within Kasser's theoretical framework are circumplex models of values which position values relating tonature opposite to values relating to endorsement of materialism.  Thus, it is likely that noticing nature would lead to a decrease in materialistic values.Hypotheses 5a, that individual well-being would mediate the relationship between noticing nature and prosocial behaviour, is driven by three theories.  The first theory proposes that happy people engage in more prosocial acts because they have a greater capacity to engage in prosocial acts (Konow & Earley, 2008; Wang & Graddy, 2008).  The second theory, Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989), proposes that natural environments are particularly restorative to our capacities.  Lastly, the third theory, the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson, 1984), suggests that experiences in nature will boost our individual well-being.Hypothesis 5b sets forth that noticing nature would lead to a greater sense of connectedness, which in turn would lead to greater prosocial behaviour.  In addition to the theoretical frameworks noted above linking noticing nature to a greater sense of connectedness (Hypothesis 2) and greater prosocial behaviour (Hypothesis 3), Hypothesis 5b is also driven by 12theory set forth by Pavey et al. (2011).  Pavey et al. suggested that it is our innate need for connectedness which is most vital to eliciting acts of prosocial behaviour.Hypothesis 5c, regarding reduced materialistic values as a mediator of the relationship between noticing nature and prosocial behaviour, is grounded in Kasser's (2002) theory of materialistic values and circumplex models of values.  These circumplex models of values (e.g., Grouzet et al., 2005; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004) not only position values relating to nature opposite to values relating to endorsement of materialism, they also position values relating to connectedness and prosocial behaviour in the same quadrant as “nature” values.  Circumplex models work in a type of “see-saw” manner.  When one side of this circumplex is enhanced (e.g.,nature), the opposite side is necessarily de-emphasized or reduced (e.g., materialistic values); when one side is de-emphasized or reduced (e.g., materialistic values) the opposite side is enhanced (e.g., prosocial behaviour).Lastly, the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson, 1984) and Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) jointly drive Hypothesis 6, that a sense of connectedness would mediate the relationship between noticing nature and individual well-being.  As noted above for Hypotheses 1 and 2, the biophilia hypothesis predicts that noticing nature enhances individual well-being anda sense of connectedness, in addition to suggesting that a sense of connectedness is vital to our individual well-being given that we are social creatures.  Self-Determination Theory also predictsthat connectedness will enhance individual well-being, as does a corpus of work (see Kasser, 2002).Specifically, the present research tested the following six hypotheses:1. participants in the nature condition, compared to participants in the built and control 13conditions, would report higher levels of individual well-being; specifically, net-positive affect (Hypothesis 1a), elevation (Hypothesis 1b), and meaning (Hypothesis 1c);2. participants in the nature condition, compared to participants in the built and control conditions, would report higher levels of connectedness-oriented self-construal;3. participants in the nature condition, compared to participants in the built and control conditions, would display a greater degree of prosocial behaviour;4. participants in the nature condition, compared to participants in the built and control conditions, would report a lower endorsement of materialism;5. the expected positive relationship between noticing/paying attention to nature and prosocial behaviour would be mediated by individual well-being (Hypothesis 5a), a connectedness-oriented self-construal (Hypothesis 5b), or lower endorsement of materialism (Hypothesis 5c); and6. the expected positive relationship between noticing/paying attention to nature and individual well-being would be mediated by a connectedness-oriented self-construal.Participants' scores in the control condition were compared to participants' scores in the nature and built conditions.  This was done in order to tease apart the effect of the nature and built content from the action of taking photographs, and to determine whether any differences between the nature and built conditions were best attributed to an effect of nature photography, built photography, or both.ModeratorsAlthough extant research in the nature–well-being area also suggests possible moderatorsof the relationship between noticing/paying attention to nature and individual well-being, “there 14is a scarcity of research examining individual difference measures … as potential moderator(s) ofnature's positive benefits” (Zhang, Howell, & Iyer, 2014, p. 62).  Thus, three moderator variableswere examined in the current study.The first moderator variable was connectedness with nature.  Although this study considers connectedness to nature to be one facet of a larger, connectedness-oriented self-construal, many studies have examined connectedness (or relatedness) to nature as a distinct variable in and of itself.  Relatedness to nature has been proposed as a moderator of the relationship between exposure to nature and individual well-being, however empirical support ofthis is inconsistent.  For example, Nisbet, Nealis, & Zelenski (2011) found that, after spending 15minutes 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.  Conversely, Passmore and Howell (2014b) did not find a significant moderator effect of connectedness to nature on net-positive affect (netPA) for individuals who had completed a two-week nature involvement intervention.  Therefore, in the current research, the relationship between noticing/paying attention to nature and individual well-being was examined for a possible moderator effect of connectedness to nature.The second moderator variable was engagement with beauty.  Correlational research by Zhang, Howell, and Iyer (2014) evidenced a moderator effect of engagement with natural beauty on the relationship between connectedness to nature and life satisfaction and self-esteem.  Therefore, in the current research, the relationship between noticing/paying attention to nature and individual well-being was examined for a possible moderator effect of engagement with beauty.15Finally, the third moderator variable that was examined was the “dose” of nature or urbanicity that individual participants noticed/paid attention to over the two-week study period.  Nature and built “dosage” was measured by the condition-relevant number of photos that individual participants uploaded.  It is possible that the more involved an individual was with nature (i.e., the more photos of nature scenes that were submitted), the greater the beneficial impact on resultant individual well-being.  It is also possible that the more involved an individualwas with built environments (i.e., the more photos of built scenes that were submitted), the greater the detrimental impact on resultant well-being.CovariablesBoth stress and self-esteem are related to each of the main outcome variables in this study(i.e, well-being, COSC, materialism, and prosocial behaviour).  Numerous studies have examined the relationship between stress and well-being; in general, the more stressful events a person experiences, the lower their well-being will be (Monroe, 2008).  An increased ability to cope effectively with stress has been linked to holding a more connectedness-oriented self-construal (Hardie, Critchley, & Morris, 2006; Hardie, Kashima, & Pridmore, 2005).  People highin materialism not only tend to report greater adverse reactions to stress, they also tend to devote more resources to pursuing materialistic activities, thus reinforcing a downward spiral (Ruvio, Somer, & Rindfleisch, 2014).  Surprisingly, acute stress has been found to increase prosocial behaviour (von Dawans, Fischbacher, Kirschbaum, Fehr, & Heinrichs, 2012).Numerous studies, across diverse sample populations, have evidenced a clear link between self-esteem and well-being: higher self-esteem leads to higher well-being (Avci, Yilmaz,& Koc, 2012; Dogan, Totan, & Sapmaz, 2013; Paradise & Kernis, 2002).  The relationship 16between self-esteem and self-construal is a solid, yet complex one.  Although research does not support a direct relationship between self-esteem and self-construal, it appears that when in an ego-threat condition, high scores on self-esteem are associated with greater endorsement of an independent self-construal, whereas low self-esteem scores are associated with greater endorsement of an interdependent self-construal (Vohs & Heatherton, 2001).  Low self-esteem has been consistently linked with high materialism (Chaplin & John, 2007; Richins & Dawson, 1992; Yurchisin & Johnson, 2004).  Research supports a positive relationship between self-esteem and the prosocial behaviours of forgiveness (Eaton, Struthers, & Santelli, 2006) and generosity (Miller, Ginsburg, & Rogow, 1981).Given these relationships, in order to reduce extraneous variance in the main outcome variables that may be caused by stress and self-esteem, participants completed pre-study measures of these variables.  Scores on the stress and self-esteem measurements were included inthe analyses as covariables.  Including covariables increases power to detect post-intervention differences between groups (Miller & Chapman, 2001).  Hence, differences in well-being, COSC, materialism, and prosocial behaviour, that are due to the intervention condition (i.e., nature, built, or control) to which participants were assigned, would be more likely to be detected.17Chapter 4: MethodProcedureParticipants were undergraduate students recruited through the University of British Columbia Okanagan psychology research participant pool website (SONA).  (See Appendix A for SONA recruitment ad.)  Participants selected a time slot from a list of available times to attend an in-person information session, and were randomly assigned to one three conditions: built, nature, or control.  Upon completion of the study, participants received 2% course credit for a psychology class.Several in-person group sessions were conducted to accommodate the recruited 395 participants (see Analytic Methodology section for computation of required sample size).  These group sessions occurred over a two and half week period.  Each group of participants were involved in the study for a period of two weeks beginning the day of the in-person session.  Thus, in total, the study was conducted over a period of four and a half weeks.  Each session involved approximately 20 participants and took approximately 30 minutes.  At each session, participants were given a packet that included their random assignment to one of the three conditions (i.e., built, nature, or control).  Each packet consisted of an information sheet explaining the requirements of the study, a consent form, pre-study measures to complete on-site (i.e., positive and negative affect, stress, and self-esteem), and a take-home instruction sheet (see Appendix B for a sample participant packet).  Eligibility for participation in this study was the capability to take digital photographs and upload them to the internet in a timely fashion.A cover story was used, given that participants in all three conditions were in attendance at each session.  Participants were told that they would be asked to take photographs of different 18objects and settings (i.e., built, natural, or art work) at different times in the semester (for example, immediately, or in two weeks' time), and either before or after they answered the onlinequestionnaires regarding emotions.  Participants were told that, consequently, their instructions might differ from other participant's instructions.  The researcher explained that the purpose of the study was threefold: firstly, to examine emotions evoked by a variety of surroundings and objects; secondly, to examine emotions across different time periods across the semester; thirdly, to examine emotions across different orders of taking the questionnaires (i.e., before or after the two week photography portion of the study).  Participants were instructed not to discuss the study with other students until the end of the semester, in order to preserve the integrity of the study.  These instructions, and the study requirements, were explained verbally before participants were asked to sign the consent form if they chose to continue in the study.Requirements of the nature and the built conditions were the same except for the subject of the photographs.  Based on previous research utilizing a similar photographic methodology (Dollinger & Clancy, 1993; Hull & Stewart, 1995; Steger et al., 2014; Ziller & Lewis, 1981), participants were asked to take as many photographs as they wished, but that the study required aminimum of 10 photographs taken and uploaded over the course of the following two weeks.  These photographs were to be of objects/scenes that evoked strong emotion in them.Participants in the nature condition were asked to take photographs of natural elements and settings (e.g., trees, birds, flowing water, animals, clouds, etc.)—no humans were to be present in the photographs.  It was stressed that it was preferable to not have any human-built objects in the photographs, if possible.  Participants in the built condition were asked to take photographs of human-built objects and settings (e.g., buildings, furniture, merchandise, 19clothing, etc.).  These objects/scenes were not to incorporate any natural elements, if possible.  Photographs were to be spread out over the course of the two-week study period.  Participants were encouraged to be mindful of potential objects/settings to photograph on a daily basis.  Photographs were to be uploaded to the study server, using a web-based form (URL provided in the participants' study packet), on the day they were taken.  For each photograph, participants were to provide a brief description (i.e., a few words or a sentence) of what emotions the object/scene evoked in them that had prompted them to take the photo.  These descriptions were requested in order to provide insight into the types of emotions that participants experienced in response to the nature or built objects/scenes.  Additionally, participants were asked to enter the date and time each photo was taken, how long they were in the setting, and whether they were alone or accompanied by friends.  It was stressed to participants that the researcher was not interested in the technical or creative quality of the photographs, but rather in the emotional experiences evoked by the object or scene.The instructions for participants assigned to the control condition were simply to continuewith their regular routine for the next two weeks, at the end of which they would be asked to complete a series of online questionnaires.  These participants were told that instructions for the photography portion of the study would be given to them upon completion of the questionnaires (although, in actuality, they were then informed that they were not required to take photographs, and the reason was explained).A demonstration was given of how to log in to the study website, upload photographs, and complete the information required for each photo.  A demonstration was also given of how tolog in to the website at the end of the two-week study period to complete the final questionnaires.20Participants were assigned a unique identifier in order to match up their responses to the pre-study measures with their photographs and descriptions, and with their responses to the post-study questionnaire.  This unique identifier helped to preserve the anonymity of participants' submissions and responses.  This was clearly outlined to participants.After the requirements of the study were fully explained and the demonstration was given, all questions were answered.  Those who chose to continue in the study were asked to signthe consent form, provide the email address they wanted to use for the purposes of this study, andcomplete the pre-study measures of positive and negative affect, stress, and self-esteem.  (Affect was measured pre-intervention for the purposes of ensuring that there were no significant differences between the nature, built, and control groups prior to the start of the two-week study period.  Stress and self-esteem measures acted as covariables in subsequent analyses; scores werechecked to ensure that no significant differences existed between the groups.)Before leaving the in-person session, participants handed in their signed consent form (which had their name, Student ID, and unique identifier on it for purposes of assigning SONA credit at the end of the two-week period), along with their completed measures.  The pre-study measures sheets listed only the participant's unique identifier; no personally identifying information was listed on these questionnaire sheets.  (Questionnaires were kept separately from signed consent forms, both were kept in secure spots.)  The researcher ensured that each participant took his or her study instruction sheet which included their unique identifier, the study URL for uploading the photographs, and the researcher's email address should any questions arise during the course of the two-week study period.  Also noted on this sheet was the date on which the participant would receive the email and link to complete the online 21questionnaires.Participants in the nature and built conditions received an email every other day reminding them to be mindful of how the (condition relevant) objects around them made them feel in their daily routine, and reminding them to upload their photos to the website.  Additionally, the email contained a link to the study website.  At the end of the two-week study period, participants received an email asking them to log in to the study website for a final time (link provided in the email) in order to complete a series of questionnaires concerning their emotions and attitudes.  Participants were told that this final part of the study would take approximately 30 minutes.Following the two-week study period, and upon completion of the post-intervention on-line questionnaires, the study website returned a “study completion receipt” for the participant to keep for his or her records.  Additionally, in order to meet the tracking requirements for SONA credit, the participant was prompted, on a separate/following web-form, to provide his/her name and Student ID.  Participant names and Student IDs were directed to the researcher, separately from their responses, without any additional tracking or linking information, and were used solely for the purpose of administering SONA credits.  Participants were then shown a debriefingpage, thanked for their participation, and informed that their SONA credit would be granted within 48 hours.  Receipt of this form by the researcher signaled that the participant had completed the study, and was due his/her SONA credits.  The study website, as well as the submitted photographs, post-intervention questionnaires, and associated meta-data, were hosted on a combination of secure space on UBC's servers and Survey Monkey.  Submissions were removed incrementally by the researcher 22during the study period, and in total following the study's conclusion.Measures(See Appendices C-O for a copy of all measures.)  All measures were administered post-intervention with the exception, as noted above, of the covariables of stress and self-esteem which were administered pre-intervention at the initial in-person study session.  Additionally, positive and negative affect were measured both pre- and post-intervention.Well-being. Well-being is comprised of two components—hedonia and eudaimonia—both of which are necessary for a complete experience of well-being (Henderson & Knight, 2012; Huta & Ryan, 2010).  Hedonic well-being includes experiences indicative of feeling well, such as feelings of emotional well-being and positive affect (Keyes, 1998, 2005; Ryff, 1989), while eudaimonic well-being includes experiences indicative of functioning well, such as feelings of elevation, meaning in life, and personal growth (Huta, 2013).  Therefore, in the current study, the effect of nature involvement on both hedonic (i.e., positive and negative affect)and eudaimonic (i.e., elevation and a sense of meaning) well-being was assessed.  These specific facets of well-being, and their respective measures, were chosen for this study, in part, to replicate previous research findings pertaining to a nature intervention study (Passmore & Howell, 2014b).Positive and negative affect. The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is a 20-item scale which lists ten words pertaining to positive feelings and emotions (e.g., interested, proud, attentive, enthusiastic) and ten words pertaining to negativefeelings and emotions (e.g., afraid, irritable, guilty, upset).  Respondents rate the extent to which they experienced each of the listed emotions over the past two weeks.  A 5-point Likert-type 23scale ranging from 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely is utilized.  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; Sheldon, Elliot,Kim, & Kasser, 2001; Sheldon, Kasser, Smith, & Share, 2002).  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 (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, spiritually uplifted, morally elevated).  Respondents rate each item using a 7-point Likert-type scale with endpoints 1 (not at all) and 7 (extremely), according to the degree that each item describes how they typically felt during the past two weeks.  The Elevating Experiences Scale has been validated on samples of undergraduate students; principal componentanalyses showed that elevating experience was a distinct aspect of well-being (Huta & Ryan, 2010).  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 (i.e., part of something greater than myself; connected with a greater whole; part of some greater entity).Meaning. Sense of meaning was assessed with Huta and Ryan's (2010) Sense of MeaningScale.  The 12 items in this scale are either words or phrases that pertain to elements of meaning and purpose in life (e.g., meaningful, full of significance, 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 24degree to which each item describes how they typically felt about their activities and experiencesover the past two weeks.  The Sense of Meaning Scale was validated by Huta and Ryan on samples of undergraduate students concurrently with their Elevating Experiences Scale, 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 a correlation of .64 between their sense of meaning scale and the widely used Meaning in Life Questionnaire (Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006).Connectedness-oriented self-construal (COSC).  A composite measure of COSC was created by combining items from established measures assessing subjective connectedness.  Items were chosen based on theoretical relevance and a desire to avoid cross-contamination.  To create the COSC, relevant scores from each measure were standardized.  The composite had acceptable internal consistency (α = .92).  Items were selected from the following four questionnaires.The interdependent subscale from Singelis' (1994) Self-Construal Scale (SCS; see also Hardin, Leong, & Bhagwat, 2004) uses a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = stronglyagree) by which participants rate their agreement with items measuring interdependent self-construal.  Items include, “My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me” and “I feel my fate is intertwined with the fate of those around me”.  Singelis reported a Cronbach's α of.74 for the interdependent subscale (α in the current study was .77).  The SCS has been validated on undergraduate samples using attributional endorsement of scenarios associated with independence and interdependence.The Metapersonal Self (MPS) Scale (DeCicco & Stroink, 2007) uses items (e.g., “My 25sense of identity is based on something that unites me with all other people” and “I see myself asbeing extended into everything else”) rated on a 7-point Likert scale with end points of 1= Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.  The MPS has been validated on samples of universitystudents, and has shown satisfactory reliability with a Cronbach's α of .80 (α in the current study was .81).  Validity of the MPS was established by examining correlations between the MPS and the SCS (Singelis, 1994) measure of interdependent and independent self-construal, and by establishing independence from socially desirable responding.The Allo-Inclusive Identity (AIS) scale (Leary, Tipsord, & Tate, 2008) includes eight items which address the extent to which other people are incorporated into one's identity, and eight items which address the extent to which nature is incorporated into one’s identity.  Items (e.g., “The connection between you and a stranger on the bus” and “The connection between youand a tree”) are rated by choosing one of seven diagrams depicting increasing degrees of overlap between a circle labeled “you” and one labeled “other”.  Leary et al. reported a Cronbach's α >.75 for the total scale score (α in the current study was .86), and generated preliminary evidence of the scale’s validity (e.g., independence from socially desirable responding, correlating with theMPS).The Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS; Mayer & Frantz, 2004) is composed of 14 items (e.g., “I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me”) that assess a sense of unity with the natural world, and are rated on a 5-point scale with endpoints 1 = stronglydisagree and 5 = strongly agree.  Mayer and Frantz reported a Cronbach's α of .84 for the summed scale score (α in the current study was .85); factor analysis consistently yielded a one-factor solution.  They validated their measure by establishing a nomological web of correlates 26with other explicit and implicit measures of nature connectedness.Prosocial behaviour.  A composite measure of prosocial behaviour (PSB) was created bycombining items from established measures that assess prosocial behaviour.  To create the composite prosocial behaviour measure, scores from each measure were standardized.  The composite had acceptable internal consistency (α = .79).  The questionnaires from which the composite was derived were the Social Value Orientation Slider Measure (SVO-SM; Murphy, Ackermann, & Handgraaf, 2011) and the Aspiration Index (AI; Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996).The SVO-SM is a recently developed measure of prosocial behaviour akin to classic give-some measures of cooperative or prosocial behaviour.  The SVO-SM consists of six rounds of a decision making task in which participants make a resource allocation choice from a pre-defined continuum of joint payoffs.  Responses are positioned within a self/other allocation planeconsisting of four main orientations of behaviour: prosocial, altruistic, individualistic, and competitive.  An overall index of pro-social behaviour can also be calculated, as was done in the current study.  The SVO-SM has been validated using undergraduate samples and in comparison with theoretically relevant measures.The AI is a multidimensional measure that assesses the personal importance of several categories of extrinsic and intrinsic life goals.  For the purposes of this study, the five-item Financial Success (extrinsic) and five-item Community Feeling (intrinsic) subscales were used inorder to, as Kasser and Ryan (1993, 1996) recommended, assess the relative importance of extrinsic values to intrinsic (socially oriented) values for participants.  Participants use a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = very to rate how important each life goal is to them.  Items include: “You will be a very wealthy person” and “You will help people in need, asking 27nothing in return”.  The AI has demonstrated validity in numerous studies with samples of students from 15 nations.  Cronbach's αs ranging from .71 to .81 have been reported (α in the current study was .82).  The AI has been used to measure prosocial behaviour in previous studies examining the impact of exposure to nature (e.g., Weinstein et al., 2009).Materialism. The Material Values Scale (MVS; Richins 2004) is a 9-item scale designed to measure materialism in consumers via three domains: success, centrality, and happiness. Using a 7-point Likert scale with endpoints of 1 (Strongly Disagree) and 7 (Strongly Agree), participants respond to items such as “I try to keep my life simple, as far as possessions are concerned” and “The things I own say a lot about how well I'm doing in life”.  Cronbach's αs ranging from .77 to .88 were reported for the summed scale (α in the current study was .87).  Construct validity of the scale was demonstrated by establishing significant correlations with numerous criterion variables associated with materialism, and with personality traits previously established to be associated with materialism.  The MVS is a widely used measure of materialistic values.Nature connectedness.  The full Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) was used to specifically assess nature connectedness.  (See above for description.)Engagement with beauty. The Engagement with Beauty Scale (EWB; Diessner et al., 2008) is a 14-item measure that assesses the individual’s self-reported tendency to perceive natural beauty, artistic beauty, 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” and “I notice beauty in art or human made objects”) which participants rate on a 7-point Likert-type scale with endpoints of 1 28= 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).  Factor analysis supported a three-factor model; favourable comparisons with theoretically relevant measures were also reported.Dosage.  “Dosage” of nature or human-built involvement was measured by the number ofcondition-relevant photographs that participants in the nature and built groups uploaded to the study website.Covariables.  Two covariables were measured: stress and self-esteem.Stress.  The Stress Overload Scale (SOS; Amirkhan, 2012) is based on shared constructs of various stress theories.  Its 24 items assess the degree to which an individual has experienced stress in two domains, events and personal vulnerability, over the past weeks.  Using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Not at All to 5 = A Lot, participants rate the extent to which they have felt items such as, “that the odds were against you” and “overextended”.  The SOS wasvalidated on large, heterogeneous community samples and against comparable stress measures.  Amirkhan reported Cronbach's αs of .96 for the scale (α in the current study was .94).Self-esteem.  The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (SES; Rosenberg, 1965) is the most widely used measure of self-worth.  Participants indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with each of 10 items (e.g., “I take a positive attitude toward myself.”, “I certainly feel useless at times”) using a 3-point Likert scale with endpoints of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree.  Cronbach's αs between .77 and .88 have been reported for this scale (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1993) (α in the current study was .88).  The SES validates well against a variety of self-29esteem related constructs and other measures of self-esteem (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1993; Rosenberg, 1965).Quantitative Analytic MethodologySample size and description. Using the “pwr” package in R, power analyses were done to estimate the sample size that would be required for each of the conditions in order to have a.80 probability of detecting significant effects.  Based on previous research findings (Passmore &Howell, 2014b), a medium effect size was anticipated.  For t-tests, with a significance level ofp = .02 (for post-hoc tests with Bonferroni corrections), an effect size = 0.40, and a power of .80,the required sample size for each condition is 127 participants.  For a one-way ANOVA, with a significance level of p = .02, an effect size = 0.20, and a power of .80, the required sample size for each condition is 102 participants.  For a multiple regression, with a significance level ofp = .02, an effect size = 0.15, a power of .80, and using 3 degrees of freedom as the numerator, the required sample size for each condition is 91 participants.  For χ2 tests, such as produced by structural equation modeling testing for mediation effects, with a significance level of p = .05, aneffect size = 0.35, a power of .80, and 6 degrees of freedom, the required sample size for each condition is 111 participants.  Therefore, based on these analyses, a sample size of 375 participants (125 participants in each condition) was sought.A total of 395 undergraduates participated in the study.  Data from 31 participants were excluded from analyses due to missing information or substantial nonconformance to the instructions applicable to the condition to which they were assigned.  No participant assigned to the nature condition submitted photos of built objects; however, 54% of participants in the built condition submitted at least one photo that was nature related.  Therefore, in order to preserve the30integrity of the experimental conditions without drastically reducing the sample size, “substantialnonconformance” was defined for participants in the built condition if more than half of the photos they submitted were nature related.  Employing this criterion resulted in 11% of participants in the built condition being omitted from the quantitative analyses.  (All information that participants submitted regarding their emotional responses for each photo was kept however,and is included in the qualitative analyses below.)  Therefore, the final data set on which quantitative analyses were performed was 364 (N control condition = 133; N built condition = 110, N nature condition = 121).  The mean age of participants was 20.09 years (SD = 4.08, range:17-52).  Males comprised 31.9% of the sample, females comprised 67.6%; 2 participants (.6%) chose “other” in response to gender.  English was the first language for 78.8% of participants.Statistical programs. SPSS v. 17, R v.3.1.0, and G*Power 3.1.9.2 were used to conduct analyses.Data cleaning and calculation of variable scores. All data were screened for missing values.  Variable scores for each of the measures were calculated as per customary methods for each measure; composite measures were calculated as described above.  Initial descriptive statistics for measures were produced in order to examine minimum and maximum values, means, standard deviations, and alphas, all of which fell within acceptable norms for each measure.Assessment of normality and identification of outliers. Data were examined within condition to assess normality and identify outliers because further analyses were concentrated oncomparisons of conditions of group and not aggregate data.  For each measure, absolute values of skew and kurtosis were examined for values greater than 2 and 7, respectively, because such 31values would indicate a substantial departure from normality (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995).  Q-Q plots were visually inspected, and Shapiro-Wilk (S-W) tests were conducted and reviewed for nonsignificance.  Box plots were inspected to identify outliers.  Problematic outliers were removed.  Descriptive statistics were then re-reviewed (see Table 1), as were values of skew and kurtosis (see Table 2), and results of S-W tests (see Table 2).  Values of skew and kurtosis for all measures were within the acceptable range for normality.  With the exception of the SOS measure in the built condition, and the SE measure in the nature condition, all S-W tests were nonsignificant, indicating acceptable normality.  SOS and SE measures data were judged to meet normality distribution assumptions for analyses given that: the skew and kurtosis values for the SOS and SE measures were well within acceptable ranges for normality; the Q-Q plots revealed only a mild to moderate deviation from normality; t-tests have been found to be robust to Type I error in the presence of mild to moderate non-normal distributions in sample sizes over 30, particularly when skewness is approximately equal between groups (Sawilowsky & Blair, 1992; Wilcox, 1990); and that for large sample sizes, even a small deviation from normality can result in a significant S-W test (Field, Miles, & Field, 2012).  (Descriptive statistics were also generated for aggregate data; see Table 3.)Assessment of homogeneity of variance. Levene's test statistics were calculated and examined for p values lower than .05, as this would indicate a potentially problematic difference in homogeneity of variances.  All measures, with the exception of pre-study netPA and CNS, had non-significant Levene's test statistics (see Table 4).  Therefore, in analyses involving pre-study netPA and CNS scores, test statistics that do not assume equal variances were used.  ANOVA, ANCOVA and post-hoc analyses.  In all ANOVA analyses, if a Levene's test 32indicated significance, thus indicating hetergeneity of variance, the Welch F statistic was used (Field et al., 2012).  As recommended by Dunnett (1980a, 1980b), Games-Howell post-hoc analyses were conducted for all ANOVAs because this method has greater power to detect differences between groups and takes both unequal group sizes into account, as well as possible violations of homogeneity of variance.  Bonferonni corrections were used for all ANCOVA post-hoc analyses.  Post-hoc analyses were conducted even if the F statistic was non-significant, as per Wilcox (1987).Mediation analyses.  All mediation analyses were conducted using Hayes (2013) PROCESS macro for SPSS.  This macro uses an ordinary least squares regression-based path analysis.  The regression path coefficient from X (in this study, built or nature condition) to Y (outcome variable) is calculated and designated as c'; this represents the direct effect of X on Y.  The direct effect indicates the difference between the two group means holding M (moderator variable) constant; that is, c' is the effect of X on Y, independent of any effect on M.  The regression path coefficient from X to M is calculated and designated as a; this represents the difference between the group means on M.  The regression path coefficient from M to Y is calculated and designated as b, representing the amount that two cases that differ by one unit on M, differ on Y.  The regression path coefficient for the indirect effect of X on Y through M is then calculated (ab).  The indirect effect is the product of a and b, and indicates the extent to which the effect of X on Y is a result of the effect of X on M, which in turn influences Y.  A regression path coefficient for the total effect (c) is also calculated.  The total effect is equal to the direct effect plus the indirect effect c = c' + ab.  Thus, the indirect effect can also be thought of as ab = c – c', the difference between the total effect of X on Y (c) and the direct effect of X on Y (c').33The PROCESS macro uses a bootstrapping method with replacement to calculate confidence intervals for the indirect effect.  If the confidence interval is entirely above zero, thereis evidence of a statistically significant indirect effect; if the confidence interval straddles zero, the indirect effect is not statistically significant.  The PROCESS macro generates a bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval, in which the endpoints are adjusted as a function of the number of values (k; where k = the number of bootstrap samples generated) of ab that are less than the point estimate of the indirect effect calculated using the original data.Unlike a normal theory approach, such as the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982), a bootstrapping approach does not rely on assumptions regarding the shape of the sampling distribution.  The confidence intervals generated using a bootstrapping approach, compared to a normal theory approach, better represent any irregularities that may exist in the sampling distribution of ab, andthus, are more likely to be accurate.  This results in a higher power to test hypotheses regarding significant indirect effects.All mediation analyses conducted specified the PROCESS macro to generate bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrap samples.  Effect sizes reported for the indirect effect are Kappa squared (K2), which is the ratio of the indirect effect to the maximum possible size the indirect effect could have been, given the variances in the data set being analyzed (Preacher & Kelly, 2011).  In order to examine the observed power to detect a significant mediation effect, a post-hoc power analysis was conducted for each mediation.  The “powerMediation” package (version 0.2.3) for R was used to conduct the post-hoc power analyses.Moderation analyses.  All moderation analyses were conducted using Hayes (2013) 34PROCESS macro for SPSS.  This macro uses an ordinary least squares regression approach.  Theinteraction term of XM is automatically calculated.  A significant moderation effect is indicated if, in the regression equation predicting Y from X, M, and XM, the interaction term of XM has a confidence interval that does not straddle zero and, thus, a p value > .05.  The proportion of variance in Y that can be uniquely attributed to the interaction of XM (i.e., the moderation of X's effect on Y by M), is denoted by the R2 due to the interaction.  The significance of this (i.e., p value) is equal to the p value of the XM interaction term in the regression equation.As per Hayes (2013), variables were not standardized prior to moderation analyses, as standardization is not necessary to test a moderation/interaction hypothesis.  Although mean centering is not necessary to test a moderation hypothesis, mean centering of X and M is recommended (Hayes, 2013) because doing so produces beta coefficients that may be more meaningful.  For example, without mean centering, the beta coefficient for X represents the difference in Y between two cases that differ on one unit of X (in this case, between groups) whenM = 0.  However, when X and M are mean centered, the beta coefficient for X presents the difference in Y between two cases that differ on unit of X (between groups) among cases that are average on M.  In the current data set, M = 0 is meaningless; the moderators of CNS, EWB, and dosage could not have a value of zero.  Therefore, X and M were mean centered in all moderationanalyses.For each moderation analysis, a post-hoc power analysis was conducted to examine observed power to detect the interaction.  Post-hoc power analyses were conducted using G*Power 3.1.9.2 with settings for F tests, ANOVA/ANCOVA fixed effects, main effects, and interactions.  Effect size f for inputting into G*Power was calculated with the ηp2 for the 35interaction term.Qualitative Analytic MethodologyIn order to help gain insight into the types of emotions evoked for participants in the nature and built conditions, descriptions that participants provided with each of their photos wereanalyzed.  First, the emotional descriptions were manually coded for valence: positive, negative, or mixed.  Next, descriptions were manually coded into thematic categories of emotions.  Chi-square data analyses were then performed on emergent emotional themes in order to identify significant differences between the nature and the built photos.  Contingency tables were examined for standardized residual zs greater than +/- 1.96, as this indicates that the category accounted for in the cell contributed significantly to the overall chi-square statistic (Field et al., 2012).36Chapter 5: Quantitative ResultsCorrelationsA correlation matrix was run for all main variables to provide a preliminary overview of the relationships among them, and for comparison with previous research findings (see Table 5 for correlation matrix).  Consistent with research noted previously, a significant relationship was revealed between connectedness to nature and all three measures of well-being, COSC, prosocialbehaviour, and materialism, and between prosocial behaviour and COSC.As noted in the “Covariables” section above, previous research has found that both stress and self-esteem are related to well-being, COSC, prosocial behaviour, and materialism.  However, in the current study, stress only correlated significantly with netPA and meaning, and self-esteem only correlated with netPA, elevation, meaning, and COSC.  This may have been dueto different measurements of these variables in the current study, compared to previous research.Preliminary AnalysesThe pre-intervention measures of netPA, stress (SOS) and self-esteem (SE) were examined as a function of condition using an ANOVA with post-hoc analyses.  As expected (due to random assignment), no significant differences were found between the groups (nature vs. built, nature vs. control, built vs. control) on any of the pre-intervention measures ps > .05) (see Table 6).The covariables of stress (SOS) and self-esteem (SE) were examined in order to test the appropriateness of using them as covariables in further analyses testing the differential effects of the conditions on the outcome variables of the three well-being measures (i.e., netPA, elevation, and meaning), COSC, PSB, and materialism.  Assumptions of normality (as outlined by Mayers, 372013) were met (as noted above; see also Table 3) for both SOS and SE.  The assumption regarding independence from the predictor variables (i.e., experimental condition) was met for both SOS and SE as noted above (see also Table 6).  The next assumption that needed to be met was that there must be a reasonable correlation (i.e., between .30 and .90; see also Munro, 2005) between the covariate and the dependent variable.  As noted above and in Table 5, SOS only met this assumption for the outcome variable of netPA (r(324)= -.40, p < .001), and SE only met this assumption for the outcome variables of netPA (r(318) = .49, p < .001), and meaning (r(337) =.35, p < .001)).  Therefore, further tests of assumption were only conducted with SOS to be used as a covariable in analyses involving netPA as an outcome, and SE to be used as a covariable in analyses involving netPA or meaning as an outcome.Next, the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes between the covariate and the dependent variable was tested across all groups of the independent variable.  First, SOS was tested as a covariable for assessing differences across groups in netPA.  There was not a significant interaction between the covariate (SOS) and the dependent variable (netPA) F(2, 288)= 1.59, p = .205 indicating that the requirement for homogeneity of regression slopes was satisfied.  Therefore, in subsequent analyses involving netPA as a dependent variable, SOS was used as a covariable.  SE was then tested as a covariable for assessing differences across groups in netPA.  There was not a significant interaction between the covariate (SE) and the dependent variable (netPA) F(2, 312) = 1.34, p = .263 indicating that the requirement for homogeneity of regression slopes was satisfied.  Therefore, in subsequent analyses involving netPA as a dependent variable, SE was used as a covariable in addition to SOS.  Lastly, SE was tested as a covarible for assessing differences across groups in meaning.  There was not a significant 38interaction between the covariate (SE) and the dependent variable (meaning) F(2, 331) = 0.92, p = .398 indicating that the requirement for homogeneity of regression slopes was satisfied.  Therefore, in subsequent analyses involving meaning as a dependent variable, SE was used as a covariable.Hypothesis TestsHypothesis 1 – group differences in well-being.  To test Hypothesis 1, that participants in the nature condition would report higher levels of well-being than participants in the built and control conditions, ANOVAs and ANCOVAs with post-hoc analyses were conducted.  Separate analyses were conducted on each of the measures of well-being—netPA (Hypothesis 1a), meaning (Hypothesis 1b) and elevation (Hypothesis 1c)—for two reasons: 1) to examine the nuanced effect of exposure to nature on specific aspects of well-being; and 2) to examine replication of previous research findings pertaining to a nature intervention study (Passmore & Howell, 2014b).Hypothesis 1a – group differences in netPA.  In addition to stress and self-esteem, pre-intervention netPA was used as a covariable, as this is the recommended method for analyzing pre-post data in randomized designs (Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003; Huitema, 2011).  (All assumptions were met for using pre-study netPA as a covariable, including homogeneity of regression slopes F(2, 307) = 1.62, p = .199.)  Results of an ANCOVA revealed a significant effect of condition on netPA F(2, 279) = 8.38, p < .001 (see also Table 7).  Post-hoc analyses supported Hypothesis 1a; participants in the nature group (M = 12.32, SD = 8.51) reported significantly higher levels of netPA than did those in the built group (M = 8.88, SD = 8.42) p = .002, d = 0.41, and significantly higher levels of netPA than those in the control group (M = 8.52,39SD = 10.15) p = .001, d = 0.41.  No significant difference was found between the built group andthe control group p = 1.000, d = 0.04.It could be argued that the covariables of stress and self-esteem changed the nature of the dependent variable, rather than reducing noise.  Therefore, the ANCOVA was run again using only netPA as a covariable.  Results remained significant F(2, 309) = 9.27. p < .001 (see also Table 7).  Post-hoc analyses were similar to results found using stress and self-esteem as covariables.  The F statistic is larger in the second model (using only pre-study netPA as a covariable) than in the first model (using netPA, stress, and self-esteem as covariables); therefore, in further analyses using netPA as an outcome variable, only pre-study netPA was usedas a covariable.Hypothesis 1b – group differences in elevation.  Results of an ANOVA revealed a significant effect of condition on elevation F(2, 341) = 7.34, p = .001 (see also Table 7).  Post-hoc analyses supported Hypothesis 1b; participants in the nature group (M = 39.92, SD = 12.22) reported significantly higher levels of elevation than did those in the built group (M = 34.06, SD = 11.45) p = .001, d = 0.49, and significantly higher levels of elevation than those in the control group (M = 35.12, SD = 12.79) p = .009, d = 0.38.  No significant difference was found between the built group and the control group p = 0.785, d = 0.09.Hypothesis 1c – group differences in meaning.  Results of an ANCOVA (using self-esteem as a covariable) did not reveal a significant effect of condition on meaning F(2, 333) = 0.37, p = .691 (see also Table 7).  Post-hoc analyses did not support Hypothesis 1c; there were nosignificant differences in sense of meaning between the nature (M = 48.00, SD = 14.77), built (M= 46.99, SD = 13.94), and control groups (M = 46.26, p = 15.98); all between group difference ps40= 1.000, respective ds = 0.07, 0.11, 0.05.  An ANOVA was then run to test the effects of removing the covariable.  Results remained similar to when using the covariable F(2, 345) = 0.41, p = .662, as did post-hoc analyses (see Table 7).  Therefore, in further analyses using meaning as an outcome variable, no covariables were used.Hypothesis 2 – group differences in COSC.  To test Hypothesis 2, that participants in the nature condition would report higher levels of connectedness-oriented self-construal (COSC) than participants in the built and control conditions, an ANOVA with post-hoc analyses was conducted.  Results revealed a significant effect of condition on COSC F(2, 320) = 4.18, p = .016(see also Table 7).  Post-hoc analyses supported Hypothesis 2.  Participants in the nature group (M = 2.55, SD = 16.13) reported higher levels of COSC than those in the built group (M = -1.03, SD = 13.68); this difference did not reach significance p = .199, but the effect size is notable d = 0.24.  Levels of COSC were significantly higher in the nature group than in the control group (M = -3.37, SD = 15.77) p = .017, d = 0.37.  No significant differences in COSC were revealed between the built group and the control group p = .470, d = 0.16.Hypothesis 3 – group differences in prosocial behaviour.  To test Hypothesis 3, that participants in the nature condition would report higher levels of prosocial behaviour (PSB) than participants in the built and control conditions, an ANOVA with post-hoc analyses was conducted.  Results of an ANOVA revealed a marginally significant effect of condition on PSB F(2, 335) = 2.96, p = .053 (see also Table 7).  Post-hoc analyses supported Hypothesis 3.  Participants in the nature group (M = 0.35, SD = 1.44) evidenced significantly higher levels of PSB than participants in the built group (M = -0.15, SD = 1.56) p = .042, d = 0.33.  Participants in the nature group evidenced higher levels of PSB than those in the control group (M = 0.02, SD41= 1.61); this difference did not reach significance p = .222, but the effect size is notable d = 0.22.No significant differences in PSB were revealed between the built group and the control groupp = .700, d = 0.11.Hypothesis 4 – group differences in materialism.  To test Hypothesis 4, that participants in the nature condition would report lower levels of materialism than participants in the built and control conditions, an ANOVA with post-hoc analyses was conducted.  Results did not reveal a significant effect of condition on materialism F(2, 352) = 0.15, p = .860 (see also Table 7).  Post-hoc analyses did not support Hypothesis 4; there were no significant differences in materialism between the nature (M = 34.93, SD = 10.24), built (M = 35.06, SD = 11.69), and control groups (M = 35.64, p = 10.83); respective ps = .996, .856, .918, ds = 0.01, 0.07, 0.05.Hypothesis 5 – mediation of nature–prosocial behaviour.  This hypothesis concerned mediators of the positive relationship between exposure to nature and prosocial behaviour.  Possible mediators proposed were: well-being (Hypothesis 5a), COSC (Hypothesis 5b), and materialism (Hypothesis 5c).  In keeping with the goal to examine nuanced aspects of well-being, separate mediation analyses were conducted for netPA (Hypothesis 5ai), elevation (Hypothesis 5aii), and meaning (Hypothesis 5aiii).  Given that no significant differences were revealed between the built group and the control group on any of the outcome variables, mediation analyses were conducted using only the nature group and the built group.Hypothesis 5ai – netPA as a mediator.  This hypothesis was not supported.  A simple mediation analysis using ordinary least squares path analysis did not suggest that the positive relationship between exposure to nature and prosocial behaviour was mediated by netPA.  A bias-corrected bootstrap confident interval for the indirect effect based on 10,000 bootstrap samples 42contained zero 95% CI[-0.08, 0.11]; thus indicating a non-significant indirect effect (see Table 8 for model coefficients).Hypothesis 5aii – elevation as a mediator.  This hypothesis was not supported. A simple mediation analysis using ordinary least squares path analysis did not suggest that the positive relationship between exposure to nature and prosocial behaviour was mediated by elevation.  A bias-corrected bootstrap confident interval for the indirect effect based on 10,000 bootstrap samples contained zero 95% CI[-0.05, 0.20]; thus indicating a non-significant indirect effect (seeTable 9 for model coefficients).Hypothesis 5aiii – meaning as a mediator.  This hypothesis was not supported. A simple mediation analysis using ordinary least squares path analysis did not suggest that the positive relationship between exposure to nature and prosocial behaviour was mediated by meaning.  A bias-corrected bootstrap confident interval for the indirect effect based on 10,000 bootstrap samples contained zero 95% CI[-0.02, 0.09]; thus indicating a non-significant indirect effect (seeTable 10 for model coefficients).Hypothesis 5b – COSC as a mediator.  This hypothesis was not supported. A simple mediation analysis using ordinary least squares path analysis did not suggest that the positive relationship between exposure to nature and prosocial behaviour was mediated by COSC.  A bias-corrected bootstrap confident interval for the indirect effect based on 10,000 bootstrap samples contained zero 95% CI[-0.01, 0.15]; thus indicating a non-significant indirect effect (seeTable 11 for model coefficients).Hypothesis 5c – materialism as a mediator.  This hypothesis was not supported. A simple mediation analysis using ordinary least squares path analysis did not suggest that the positive 43relationship between exposure to nature and prosocial behaviour was mediated by materialism.  A bias-corrected bootstrap confident interval for the indirect effect based on 10,000 bootstrap samples contained zero 95% CI[-0.24, 0.21]; thus indicating a non-significant indirect effect (seeTable 12 for model coefficients).Hypothesis 6 – COSC as mediator of nature—well-being.  This hypothesis concerned COSC as a mediator of the positive relationship between exposure to nature and well-being.  Continuing with the goal to examine nuanced aspects of well-being, separate mediation analyses were conducted for the well-being outcome variables of netPA (Hypothesis 6a), elevation (Hypothesis 6b), and meaning (Hypothesis 6c).  Given that no significant differences were revealed between the built group and the control group on any of the outcome variables, mediation analyses were conducted using only the nature group and the built group.Hypothesis 6a – netPA as an outcome variable.  This hypothesis was not supported.  A simple mediation analysis using ordinary least squares path analysis did not suggest that the positive relationship between exposure to nature and netPA was mediated by COSC.  (Pre-study netPA was used as a covariable.)  A bias-corrected bootstrap confident interval for the indirect effect based on 10,000 bootstrap samples contained zero 95% CI[-0.04, 0.75]; thus indicating a non-significant indirect effect (see Table 13 for model coefficients).Hypothesis 6b – elevation as an outcome variable.  This hypothesis was not supported. A simple mediation analysis using ordinary least squares path analysis did not suggest that the positive relationship between exposure to nature and elevation was mediated by COSC.  A bias-corrected bootstrap confident interval for the indirect effect based on 10,000 bootstrap samples contained zero 95% CI[-0.23, 2.58]; thus indicating a non-significant indirect effect (see Table 1444for model coefficients).Hypothesis 6c – meaning as an outcome variable.  This hypothesis was not supported. A simple mediation analysis using ordinary least squares path analysis did not suggest that the positive relationship between exposure to nature and meaning was mediated by COSC.  A bias-corrected bootstrap confident interval for the indirect effect based on 10,000 bootstrap samples contained zero 95% CI[-0.22, 3.07]; thus indicating a non-significant indirect effect (see Table 15for model coefficients).To summarize, Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were supported.  With the exception of meaning, higher levels of well-being (net-positive affect, elevation), connectedness-oriented self-construal,and prosocial behaviour were reported by participants in the nature group compared to those in the built group (respective ds = 0.41, 0.49, 0.24, 0.33), and compared to those in the control condition (respective ds = 0.41, 0.38, 0.37, 0.22).  (See Table 16 for a summary of effect sizes.)  Hypothesis was 4 was not supported; no differences were found in levels of materialism betweenthe groups.  Hypotheses 5 and 6, pertaining to mediation pathways, were not supported (see Figures 1-4).Moderation AnalysesThree variables were examined as possible moderators of the relationship between exposure to nature and individual well-being using a regression approach:  connectedness to nature (CNS), engagement with beauty (EWB), and dosage of the intervention (i.e., the number of photos taken).  This was done to test if individual differences in these variables affected the benefits participants received from noticing nature.  Each moderator variable was tested on each aspect of individual well-being except for meaning, given that previous analyses did not 45evidence a significant relationship between the experimental condition and meaning.  Also, giventhat no significant differences were revealed between the built group and the control group on any of the outcome variables, moderation analyses were conducted using only the nature group and the built group.Moderation 1a and 1b – CNS as moderator.  Regression analysis was used to predict netPA and elevation by experimental condition (i.e., nature vs. built), trait connectedness to nature (CNS), and their interaction.  In the prediction of netPA (using pre-study netPA as a covariable), the overall equation was significant, F(4, 171) = 24.95, p < .001.  Experimental condition was a significant predictor of netPA (p = .001) but trait connectedness to nature (CNS) was not (p = .721).  The interaction between condition and CNS was not a significant predictor of netPA (p = .621; see Table 17 for regression coefficients and R2 statistics).  In the prediction ofelevation, the overall equation was significant, F(3, 189) = 8.39, p < .001.  Experimental condition and CNS were significant predictors of elevation (p < .001, p = .002), but their interaction term was not (p = .646; see Table 18 for regression coefficients and R2 statistics).  Therefore, the effect of nature involvement on well-being (i.e., netPA and elevation) was not dependent upon level of nature connectedness.Moderation 2a and 2b – EWB as moderator.  Regression analysis was used to predict netPA and elevation by experimental condition (i.e., nature vs. built), engagement with beauty (EWB), and their interaction.  In the prediction of netPA (using pre-study netPA as a covariable), the overall equation was significant F(4,184) = 27.27, p < .001.  Experimental condition and EWB were significant predictors of netPA (p = .001, p = 028), but their interaction term was not (p = .108; see Table 19 for regression coefficients and R2 statistics).   In the prediction of 46elevation, the overall equation was significant F(3, 203) = 13.38, p < .001.  Experimental condition and EWB were significant predictors of elevation (p = .001, p < .001), but their interaction term was not (p = .309; see Table 20 for regression coefficients and R2 statistics).   Therefore, the effect of nature involvement on well-being (i.e., netPA and elevation) was not dependent upon level of engagement with beauty.Moderation 3a and 3b – dosage as moderator.  Dosage was measured by the number ofphotos that each participant submitted that were relevant to the experimental condition to which the participant had been randomly assigned.  Regression analysis was used to predict netPA and elevation by experimental condition (i.e., nature vs. built), dosage (i.e., number of relevant photos taken), and their interaction.  In the prediction of netPA (using pre-study netPA as a covariable), the overall equation was significant F(4, 193) = 28.94, p < .001.  Experimental condition was a significant predictor of netPA (p = .001), but neither dosage (p = .724) or its interaction term with condition (p = .129) were significant predictors of netPA (see Table 21 for regression coefficients and R2 statistics).  In the prediction of elevation, the overall equation was significant F(3, 213) = 5.98, p = .001, but neither dosage (p = .312) or its interaction term with condition (p = .064) were significant predictors of elevation (see Table 22 for regression coefficients and R2 statistics).  Therefore, the effect of nature involvement on well-being (i.e., netPA and elevation) was not dependent upon the number of condition-relevant photos that participants took.To summarize, no moderation effects on well-being were evident (see Figure 5).  That is, the significant effects of noticing nature on net-positive affect and elevation did not appear to be dependent on participants' levels of connectedness to nature, engagement with beauty, or the 47number of condition-relevant photographs that participants took.Findings Related to Photos and Time in SettingFor each photo submitted, participants reported the amount of time they had spent in the setting taking the photograph.  In light of the findings reported above regarding the significantly higher levels of well-being and prosocial behaviour in the nature group compared to the built group, the amount of time spent “in setting” reported by the nature participants was examined.  For the majority of the photos submitted by this group (61%), participants reported spending only 5-15 minutes in the nature setting, while for only 20% of the photos did participants report spending over 30 minutes in the nature setting.  For the remaining 19% of the photos, participants in the nature group reported spending 15-30 minutes in setting (see Figure 6).After the two-week study period, all participants were asked to estimate the amount of time they had spent in nature over the past two weeks.  Results of an ANOVA with post-hoc analyses revealed no significant differences between the three groups (time reported in hours; nature: M = 8.48, SD = 8.07; built: M = 11.15, SD = 12.07; control: M = 9.19, SD = 9.58) ps >.05 (see Table 23).  Thus, it does not appear that participants in the nature condition spent more time in nature over the course of the two weeks than did participants in either the built or control conditions.At the end of the study, participants in the nature and built groups were asked to think about how the objects/scenes they had photographed generally made them feel.  With that feelingin mind, they were then asked to rate how much time they would like to spend in those settings, or surrounded by those objects, in an ideal future.  Response choices ranged from 1= less time to 4 = a great deal of time.  A chi-square analysis revealed that there was a significant association 48between experimental condition and response χ2(3) = 70.39, p < .001, ν = .56 (a large effect size).Compared to participants in the built group, participants in the nature group were nearly twice as likely to want to spend more, rather than less, time in their “assigned” setting (RR = 1.96, z = 3.68, p < .001, 95% CI[1.37, 2.82]; participants in the nature group were more than 3 times as likely to want to spend a great deal more, rather than less, time in their “assigned” setting compared to the built group (RR = 3.39, z = 3.52, p < .001, 95%CI[1.72, 6.68].  Examination of the standardized residuals in the contingency table revealed a diametrically opposed pattern of preferences between the two groups (see Table 24 and Figure 7).  Participants in the built condition were significantly more likely to want to spend less (z = 2.6), rather than more (z = -3.3) or a great deal more (z = -2.7), time in their “photo” setting (i.e., a built environment), while participants in the nature condition were significantly more likely to want to spend more (z= 3.2), or a great deal more (z = 2.7), time, rather than less (z = -2.5), time in their photo setting (i.e., a natural environment).49Chapter 6: Qualitative FindingsParticipants 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 scene/object 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“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.”or“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 theflower just gave me a renewed sense of energy for the day.”Many descriptions contained more than one theme; each description was, therefore, classified and counted in more than one theme.  Thus, the total number of responses upon which analyses were conducted was 3,516.  Responses were first coded on overall valence: positive, negative, or mixed.  For example, a response such as “scared, yet hopeful” would be classified asmixed.  A response such as “fresh, happy, relaxed” was classified as positive, while a response such as “The cluttered board made me feel overwhelmed and stressed” was coded as negative.The majority (71.4%) of photos were associated with purely positive emotions.  This is consistent with the aggregate mean score of net-positive affect (see Table 3) being approximatelyone standard deviation above neutral.  Photo type (built versus nature) had a significant impact on emotional valence χ2(2) = 91.30, p < .001, V = .20 (a small effect size).  Examination of the contingency table (see Table 25) revealed that nature photos were significantly more likely to be associated with positive emotions (z = 3.3) than were built photos (z = -3.7).  Nature photos were50also significantly less likely to be associated with negative emotions (z = -5.2) than were built photos (z = 5.9).  For example, nature photos were 1.25 times as likely as were built photos to be associated with positive emotions (RR = 1.25, z = 8.68, p < .001, 95%CI [1.19, 1.30]; while builtphotos were over twice as likely as were nature photos to be associated with negative emotions (RR = 2.09, z = 9.03, p < .001, 95%CI [1.78, 2.45].  These findings are in line with quantitative results demonstrating that participants' post-intervention netPA was significantly higher in the nature condition compared to the built and control condition.  There was not a significant association between photo type (built versus nature) and mixed valence emotions (zs = 1.7, 1.5).Responses were then coded for emotional themes; 16 positive and 14 negative themes emerged (see Tables 26 and 27).  There was a significant association between photo type (built versus nature) and emotional theme χ2(28) = 434.01, p < .001, V = .35 (a medium effect size).  Examination of the contingency table (see Tables 28-31) revealed that nature photos were significantly more likely to be associated with feeling awe (z = 3.6), free (z = 2.2), hopeful (z = 2.7), peaceful (z = 4.8), and rejuvenated (z = 4.0), than were built photo.  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.”“Made me feel hopeful, the Sun never stops rising. Corny I know.”“I felt truly alive. Whereas the sky is mostly grey, there is a stream of sunlight. It makes me think that there will always be a way out to overcome an obstacle even though it may seem impossible.”“It made me feel free because the sky is endless.”Built photos were significantly more likely to be associated with feeling fashionable (z = 3.0), safe (z = 5.8), proud (z = 2.2), confused (z = 2.3), disgusted (z = 2.0), envious (z = 2.9), 51stressed (z = 6.4), fatigued (z = 3.2), guilty (z = 2.0); and annoyed (z = 5.2) than were nature photos.  Additionally, built photos were significantly less likely to be associated with feeling upbeat (z = -2.1) than were nature photos.  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 afriend who is a cabinetmaker), and happy. It also makes me feel cosy & at home, and warm and secure. I love (!) books!!!”“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 moreto add when others are so underprivileged. I felt pity for those who are less fortunate.”Compared to built photos, nature photos were 1.40 as likely to be associated with feeling peaceful than annoyed (RR = 1.40, z = 6.66, p < .001, 95%CI [1.27, 1.55]), 1.50 times as likely to be associated with feelings of awe than envy (RR = 1.50, z = 3.14, p < .01, 95%CI [1.16, 1.93], 3.08 times as likely to be associated with feeling rejuvenated than fatigued (RR  = 3.08, z = 5.71, p < .001, 95%CI [2.09, 4.52]), and 6.32 times as likely to be associated with feeling hopeful than stressed (RR = 6.32, z = 6.34, p < .001, 95%CI [3.58, 11.18]).  (See Figures 8 and 9 for wordcloud graphics illustrating the differential prevalence of emotional themes associated with photos in the built versus nature condition.)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 scene or object, rather than an emotion evoked directly by the built scene or object 52itself.  For example, “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 thesegood 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 happenedand 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 scene or natural object.  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 built condition, a memory, activity, or function that the individual associated with the scene/object.At the end of the post-intervention measures, participants in the built and nature 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.  Remarks such as the following were common:“It's good to notice the things around you and think deeply regarding them. It's interesting in finding out how some things make me feel more connected to parts of myself.”53“Taking the time to look around at your surrounding a couple minutes each day opens your eyes and gives you a new perspective.”“I learned that the settings can change the way I feel.”“Yes, I did. I didn't realize how much a simple object could make you feel differently and change your mood.”As noted earlier, many participants in the built condition took photos of nature; this held true in the post-intervention comments.  Nature was mentioned by one-third of the participants inthe 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 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 ifI 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 amuch more complete feeling.”“Yes. I learnt that I much prefer nature and how it makes me feel than human builtobjects.”Post-intervention comments from participants in the nature condition, who had indicated that they had learned something from the study, expressed two main sentiments.  One common 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 54reinforced during being in the nature environment.”The other common 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 toit 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 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.”Human beings are, as positive psychologist Todd Kashdan (2010) is fond of saying, “infinitely messy, complex, bizarre and damn interesting”.  Participant responses reflected this complexity.  Given the breadth of emotional reactions reflected in participants' descriptions associated with the photos they took and submitted, a more in-depth qualitative analysis is warranted.  Although out of scope for this thesis, a thorough qualitative analysis could enrich ourunderstanding of the beneficial effects of nature, by providing insights into the emotionally nuanced reactions evoked in participants in both the built and nature conditions.It could also be beneficial, although again outside the scope of this thesis, to further examine the post-intervention responses that many participants, regardless of condition, providedregarding the beneficial impact which the study activity itself had—that of being more aware of one's specific emotions.  Participants noted how it made them reflect, and think about how they were feeling, and what they were thinking about.  As one participant noted:55“I learned to name the feeling, get it in my consciousness.  Before I would feel something but I have never stopped and thought, wait a minute, this is making mefeel this or that.  Thank you so much for the opportunity.”Previous research has demonstrated that, compared to individuals who rely on global emotional descriptions, individuals who are better able to identify and differentiate between nuanced states of both positive and negative emotions exhibit greater resiliency and more effective coping behaviours when faced with difficult emotional situations (Kashdan, Ferssizidis,Collins, & Muraven, 2010), in addition to exhibiting more effective emotional regulation (Barrett, Gross, Christensen, & Benvenuto, 2001).56Chapter 7: DiscussionThe present research instructed participants to take notice of how natural or built objects/scenes made them feel emotionally, and then to photograph those objects/scenes.  A control condition was utilized akin to a waiting list.  Taking noticing of nature throughout a two-week period had beneficial individual and social effects compared to taking notice of built environments, and compared to the control condition.  With regard to individual effects, as predicted, noticing nature over a 2-week period, boosted well-being.  Compared to participants inthe built and control conditions, post-intervention measurements of net-positive affect and elevation were higher for participants in the nature condition.  Effect sizes on well-being of noticing nature were larger (ds from 0.38 to 0.49) than the average effect size of positive psychology interventions on well-being (ds from 0.20 to 0.34; Bolier et al., 2013).  Moreover, results indicated that noticing nature significantly increased well-being, regardless of trait levels of connectedness to nature, regardless of trait levels of engagement with beauty, and regardless of “dosage” (i.e., the number of photographs taken).The post-hoc power analysis for dosage as a moderator of the relationship between condition and netPA, revealed a power of .756; thus, it is unlikely that even with a larger sample size, dosage would be revealed as significantly moderating the effect of exposure to nature on netPA.  Post-hoc power analyses did, though, reveal low power to detect a moderating effect of either connectedness to nature or engagement with beauty (between .070 and .371).  It is possiblethat with a larger sample size, significant interactions would emerge.  I speculate, however, that even with a large sample size, the possible moderating effects of connectedness to nature and/or engagement with beauty on the relationship between exposure to nature and well-being would 57remain non-significant.  A number of large-scale population-based studies (including an experiencing sampling study of over 20,000 individuals and a longitudinal study with over 10,000 individuals) have evidenced that people are, quite simply, happier when they are near nature (de Vries, Verheij, Groenewegan, & Spreeuwenberg, 2003; Maas et al., 2009; MacKerron & Mourato, 2013; Van den Berg, Maas, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2010; White, Alcock, Wheeler,& Depledge, 2013).  It is likely that a range of levels of connectedness with nature (CNS) and engagement with beauty (EWB) are evident in such large populations; thus, it is unlikely that either of these traits would moderate nature's effect on well-being to such a degree as to render exposure to nature only beneficial to those high in CNS or EWB.Qualitative results supported the quantitative findings; a variety of emotional themes emerged that were differentially evoked by nature versus built scenes and objects.  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 built photos.Results showed that the benefits of noticing nature extended beyond individual well-being.  As predicted, noticing nature over the course of a two-week period boosted general connectedness and prosocial behaviour.  Post-intervention measurements of general connectedness and prosocial behaviour were higher for participants who paid increased attention to the nature around them compared to participants who paid increased attention to the built objects around them (ds = 0.24, 0.33), and compared to participants in the control condition (ds =0.37, 0.22).58Given that previous research has linked nature with higher meaning in life, it was expected that, compared to participants in the built and control conditions, participants in the nature condition would report higher levels of post-intervention levels of meaning.  Contrary to this prediction, post-intervention levels of meaning did not differ between the three conditions.  This could be due to a combination of the measure of meaning used and the instructions that all participants received.  The measure of meaning used in the current study (Sense of Meaning; Huta & Ryan, 2010) asked students to assess the degree to which they felt that their activities over the past two weeks (that is, the study period) were, for example, meaningful, valuable, and full of significance.  This is in contrast to a traditional measure of meaning in life, which directly assesses the degree to which individuals feel that their life is meaningful.  Such measures (e.g., Meaning in Life Questionnaire, Steger et al., 2006) ask participants to rate the degree to which they agree with statements such as, “My life has a clear sense of purpose” and “I understand my life's meaning”.In order to encourage students to take their participation in the current research study seriously and to complete the requirements of the study, steps were taken to emphasize that participation in any psychology research study is meaningful, regardless of the condition they areassigned to or the activity that researchers ask them to engage in.  As noted in the introduction, an essential aspect of meaning in life is feeling that one is part of larger, functioning system.  Theemphasis that the researcher placed on the importance of participants' involvement in research situated this involvement within the broader context of scientific research as a discipline and reframed participation in research as an important, and meaningful, action within a larger contextbeyond receiving individual course credits.  Thus, when answering the post-intervention 59questions regarding meaning, participants may have been unduly swayed, and they may have answered the items with respect to their participation in this study, and other research studies, which they were engaged in over the previous two-weeks.  Given that results of a previous nature-intervention study (Passmore & Howell, 2014b) demonstrated an effect size of d = 0.37 ofnature on meaning, further experimental studies are needed to assesses the impact of nature involvement on this important dimension of well-being.It was also expected that post-intervention levels of materialism would be higher in the nature condition compared to the built and control conditions.  Results of extant correlational research examining the relationship between nature involvement and general materialistic values,although sparse, suggest that a significant difference should have been found between the nature condition and the built and control conditions.  It is unclear why levels of materialism did not differ between the three conditions as predicted.  It may be that materialism, conceptualized as a character trait, is not amenable to change over a short period of time (Achenreiner, 1997).  Moreover, we live in a highly materialistic society in which we are bombarded with commercial messages promoting the “necessity” of owning the latest version and most fashionable brand of goods, from cell phones to vehicles to electric toothbrushes.  University students may be particularly susceptible to “buying in to” these messages.  Not only does this demographic group spend large amounts of time on the internet exposed to these messages, but, as students, money (or the shortage thereof) is often of real concern.  Previous research has demonstrated that, under such conditions, materialistic values become more prominent in individuals (see Kasser, 2002).Endorsement of materialistic values has been linked to lower presence of, and higher search for, meaning in life (Kashdan & Breen, 2007; Kasser, 2002; Passmore et al., 2014).  It is 60interesting to note that, in the current study, levels of both meaning and materialism were consistent across the three condition groups of nature, built, and control; that is, no significant differences emerged between the groups on materialism or meaning.  Consistent with previous research, materialistic values in the current study were negatively correlated with trait levels of connectedness to nature, which, like meaning and materialism, also did not differ significantly between the three conditions.  Further experimental research is necessary to determine if nature involvement can indeed reduce endorsement of materialistic values.Lastly, hypotheses regarding mediation pathways to account for the patterning of bivariate relationships between the variables of nature involvement, general connectedness, prosocial behaviour, materialism, and well-being were not supported.  It is important to note, however, that post-hoc power analyses revealed low power (between .052 and .332) to detect a significant a mediation effect.  It is possible, and I speculate, likely, that with a larger sample size, significant mediations would emerge.  A number of theoretical positions coupled with empirical evidence, noted previously, support the hypotheses that the positive relationship between nature and prosocial behaviour would be mediated by increased feelings of well-being and COSC, and by a reduced emphasis onmaterialistic values.  For example, given theory proposing that happy people have more energy and are better able to engage in prosocial acts (Konow & Earley, 2008; Wang & Graddy, 2008), and empirical evidence from two experiments demonstrating that positive affect mediated the relationship the relationship between exposure to nature and prosocial behaviour (Zhang, Piff, et al., 2014), it is surprising that this mediated pathway did not emerge as significant in the current study.  A behavioural-based measure of prosocial behaviour, such as used in the Zhang, Piff, et 61al. study, coupled with a larger sample size, may yield more fruitful results.The prediction that an increased sense of connectedness to others would mediate the positive relationship between nature and prosocial behaviour was based on both theory and empirical evidence.  This included, as noted previously, theory proposed by Pavey et al. (2011), regarding the importance of relatedness to promoting prosocial behaviour, and theory proposed by Passmore and Howell (2014a) regarding nature's role in reducing our existential isolation from others.  Empirical evidence upon which this mediation hypothesis was based included experimental studies evidencing that increasing participants' feelings of connectedness to others led to an increase in their prosocial behaviour (Pavey et al., 2011), that priming participants with images and ideas relating to nature increased an interdependent self-construal (Milfont et al., 2011), and upon both correlational and experimental evidence demonstrating that exposure to nature led people to engage in more prosocial behaviour (e.g., Guéguen & Stegan, 2014; Kuo, 2003, Weinstein et al., 2009; Zelenski et al., 2015; Zhang, Piff, et al., 2014).  In the current study,the participants in the nature condition did evidence higher levels of both connectedness to othersand prosocial behaviour; therefore, it is unclear why the predicted mediation pathway did not emerge as significant.  Low power, coupled with a self-report (as opposed to a behavioural) measure of prosocial behaviour may explain this non-significant finding.Although value models (e.g., Grouzet et al., 2005; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004) position materialistic values and values relating to nature in opposition to each other, this pattern did not appear in the current research.  Nature did not predict a decrease in materialism.  It is perhaps, then, not surprising that materialism did not emerge as a significant mediator of the relationship between nature and prosocial behaviour; albeit, consistent with extant literature, a significant 62negative correlation did emerge between materialism and prosocial behaviour.A sense of connectedness with others was expected to mediate the relationship between nature and well-being.  Previous research has demonstrated that one aspect of connectedness (i.e., connectedness to nature) mediated the nature–well-being pathway (Mayer et al., 2009), and a large body of work has demonstrated that our psychological and emotional well-being depends on our sense of connectedness to other people (see Kasser, 2002).  In the current study, however, although COSC was significantly correlated with both hedonic (netPA) and eudaimonic (elevating feelings and sense of meaning) aspects of well-being, COSC did not emerge as a significant mediator of the positive relationship between nature and any of these aspects of well-being.  Low power may have contributed to this non-significant finding.  Additional research using sample sizes sufficient to yield significant mediation effects are required to more adequately test this mediation hypothesis.Limitations of the Current StudyLimitations of the current study should be considered.  The sample was restricted to Canadian 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 nature with non-student samples (e.g., Berman et al., 2012; Guéguen & Stefan, 2014).  Thus, there are strong indications that the current study's findings are likely to generalize to non-undergraduate samples.Measures assessing a broader range of aspects of well-being could have been utilized, 63such as Keye's (2005) comprehensive measure of emotional, psychological, and social well-being, and a more traditional, and widely-used, measure of meaning in life could have been utilized (e.g., Steger et al.'s (2006) Meaning in Life Questionnaire).  Additionally, the composite measure of prosocial behaviour relied on self-report.  Nonetheless, measures used in the current study were valid assessments of the beneficial individual and social effects of involvement with nature, and were specifically chosen 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.The current study used a composite measure to assess general connectedness orientation. This is a common approach by researchers (e.g., Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014), given that no single measure currently exists which assesses the multidimensionality of a connectedness orientation within a unifying framework.  The development of a single scale which provides a comprehensive appraisal of an individual's sense of connectedness across dimensions would increase efficiency in future research, and may provide greater insight into the patterning of the bivariate relationships between involvement with nature, well-being, a general connectedness orientation, and prosocial behaviour.Lastly, a larger sample size would have provided more power to detect possible significant mediation pathways and/or moderating effects on the relationship between noticing nearby nature and well-being/prosocial behaviour.  Nonetheless, the current sample size did provide sufficient power to detect significant main effects.Implications of the Current StudyResults of the current study are important in evidencing that noticing nature has 64beneficial individual and social effects via increasing levels of well-being, general connectedness, and prosocial behaviour.  It is interesting to note that the beneficial effects of nature demonstrated in this study resulted from participants, for the most part, spending a relatively small of amount of time actively involved in the intervention (i.e., taking nature photographs).  For the majority of the photos submitted by the nature group, participants reportedspending less than 15 minutes in the photo setting.  Furthermore, participants in the nature condition did not report spending more time in natural settings over the course of the two-week intervention period than did other participants; they simply noticed, and attended to, the nature which they encountered.Results of this study are also important because they are consistent with and support previous research findings.  For example, participants were significantly more likely to associate feelings of hope and awe with nature objects/scenes than with built objects/scenes.  This in line with Passmore, Howell, and Holder's (2015) findings that viewing a nature slideshow increased the spiritual aspect of hope compared to viewing an urban slideshow.  These results replicate previous findings (with the exception of meaning) pertaining to a two-week nature intervention study (Passmore & Howell, 2014b).  In both the previous and current study, exposure to nearby/everyday nature significantly increased net-positive affect and elevation, and did so regardless of the degree to which participants felt connected to nature.  In both studies, effect sizes on well-being were larger than the average effect sizes of positive psychology interventions(Bolier et al., 2013).  The current study's findings regarding the beneficial social effects of involvement with nature support previous findings based on similar measures of prosocial orientation (e.g., Weinstein et al., 2009; Zelenski et al., 2015).65Additionally, the current study replicates and supports previous research findings in otheressential ways.  Well-being was demonstrated to increase as a result of a simple two-week natureintervention involving nearby/everyday nature in both the current study and in the Passmore and Howell (2014b) study.  This corroborates Walsh's (2011) position regarding the importance of therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLCs), such as increased involvement with nature, to foster individual and social well-being.Both the current study and a previous two-week nature intervention study (Passmore & Howell, 2014b), demonstrated the intrinsic appeal that natural objects and spending time in nature seems to have for most people.  In the current study, this was demonstrated in three ways. Firstly, as noted in the qualitative findings, remarks that accompanied the nature photos tended todescribe emotional reactions evoked directly by the natural object or scene, whereas remarks accompanying the built photos tended to describe an emotional reaction to a memory, activity, or function associated with the built object or scene rather than an emotion inherently evoked by thebuilt object itself.  Secondly, participants in the nature condition reported wanting to spend more,or even a great deal more, time in nature, while participants in the built condition reported wanting to spend less time in built environments.  Thirdly, although participants in the built condition were clearly, and repeatedly, instructed to take photos of human-built scenes and objects, the majority of participants in the built condition submitted at least one photo of a naturescene or object that had evoked strong emotion in them.Additionally, participants' written responses support and bolster the notion that people areinherently drawn to nature.  The qualitative findings, based on post-intervention comments, demonstrated that many participants in the built condition expressed their affinity for nature and 66their difficulty in connecting emotionally with a built environment.  It appears that the “call of the wild”, or in this case, the call of everyday nature, is strong.  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).This study also has practical implications for urban planners whose focus is on salutogenic design (i.e., intentionally incorporating elements that promote well-being; see Crawford & Holder, 2014).  Results of this study suggest that individual and social well-being would be enhanced if layouts of neighbourhoods and cities were such that people frequently encountered nature in their daily lives and travels.  Findings may also inform governments about the importance of funding green spaces in urban areas.Future Research DirectionsA growing body of research findings indicate that involvement with nature affords us the opportunity to be more fully flourishing human beings—individually and collectively.  Research,including the current study, contributes to validating the effectiveness of exposure to nature as a simple, inherently enjoyable way to promote individual and social well-being.  Indeed, an increasing number of counseling 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; Milton, 2009; Rollins, 2009).  Therefore, continued and expanded research in this area is of vital importance to ensure that counselling practices incorporating nature are evidence-based and as 67effective as possible.  To that end, additional experimental studies are needed to examine the long-term effects of ongoing nature involvement on well-being.  For example, studies conducted over a course of four weeks with community samples of adults, with follow-up assessments at 8 and 12 weeks, 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.In particular, additional research conducted within a therapy setting is needed, as is research exploring the mechanisms by which nature involvement may increase well-being for individuals suffering from disorders such as depression or social anxiety.  For example, depression (along with other disorders) is characterized by self-focused attention (Ingram, 1990).As suggested by Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and Berman et al.'s (2012) study involving individuals with major depressive disorder, nature involvement may help to awaken dormant senses, and shift attention out into the world again in asubtle, and non-threatening manner.  Nature may help to remind, and affirm for people, “how beautiful the world really is” (Participant N087).  Previous research (Mayer et al., 2009) has also demonstrated that exposure to nature significantly reduces public self-awareness; therefore, extending this line of research to those suffering from social anxiety is warranted, given that theory (e.g., Self-Awareness Theory, Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Public Self-Consciousness Theory, Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) and research literature (Leary & Kowalski, 1995) suggests reducing public self-awareness eases social anxiety.  68Successful therapy is predicated upon a client's willingness to explore and share their inner feelings and experiences.  Mayer et al. (2009) speculated that decreased public self-focus following exposure to nature led individuals to feel an increased sense of freedom to report how they truly felt; moreover, they showed that exposure to nature also increased levels of private self-awareness.  Thus, research examining how nature involvement can contribute to successful therapy is warranted.As Zhang, Howell, and Iyer (2014) noted, further research is needed examining possible moderators of the beneficial effects of nature, for example, personality characteristics such as openness and introversion.  Further experimental research should explore the prosocial benefits of nature involvement in greater depth.  Longer-term studies, with follow-up assessments, are needed to determine how long the prosocial effects (i.e., increases in generosity, kindness, and orhelping behaviours) are maintained after exposure to nature.The current study's methodology of photographing objects and scenes was a way to increase mindfulness of one's surroundings.  Mindfulness Theory, as described by Brown, Ryan, and Creswell (2007), outlines how a heightened state of mindfulness—awareness and attention to the present moment and surroundings—can enhance one's well-being.  Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) suggests that heightened fascination with naturalenvironments may also restore well-being.  Previous research based on these theories has reported an association between nature connectedness and mindfulness (Howell et al., 2011), as well as a moderating effect of fascination on the relationship between nature involvement and positive affect (Sato & Connor, 2013).  Therefore, research is warranted examining possible moderating effects of trait mindfulness and level of fascination in relation to the beneficial 69individual and social effects demonstrated in the current study.  Experimental studies could also manipulate state mindfulness prior to nature involvement, for example, by incorporating a brief mindfulness meditation exercise prior to nature involvement for one group, but not for a control group.  Differential effects on well-being, general connectedness, and prosocial behaviour could then be assessed.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, general connectedness, and prosocial behaviour.  As one participant wrote in response to the question “did you learn anything from this study?”:“Our world is something to be very grateful [for] and [we are] blessed to live in [it].  There are amazing things that still need to be discovered and cherished more!” 70Table 1Descriptive statistics for all variables by conditionMeasure Control Built NatureN M SD N M SD N M SDpre-study netPA* 125 11.54 8.90 107 11.86 8.30 111 12.10 6.41SOS 115 64.03 17.56 104 64.16 17.66 107 66.34 16.34SE 127 30.30 5.02 107 31.16 4.34 118 30.61 4.40netPA* 122 08.52 10.15 96 08.88 8.42 110 12.32 8.51Elevation 127 35.12 12.79 103 34.06 11.45 114 39.92 12.22Meaning 130 46.26 15.98 102 46.99 13.94 116 48.00 14.77COSC 116 -03.37 15.77 102 -01.03 13.68 105 02.55 16.13PSB 124 00.02 1.61 100 -00.15 1.56 114 00.35 1.44MVS 131 35.64 10.83 105 35.06 11.69 119 34.93 10.24CNS 117 45.81 8.13 101 46.77 6.48 105 47.23 6.31EWB 127 37.22 8.07 103 36.96 7.75 114 39.01 6.77* Due to a technical error, scores from 2 items in the PANAS (one Positive and one Negative affect) were deleted from the data.netPA = net Positive Affect; SOS = Stress Overload Scale; SE = Self-Esteem; COSC = Connectedness Oriented Self Construal; PSB = Prosocial Behaviour; MVS = Material Values Scale; CNS = Connectedness to Nature Scale; EWB = Engagement with Beauty71Table 2Skew, kurtosis and Shapiro-Wilk statistics for all variables by conditionMeasure Control Built NatureN skew kurtosis S-W N skew kurtosis S-W N skew kurtosis S-Wpre-study netPA* 125 -0.20 -0.23 .99, p = .55 107 -0.16 -0.21 .99, p = .78 111 0.06 -0.33 .98, p = .22SOS 115 0.16 -0.31 .98. p = 19 104 0.44 -0.50 .97, p = .03 107 0.08 -0.49 .99, p = .56SE 127 -0.25 -0.12 .99, p = .21 107 -0.18 -0.37 .99, p = .29 118 0.18 -0.89 .97, p = .01netPA* 122 0.07 -0.54 .99, p =.40 96 -0.03 -0.44 .99, p = .57 110 -0.31 -0.04 .98, p = .18Elevation 127 0.33 -0.47 .98, p =.08 103 0.31 -0.59 .98, p =.09 114 0.01 -0.56 .99, p =.56Meaning 130 0.10 -0.51 .99, p =.44 102 -0.03 -0.31 .99, p =.49 116 -0.15 -0.54 .98, p =.18COSC 116 0.02 -0.28 .99, p =.88 102 -0.24 -0.06 .99, p =.45 105 -0.18 -0.26 .99, p =.79PSB 124 -0.01 -0.28 .99, p = .80 100 -0.23 -0.32 .99, p, = .64 114 -0.25 -0.09 .99, p = .40MVS 131 0.01 -0.38 .99, p =.43 105 0.25 -0.06 .99, p =.27 119 -0.04 -0.08 .99, p =.90CNS 117 0.20 -0.04 .99, p =.36 101 -0.01 0.19 .99, p =.52 105 -0.11 0.10 .99, p =.71EWB 127 -0.08 -0.59 .99, p =.23 103 -0.30 -0.16 .98, p =.18 114 -0.18 -0.36 .99, p =.50* Due to a technical error, scores from 2 items in the PANAS (one Positive and one Negative affect) were deleted from the data.S-W = Shapiro-WilknetPA = net Positive Affect; SOS = Stress Overload Scale; SE = Self-Esteem; COSC = Connectedness Oriented Self Construal; PSB = Prosocial Behaviour; MVS = Material Values Scale; CNS = Connectedness to Nature Scale; EWB = Engagement with Beauty72Table 3Descriptive statistics for all variables (aggregate data)Measure N M SD α min. max.pre-study netPA* 343 11.82 7.96 .72 -12.00 33.00SOS 326 64.83 17.18 .94 25.00 113.00SE 352 30.66 4.62 .88 16.00 40.00netPA* 333 9.66 9.74 .76 -22.00 35.00Elevation 344 36.39 12.43 .92 10.00 70.00Meaning 348 47.05 14.98 .95 12.00 84.00COSC 323 -0.71 15.42 .92 -38.86 44.81PSB 338 0.08 1.55 .79 -3.87 3.85MVS 355 35.23 10.88 .77 9.00 63.00CNS 323 46.57 7.08 .85 27.00 67.00EWB 344 37.74 7.59 .86 17.00 55.00* Due to a technical error, scores from 2 items in the PANAS (one Positive and one Negative affect) were deleted from the data.SOS = Stress Overload Scale; SE = Self-Esteem; netPA = net Positive Affect; SCS = Self-Construal Scale; MPS = Metapersonal Self; AIS = Allo-Inclusive Identity Scale; COSC = Connectedness Oriented Self Construal; SVO = Social Values Orientation; AI = Aspirations Index; PSB = Prosocial Behaviour; MVS = Material Values Scale; CNS = Connectedness to Nature Scale; EWB = Engagement with Beauty73Table 4Test statistics for homogeneity of varianceMeasure Levene's test statistic, p valuepre-study netPA* F (2, 340) = 6.74, p = .00SOS F (2, 323) = 0.36, p = .70SE F (2, 349) = 1.40, p = .25netPA* F (2, 325) = 2.78, p = .06Elevation F (2, 341) = 0.40, p = .67Meaning F (2, 345) = 1.39, p = .25COSC F (2, 320) = 2.06, p = .13PSB F (2, 335) = 0.80, p = .45MVS F (2, 352) = 0.74, p = .48CNS F (2, 320) = 4.86, p = .01EWB F (2, 341) = 3.07, p = .05* Due to a technical error, scores from 2 items in the PANAS (one Positive and one Negative affect) were deleted from the data.SOS = Stress Overload Scale; SE = Self-Esteem; netPA = net Positive Affect; SCS = Self-Construal Scale; MPS = Metapersonal Self; AIS = Allo-Inclusive Identity Scale; COSC = Connectedness Oriented Self Construal; SVO = Social Values Orientation; AI = Aspirations Index; PSB = Prosocial Behaviour; MVS = Material Values Scale; CNS = Connectedness to Nature Scale; EWB = Engagement with Beauty74Table 5Correlations between variables (aggregate data)Variable pre-studynetPA SOS SE netPA Elevation Meaning COSC PSB MVS CNSpre-study netPA* -SOS -.56** -SE .60** -.52** -netPA* .64** -.40** .49** -Elevation .28** -.08 .25** .45** -Meaning .38** -.12* .35** .46** .73** -COSC .21** -.04 .12* .26** .45** .43** -PSB -.03 .11 -.09 .03 .15** .09 .15** -MVS -.06 .06 -.03 -.08 -.06 .02 -.06 -.53** -CNS .14* -.04 .00 .12* .31** .27** .74** .32** -.14* -EWB .11* .06 -.08 .19** .38** .29** .49** .31** -.10 .45*netPA = net Positive Affect; SOS = Stress Overload Scale; SE = Self-Esteem; COSC = Connectedness Oriented Self Construal; PSB = Prosocial Behaviour; MVS = Material Values Scale; CNS = Connectedness to Nature Scale; EWB = Engagement with Beauty* p < .05; **p < .0175Table 6ANOVA and post-hoc analyses for differences between groups on pre-intervention measuresLevene F Post-hocNature-Built Nature-Control Built-Controlpre-study netPA F(2, 340) = 6.74, p = 001 F(2, 222.42) = .15, p = .8581 p = .969d = 0.03p = .845d = 0.07p = .958d = 0.04SOS F(2, 323) = 0.36, p = .700 F(2, 323) = 0.61, p = .543 p = .624d = 0.13p = .570d = 0.14p = .998d = 0.01SE F(2, 349) = 1.40, p = .247 F(2, 349) = 1.02, p = .362 p = .615d = 0.13p = .863d = 0.07p = .340d = 0.18netPA = net Positive Affect; SOS = Stress Overload Scale; SE = Self-Esteem1 Levene's test statistic was significant, therefore Welch's F statistic is reported.76Table 7ANCOVA /ANOVA and post-hoc analyses for Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, & 4: differences between groups on post-intervention measuresLevene F ηp2 Post-hocNature-Built Nature-Control Built-ControlnetPA1 F(2, 282) = 0.15, p = .859 F(2, 279) = 8.38, p < .001 .06 p = .002d = 0.41p = .001d = 0.41p = 1.000d = 0.04netPA2 F(2, 310) = 0.31, p = .73 F(2, 309) = 9.27, p < .001 .06 p = .002 p < .001 p = 1.000Elevation F(2, 341) = 0.41, p = .668 F(2, 341) = 7.34, p = .001 .04 p = .001d = 0.49p = .009d = 0.38p = .785d = 0.09Meaning3 F(2, 334) = .64, p = .527 F(2, 333) = 0.37, p = .691 .00 p = 1.000d = 0.07p = 1.000d = 0.11p = 1.000d = 0.05Meaning F(2, 345) = 1.39, p = .25 F(2, 345) = 0.41, p = .662 .00 p = .862 p = .649 p = .927COSC F(2, 320) = 2.06, p = .129 F(2, 320) = 4.18, p = .016 .03 p = .199d = 0.24p = .017d = 0.37p = .470d = 0.16PSB F(2, 335) = 0.80, p = .449 F(2, 335) = 2.96, p = .053 .02 p = .042d = 0.33p = .222d = 0.22p = .700d = 0.11MVS F(2, 352) = 0.74, p = .477 F(2, 352) = 0.15, p = .860 .00 p = .996d = 0.01p = .856d = 0.07p =.918d = 0.05netPA = net Positive Affect; COSC = Connectedness Oriented Self Construal; PSB = Prosocial Behaviour; MVS = Material Values Scale; 1 Stress, self-esteem, and pre-intervention netPA were used as covariables2 netPA as used as a covariable3 Self-esteem was used as a covariable77Table 8Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5ai: netPA as a mediator of the relationship between nature and prosocial behaviourConsequentM (netPA) Y (prosocial behaviour)Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE pX (nature) a 3.54 1.25 .005 c' 0.50 0.22 .025M (netPA) - - - b 0.00 0.01 .873Constant i1 1.87 3.22 .562 i2 -1.14 0.56 .045R2 = .04, F(1, 189) = 8.09, p = .005 R2 = .03, F(2, 188) = 2.76, p = .066for pathway a for pathway c'Total effect c:          0.51, p = .020Direct effect c':       0.50, p = .025Indirect effect ab:   0.01, 95% CI[-0.08, 0.11], K2 = .00, 95% CI[.00, .01]Standardized β coefficients:     a = 0.20*  |  b = 0.01     Total effect c = 0.16*     Direct effect c' = 0.16*     Indirect effect ab = 0.00Post-hoc power analysis to detect mediation effect:  power = .053netPA = net Positive Affectβ coefficients in table are unstandardized*p < .0578Table 9Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5aii: Elevation as a mediator of the relationship between nature and prosocial behaviourConsequentM (elevation) Y (prosocial behaviour)Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE pX (nature) a 6.80 1.65 < .001 c' 0.52 0.22 .018M (elevation) - - - b 0.01 0.01 .333Constant i1 19.88 4.26 < .001 i2 -1.49 0.57 .009R2 = .08, F(1, 201) = 16.94, p < .001 R2 = .04, F(2, 200) = 4.28, p = .015for pathway a for pathway c'Total effect c:          0.58, p = .006Direct effect c':       0.52, p = .018Indirect effect ab:   0.06, 95% CI[-0.05, 0.20], K2 = .02, 95% CI[.00, .06]Standardized β coefficients:     a = 0.24*  |  b = 0.07     Total effect c = 0.19*     Direct effect c' = 0.17*     Indirect effect ab = 0.02Post-hoc power analysis to detect mediation effect:  power = .174β coefficients in table are unstandardized*p < .0579Table 10Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5aiii: Meaning as a mediator of the relationship between nature and prosocial behaviourConsequentM (meaning) Y (prosocial behaviour)Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE pX (nature) a 2.11 2.04 .302 c' 0.55 0.21 .010M (meaning) - - - b 0.00 0.01 .686Constant i1 42.16 5.26 < .001 i2 -1.38 0.62 .028R2 = .01, F(1, 201) = 1.07, p < .302 R2 = .03, F(2, 200) = 3.55, p = .031for pathway a for pathway c'Total effect c:          0.55, p = .009Direct effect c':       0.55, p = .010Indirect effect ab:   0.01, 95% CI[-0.02, 0.09], K2 = .00, 95% CI[.00, .02]Standardized β coefficients:     a = 0.04  |  b = 0.03     Total effect c = 0.18*     Direct effect c' = 0.18*     Indirect effect ab = 0.00Post-hoc power analysis to detect mediation effect:  power = .068β coefficients in table are unstandardized*p < .0580Table 11Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5b: COSC as a mediator of the relationship between nature and prosocial behaviourConsequentM (COSC) Y (prosocial behaviour)Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE pX (nature) a 3.50 2.12 .101 c' 0.64 0.21 .003M (COSC) - - - b 0.01 0.01 .165Constant i1 -7.49 5.44 .170 i2 -1.47 0.54 .007R2 = .01, F(1, 191) = 2.71, p = .101 R2 = .06, F(2, 190) = 6.16, p = .003for pathway a for pathway c'Total effect c:          0.68, p = .002Direct effect c':       0.64, p = .003Indirect effect ab:   0.04, 95% CI[-0.01, 0.15], K2 = .01, 95% CI[.00, .05]Standardized β coefficients:     a = 0.12  |  b = 0.10     Total effect c = 0.23*     Direct effect c' = 0.22*     Indirect effect ab = 0.01Post-hoc power analysis to detect mediation effect:  power = .189COSC = Connectedness-Oriented Self-Construalβ coefficients in table are unstandardized*p < .0581Table 12Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 5c: Materialism as a mediator of the relationship between nature and prosocial behaviourConsequentM (materialism) Y (prosocial behaviour)Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE pX (nature) a 0.18 1.48 .902 c' 0.54 0.18 .003M (materialism) - - - b -0.08 0.01 < .001Constant i1 34.24 3.83 < .001 i2 1.40 0.54 .010R2 = .00, F(1, 207) = 0.02, p = .902 R2 = .31, F(2, 206) = 46.96, p < .001for pathway a for pathway c'Total effect c:          0.53, p = .013Direct effect c':       0.54, p = .003Indirect effect ab:  -0.01, 95% CI[-0.24, 0.21], K2 = .01, 95% CI[.00, .02]Standardized β coefficients:     a = -0.01  |  b = -0.53*     Total effect c = 0.18*     Direct effect c' = 0.18*     Indirect effect ab = 0.00Post-hoc power analysis to detect mediation effect:  power = .052β in table coefficients are unstandardized*p < .0582Table 13Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 6a: COSC as a mediator of the relationship between nature and netPAConsequentM (COSC) Y (netPA)Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE pX (nature) a 3.29 2.23 .14 c' 3.42 1.04 .001M (COSC) - - - b 0.06 0.04 .113C1 pre-netPA f1 0.27 0.15 .062 g1 0.63 0.07 < .001Constant i1 -10.42 5.86 .077 i2 -5.44 2.75 .049R2 = .03, F(2, 174) = 3.04, p = .05 R2 = .39, F(3, 173) = 36.58, p < .001for pathway a for pathway c'Total effect c:          3.60, p = .001Direct effect c':       3.42, p = .001Indirect effect ab:   0.18, 95% CI[-0.04, 0.75], K2 = .02, 95% CI[.00, .07]Standardized β coefficients:     a = 0.12  |  b = 0.10     Total effect c = 0.21*     Direct effect c' = 0.20*     Indirect effect ab = 0.01Post-hoc power analysis to detect mediation effect:  power = .165netPA = netPostive Affect; COSC = Connected-Oriented Self-Construalβ coefficients in table are unstandardized*p < .0583Table 14Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 6b: COSC as a mediator of the relationship between nature and elevationConsequentM (COSC) Y (elevation)Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE pX (nature) a 3.32 2.13 .121 c' 4.84 1.53 .002M (COSC) - - - b 0.33 0.05 < .001Constant i1 -7.72 5.44 .158 i2 24.65 3.91 < .001R2 = .01, F(1, 194) = 2.42, p = .121 R2 = .22, F(2, 193) = 27.71, p < .001for pathway a for pathway c'Total effect c:          5.92, p < .001Direct effect c':       4.84, p = .002Indirect effect ab:   1.08, 95% CI[-0.23, 2.58], K2 = .04, 95% CI[.00, .11]Standardized β coefficients:     a = 0.12  |  b = 0.41*     Total effect c = 0.25*     Direct effect c' = 0.20*     Indirect effect ab = 0.05Post-hoc power analysis to detect mediation effect:  power = .324COSC = Connected-Oriented Self-Construalβ coefficients in table are unstandardized*p < .0584Table 15Model coefficients for mediation analysis for Hypothesis 6c: COSC as a mediator of the relationship between nature and meaningConsequentM (COSC) Y (meaning)Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE pX (nature) a 3.35 2.09 .110 c' -0.58 1.89 .760M (COSC) - - - b 0.40 0.06 < .001Constant i1 -6.96 5.35 .195 i2 47.89 4.83 < .001R2 = .01, F(1, 196) = 2.57, p = .110 R2 = .17, F(2, 195) = 19.60, p < .001for pathway a for pathway c'Total effect c:          0.77, p < .709Direct effect c':       -0.58, p = .760Indirect effect ab:   1.34, 95% CI[-0.22, 3.07], K2 = .05, 95% CI[.00, .11]Standardized β coefficients:     a = 0.12  |  b = 0.41*     Total effect c = 0.03     Direct effect c' = -0.02     Indirect effect ab = 0.05Post-hoc power analysis to detect mediation effect:  power = .332COSC = Connected-Oriented Self-Construalβ coefficients in table are unstandardized*p < .0585Table 16Summary of effect sizes between nature and built conditions.Dependent Variable Effect SizeNature – Built GroupsEffect SizeNature – ControlnetPA d = 0.41 d = 0.41Elevation d = 0.49 d = 0.38Meaning d = 0.11 d = 0.05COSC d = 0.24 d = 0.37PSB d = 0.33 d = 0.22MVS d = 0.01 d = 0.07netPA = netPositive Affect; COSC = Connected-Oriented Self-Construal;PSB = Prosocial Behaviour; MVS = Material Values Scale86Table 17Regression coefficients for Moderation 1a: CNS as moderator of relationship between experimental condition and netPACoeff. SE t p 95%CI Observedpower*Constant 3.23 0.98 3.31 .001 [1.30, 5.15]Experimental Condition 3.74 1.06 3.54 .001 [1.65, 5.82]CNS -0.03 0.08 -0.38 .702 [-0.20, 0.13]CNS * Exp. Condition 0.08 0.16 0.50 .621 [-0.24, 0.41]Covariable: pre-netPA 0.64 0.07 9.11 < .001 [0.50, 0.77] .070F(4, 171) = 24.95, p < .001, R2 = .37, ΔR2 due to interaction = .00netPA = netPostive Affect; CNS = Connectedness to Natureβ coefficients are unstandardized* Post-hoc power analysis for interaction term using G*Power with settings of: F test, ANCOVA: Fixed effects, main effects and interactions87Table 18Regression coefficients for Moderation 1b: CNS as moderator of relationship between experimental condition and elevationCoeff. SE t p 95%CI ObservedPower*Constant 37.38 0.81 46.07 < .001 [35.78, 38.98]Experimental Condition 6.15 1.62 3.79 < .001 [2.94, 9.35]CNS 0.40 0.13 3.11 .002 [0.15, 0.65]CNS * Exp. Condition -0.12 0.26 -0.46 .646 [-0.62, 0.39] .074F(3, 189) = 8.39, p < .001, R2 = .12, ΔR2 due to interaction = .00CNS = Connectedness to Natureβ coefficients are unstandardized* Post-hoc power analysis for interaction term using G*Power with settings of: F test, ANOVA: Fixed effects, main effects and interactions88Table 19Regression coefficients for Moderation 2a: EWB as moderator of relationship between experimental condition and netPACoeff. SE t p 95%CI ObservedPower*Constant 3.47 0.95 3.66 < .001 [1.60, 5.35]Experimental Condition 3.43 0.10 3.44 .001 [1.46, 5.39]EWB 0.15 0.07 2.21 .028 [0.02, 0.29]EWB * Exp. Condition 0.22 0.14 1.20 .108 [-0.05, 0.49] .371Covariable: pre-netPA 0.61 0.37 9.06 < .001 [0.48, 0.75]F(4, 184) = 27.27, p < .001, R2 = .37, ΔR2 due to interaction = .01netPA = netPostive Affect; EWB = Engagement with Beautyβ coefficients are unstandardized * Post-hoc power analysis for interaction term using G*Power with settings of: F test, ANCOVA: Fixed effects, main effects and interactions89Table 20Regression coefficients for Moderation 2b: EWB as moderator of relationship between experimental condition and elevationCoeff. SE t p 95%CI ObservedPower*Constant 37.13 0.78 47.47 < .001 [35.58, 38.67]Experimental Condition 5.51 1.57 3.52 .001 [2.42, 8.60]EWB 0.50 0.11 4.68 < .001 [0.29, 0.71]EWB * Exp. Condition 0.22 0.21 1.02 .309 [-0.20, 0.64] .174F(3, 203) = 13.38, p < .001, R2 = .17, ΔR2 due to interaction = .00EWB = Engagement with Beautyβ coefficients are unstandardized* Post-hoc power analysis for interaction term using G*Power with settings of: F test, ANOVA: Fixed effects, main effects and interactions90Table 21Regression coefficients for Moderation 3a: Dosage-photo as moderator of relationship between experimental condition and netPACoeff. SE t p 95%CI ObservedPower*Constant 2.91 0.94 3.10 .002 [1.06, 4.76]Experimental Condition 3.42 1.02 3.34 .001 [1.40, 5.44]Dosage-P. 0.08 0.21 0.35 .724 [-0.35, 0.50]Dosage-P. * Exp. Condition 0.65 0.43 1.52 .129 [-0.19, 1.49] .756Covariable: pre-netPA 0.65 0.67 9.85 < .001 [0.52, 0.78] F(4, 193) = 28.94, p < .001, R2 = .38, ΔR2 due to interaction = .01netPA = netPostive Affect; Dosage-P. = # of photos takenβ coefficients are unstandardized* Post-hoc power analysis for interaction term using G*Power with settings of: F test, ANCOVA: Fixed effects, main effects and interactions91Table 22Regression coefficients for Moderation 3b: Dosage-photo as moderator of relationship between experimental condition and elevationCoeff. SE t p 95%CI ObservedPower*Constant 36.70 0.83 43.98 < .001 [35.05, 38.34]Experimental Condition 5.47 1.67 3.27 .001 [2.18, 8.77]Dosage-P. 0.35 0.35 1.01 .312 [-0.33, 1.04]Dosage-P. * Exp. Condition 1.30 0.70 1.86 .064 [-0.08, 2.67] .351F(3, 213) = 5.98, p = .001, R2 = .08, ΔR2 due to interaction = .02Dosage-P. = # of photos takenβ coefficients are unstandardized* Post-hoc power analysis for interaction term using G*Power with settings of: F test, ANOVA: Fixed effects, main effects and interactions92Table 23ANOVA and post-hoc analyses for differences between groups on estimated time spent in nature over the previous two-weeks Levene F Post-hocNature-Built Nature-Control Built-Controlestimate time spent in nature over the past two-weeks F(2, 293) = 0.66, p = .516 F(2, 186.77) = 0.33, p = .722 p = .967 p = .878 p = .72093Table 24Contingency table for responses of nature and built group participants regarding future time spent in settinghow much time spend in setting in ideal futureTotalless same amount more great deal moreconditionbuiltCount 15 74 15 6 110Expected Count 7.8 50.4 34.4 17.4 110% within condition 13.6% 67.3% 13.6% 5.5% 100.0%% within time category93.8% 71.2% 21.1% 16.7% 48.5%% of Total 6.6% 32.6% 6.6% 2.6% 48.5%Std. Residual 2.6 3.3 -3.3 -2.7natureCount 1 30 56 30 117Expected Count 8.2 53.6 36.6 18.6 117% within condition 0.9% 25.6% 47.9% 25.6% 100.0%% within time category6.3% 28.8% 78.9% 83.3% 51.5%% of Total 0.4% 13.2% 24.7% 13.2% 51.5%Std. Residual -2.5 -3.2 3.2 2.7TotalCount 16 104 71 36 227% within time category100% 100% 100% 100% 100%% of Total 7.0% 45.8% 31.3% 15.9% 100%94Table 25Contingency table for emotional valence of photosemotional valenceTotalnegative positive mixedphoto typebuiltCount 305 646 96 1047Expected Count 218.3 747.9 80.8 1047% within photo type 29.1% 61.7% 9.2% 100%% within valence type 61.4% 37.9% 52.2% 43.9%% of Total 12.8% 27.1% 4.0% 43.9%Std. Residual 5.9 -3.7 1.7natureCount 192 1057 88 1337Expected Count 278.7 955.1 103.2 1337% within photo type 14.4% 79.1% 6.6% 100%% within valence type 38.6% 62.1% 47.8% 56.1%% of Total 8.1% 44.3% 3.7% 56.1%Std. Residual -5.2 3.3 -1.5TotalCount 497 1703 184 2384% within valence type 100% 100% 100% 100%% of Total 20.8% 71.4% 7.7% 100%95Table 26Positive emotional themes from photo descriptionsvalence theme description count:builtcount:natureTotalpositiveawe wonder, humble, small in a good way, spiritual, overwhelmed by beauty, blissful, amazed, mesmerized, connected with the universe20 104 124caring compassion, sympathy, empathy, helpful, protective, respectful 7 17 24curious interested, intrigued, absorbed, fascinated, engrossed, surprised, creative 65 112 177fashionable pretty, stylish, sexy, sophisticated, modern, stylish 13 1 14free limitless, open-minded 5 32 37grateful appreciative, thankful, blessed, fortunate 46 76 122hopeful optimistic, encouraged 12 61 73loved loved, accepted, friendship 28 41 69motivated determined, enthused, empowered, inspired 55 67 122nostalgic sentimental, romantic, reminiscent, reflective 47 50 97peaceful calm, tranquil, relaxed, less stressed, content, satisfied with life, grounded 125 386 511proud admiration, impressed, accomplishment, successful, confident 67 58 125rejuvenated energized, alive, refreshed, uplifted, renewed, exhilarated, young, enlightened21 119 140safe comfortable, secure, sheltered, comforting, relieved, cozy, at home, welcome135 66 201upbeat great, wonderful, cheerful, pleasant, glad, pleased, light hearted, excited, joyful, delighted, enthused, thrilled326 571 89796Table 27Negative emotional themes from photo descriptionsvalence theme description count:builtcount:natureTotalnegativeannoyed upset, irritated, displeased, grumpy, hatred, mad, angry 56 13 69confined confined 10 5 15confused confused 18 8 26disappointed hopeless, discouraged 8 7 15disgusted wasteful, unhealthy 14 6 20envious jealous, greedy, resentful 10 0 10fatigued sleepy, lazy, bored, worn out, exhausted, tired 68 45 113guilty self-critical, not confident, unsure, shame, undeserving, insecure 16 7 23insignificant small, powerless, inadequate, helpless, intimidated, vulnerable 12 16 28lonely disconnected, alone, lost, homesick, forgotten, isolated 28 51 79nervous / rushedurgency, impatient, anxious, antsy, worried, apprehensive, dread, uneasy 8 5 13sad gloomy, bad, depressed, discouraged 53 67 120scared cautious, fearful, afraid, panicked 30 28 58stressed overwhelmed, tense, worried, frustrated, upset 36 58 19497Table 28Contingency table for emotional themes of photos: Significant positive emotionsemotional themeawe fashionable freedom hope peace pride rejuvenation safety upbeatbuiltCount 20 13 5 12 125 67 21 135 326Expected Count 50.7 5.7 15.1 29.9 209.1 51.2 57.3 82.3 367.1% within photo type1.4% 0.9% 0.3% 0.8% 8.7% 4.7% 1.5% 9.4% 22.7%% within emotional theme16.1% 92.9% 13.5% 16.4% 24.5% 53.6% 15.0% 67.2% 36.3%% of Total 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 3.6% 1.9% 0.6% 3.8% 9.3%Std. Residual -4.3 3.0 -2.6 -3.3 -5.8 2.2 -4.8 5.8 -2.1natureCount 104 1 32 61 386 58 119 66 571Expected Count 73.3 8.3 21.9 43.1 301.9 73.8 82.7 118.7 529.9% within photo type5.0% 0% 1.5% 2.9% 18.6% 2.8% 5.7% 3.2% 27.5%% within emotional theme83.9% 7.1% 86.5% 83.6% 75.5% 46.4% 85.0% 32.8% 63.7%% of Total 3.0% 0% 0.9% 1.7% 11.0% 1.6% 3.4% 1.9% 16.2%Std. Residual 3.6 -2.5 2.2 2.7 4.8 -1.8 4.0 -4.8 1.8TotalCount 124 14 37 73 511 125 140 201 897% within emotional theme100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%% of Total 3.5% 0.4% 1.1% 2.1% 14.5% 3.6% 4.0% 5.7% 25.5%98Table 29Contingency table for emotional themes of photos: Significant negative emotionsemotional themeannoyance confusion disgust envy fatigue guilt insignificance stressbuiltCount 56 18 14 10 68 16 12 136Expected Count 28.2 10.6 8.2 4.1 46.2 9.4 11.5 79.4% within photo type3.9% 1.3% 1.0% 0.7% 4.7% 1.1% 0.8% 9.5%% within emotional theme81.2% 69.2% 70.0% 100% 60.2% 69.6% 42.9% 70.1%% of Total 1.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 1.9% 0.5% 0.3% 3.9%Std. Residual 5.2 2.3 2.0 2.9 3.2 2.1 0.2 6.4natureCount 13 8 6 0 45 7 16 58Expected Count 40.8 15.4 11.8 5.9 66.8 13.6 16.5 114.6% within photo type0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0% 2.2% 0.3% 0.8% 2.8%% within emotional theme18.8% 30.8% 30.0% 0% 39.8% 30.4% 57.1% 29.9%% of Total 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0% 1.3% 0.2% 0.5% 1.6%Std. Residual -4.3 -1.9 -1.7 -2.4 -2.7 -1.8 -0.1 -5.3TotalCount 69 26 20 10 113 23 28 194% within emotional theme100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%% of Total 2.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 3.2% 0.7% 0.8% 5.5%99Table 30Contingency table for emotional themes of photos: Non-significant positive emotionsemotional themecaring curious grateful loved motivated nostalgicbuiltCount 7 65 46 28 55 47Expected Count 9.8 72.4 49.9 28.2 49.9 39.7% within photo type0.5% 4.5% 3.2% 1.9% 3.8% 3.3%% within emotional theme29.2% 36.7% 37.7% 40.6% 45.1% 48.5%% of Total 0.2% 1.8% 1.3% 0.8% 1.6% 1.3%Std. Residual -0.9 -0.9 -0.6 0.0 0.7 1.2natureCount 17 112 76 41 67 50Expected Count 14.2 104.6% 72.1 40.8 72.1 57.3% within photo type0.8% 5.4% 3.7% 2.0% 3.2% 2.4%% within emotional theme70.8% 63.3% 62.3% 59.4% 54.9% 51.5%% of Total 0.5% 3.2% 2.2% 1.2% 1.9% 1.4%Std. Residual 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.0 -0.6 -1.0Count 24 177 122 69 122 97Total % within emotional theme100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%% of Total 0.7% 5.0% 3.5% 2.0% 3.5% 2.8%100Table 31Contingency table for emotional themes of photos: Non-significant negative emotionsemotional themeconfined disappointed lonely nervous / rushed sad scaredbuiltCount 10 8 28 8 53 30Expected Count 6.1 6.1 32.3% 5.3 49.1 23.7% within photo type0.7% 0.6% 1.9% 0.6% 3.7% 2.1%% within emotional theme66.7% 53.3% 35.4% 61.5% 44.2% 51.7%% of Total 0.3% 0.2% 0.8% 0.2% 1.5% 0.9%Std. Residual 1.6 0.8 -0.8 1.2 0.6 1.3natureCount 5 7 51 5 67 28Expected Count 8.9 8.9 46.7 7.7 70.9 34.3% within photo type0.2% 0.3% 2.5% 0.2% 3.2% 1.3%% within emotional theme33.3% 46.7% 64.6% 38.5% 55.8% 48.3%% of Total 0.1% 0.2% 1.5% 0.1% 1.9% 0.8%Std. Residual -1.3 -0.6 0.6 -1.0 -0.5 -1.1Count 15 15 79 13 120 58Total % within emotional theme100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%% of Total 0.4% 0.4% 2.2% 0.4% 3.4% 1.6%101Figure 1: Non-significant indirect pathways for mediation Hypotheses 5ai, 5aii, 5aiii.Figure 2: Non-significant indirect pathway for mediation Hypothesis 5b.102ab = 0.01, 95%CI [-0.05, 0.07]ab = 0.04, 95%CI [-0.03, 0.13]ab = 0.01, 95%CI [-0.01, 0.05]ab = 0.01, 95%CI [-0.01, 0.10]Figure 3: Non-significant indirect pathway for mediation Hypotheses 5c.Figure 4: Non-significant indirect pathways for mediation Hypothesis 6a,, 6b, 6c.103ab = -0.01, 95%CI [-0.16, 0.13]ab = 0.04, 95%CI [0.00, 0.12]ab = 0.09, 95%CI [-0.02, 0.21]ab = 0.09, 95%CI [-0.02, 0.22]Figure 5:  Non-significant moderation effects.104interaction:  p = .621interaction:  p = .646interaction:  p = .108interaction:  p = .309interaction:  p = .129interaction:  p = .064Figure 6. Time spent in setting reported by participants in the nature group.1055-15 minutes 15-30 minutes 30-60 minutes 60-120 minutes  > 120 minutes%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Figure 7. Responses of nature and built group participants regarding future time spent in setting106less same more great deal more01020304050607080builtnatureFigure 8. Wordcloud of emotions significantly more likely to be associated with nature photos.Wordsize is proportionate to standardized residual from contingency table (see Tables 28-29).Figure 9. Wordcloud of emotions significantly more likely to be associated with built photos.Wordsize is proportionate to standardized residual from contingency table (see Tables 28-29).107ReferencesAchenreiner, G. B. (1997). Materialistic values and susceptibility to influence in children. In M. Brucks & D. J. MacInnis (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 24) (pp. 82-88). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Amirkhan, J. H. (2012). Stress overload: A new approach to the assessment of stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 55-71.Ashton-James, C., van Baaren, R. B., Chartrand, T. L., Decety, J., & Karremans, J. (2007). Mimicry and me: The impact of mimcry on self-construal. Social Cognition, 25, 518-535.Avci, D., Yilmaz, F. A., & Koc, A. (2012). Correlation between subjective well-being and self-esteem levels of college nursing students. JPAIR Multidisciplinary, 10, 17-34.Barrett, L. F., Gross, J., Christensen, T. C., & Benvenuto, M. (2001). Knowing what you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition & Emotion, 15, 713–724.Baumeister, R .F., & Vohs, K. D. (2002). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608-618). New York, NY:  Oxford University Press.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, J. (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, 80–94.108Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207-1212.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.Blascovich J., & Tomaka, J. (1993). Measure of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (3rd ed.) (pp. 115-160). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positivepsychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC PublicHealth, 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.Burns, G. W. (1998). Nature-guided therapy: Brief integrative strategies for health and well-being. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.Buzzell, L., & Chalquist, C. (2009). Ecotherapy: Healing with nature in mind. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 976.Cervinka, R., Röderer, K., & Hefler, E. (2012). Are nature lovers happy? On various indicators 109of well-being and connectedness with nature. Journal of Health Psychology, 17, 379-388.Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2007). Growing up in a material world: Age differences in children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 480-493.Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton, & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cohen, A. B., Gruber, J., & Keltner, D. (2010). Comparing spiritual transformations and experiences of profound beauty. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2, 127-135.Crawford, M. R., & Holder, M. D. (2014). Promoting happiness through urban planning. In F. Sarracino (Ed.), The happiness compass: Theories, actions and perspectives for well-being (pp. 177-202). Nova.Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General Psychology, 15, 138-157.DeCicco, T. L., & Stroink, M. L. (2007). A third model of self-construal: The metapersonal self. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 26, 82-104.de Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural environments - healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and Planning, 35, 1717-1731.Diessner, R., Solom, R. C., Frost, N. K., Parsons, L., & Davidson, J. (2008). Engagement with 110beauty: Appreciating natural, artistic, and moral beauty. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 303-329.Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D., Jr. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work: A Journal of Assessment, Prevention, & Rehabilitation, 20, 159–165.Dogan, T., Totan, T., & Sapmaz, F. (2013). The role of self-esteem, psychological well-being, emotional self-efficacy, and affect balance on happiness: A path mode. European ScientificJournal, 9, 31-42.Dollinger, S. J., & Clancy, S. J. (1993). Identity, self, and personality: Glimpses through the autographic eye. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1064-1071.Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 379-392.Dunnett, C. W. (1980a). Pairwise multiple comparisons in the homogeneous variance, unequal sample size case, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 789-795.Dunnett, C.W. (1980b). Pairwise multiple comparisons in the unequal variance case. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 796-800.Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. Oxford, England: Academic Press.Eaton, J., Struthers, C. W., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). Dispositional and state forgiveness: The roleof self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences,41, 371-380.Ewert, A., Place, G., & Sibthorp, J. (2005). Early-life outdoor experiences and an individual's 111environmental attitudes. Leisure Sciences, 27, 225-239.Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: SAGE Publications.Friedman, H. L. (1983). The self-expansiveness level form: A conceptualization and measurement of a transpersonl construct. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 15, 37-50.Fromm, E. (1968). The revolution of hope: Toward a humanized technology. Toronto, ON: Bantam Books.Gatersleben, B., Meadows, J., Abrahamse, W., & Jackson, T. (2008). Materialistic and environmental values of young volunteers in nature conservationprojects. Resolve Working Paper. Retrived from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228710401_Materialistic_and_environmental_values_of_young_volunteers_in_nature_conservation_projects/file/e0b4951cda75b43bca.pdf Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Fernandez Dols, J. M., Kim, Y., Lau, S., … Sheldon, K.M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 800-816.Guéguen, N., & Stefan, J. (2014). “Green Altruism”: Short immersion in natural green environments and helping behavior. Environment and Behavior, doi: 10.1177/0013916514536576112Hardie, E. A., Critchley, C., & Morris, A. (2006). Self-coping complexity: Role of self-construal in relational, individual and collective coping styles and health outcomes. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 224-235.Hardie, E. A., Kashima, E., & Pridmore, P. (2005). The influence of relational, individual and collective self-aspects on stress, uplifts and health. Self and Identity, 4, 1-24.Hardin, E. E., Leong, F. T. L., & Bhagwat, A. A. (2004). Factor structure of the Self-Construal Scale revisited: Implications for the multidimensionality of self-construal. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 327-345.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.Haywood, K. M. (1990). Visitor-employed photography: An urban visit assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 29, 25-29.Heine, S. J., Proulx. T., & Vohs, D. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 88-110.Henderson, L. W., & Knight, T. (2012). Integrating the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives to more comprehensively understand well-being and pathways to well-being. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2, 196-221.Herzog, T .R., & Strevey, S. J. (2008). Contact with nature, sense of humor, and psychological well-being. Environment and Behavior, 40, 747-776.113Hoot, R. E., & Friedman, H. L. (2011). Connectedness and environmental behavior: Sense of interconnectedness and pro-environmental behavior. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 30, 89-100.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 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.Huitema, B. E. (2011). The analysis of covariance and alternatives: Statistical methods for experiments, quasi-experiments, and single-case studies (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Hull, R. B., & Stewart, W. P. (1995). The landscape encountered and experienced while hiking. Environment and Behavior, 27, 404-426.Hurst, M., Dittmar, H., Bond, R., & Kasser, T. (2013). The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 257-269.Huta, V. (2013). Pursuing eudaimonia versus hedonia: Distinctions, similarities, and relationships. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology 114perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 139-158).  Washington, DC: APA Press.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.James, W. (1902/1982). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.Jordan, M. (2009). Back to nature. Therapy Today, 20, 26-28.Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11, 305-328.Kalnin, J. (2008). The spirituality of nature. Kelowna, BC: Northstone Wood Lake Publishing.Kalof, L. (2003). The human self and the animal other: Exploring borderland identities. In S. Clayton, & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 161-178). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.Kashdan, T. (2010). Money and happiness: Friend or foe? Depends on how you spend your cash.Huffington Post.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-kashdan/money-and-happiness-frein_b_588725.html?115Kashdan, T. B., & Breen, W. E. (2007). Materialism and diminished well-being: Experiential avoidance as a mediating mechanism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 521-539.Kashdan, T. B., Ferssizidis, P., Collins, R. L., & Muraven, M. (2010). Emotion differentiation as resilience against excessive alcohol use: An ecological momentary assessment in underage social drinkers. Psychological Science, 2, 1341-1347.Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. London, England: MIT 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 correlatesof intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280-287.Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Materialistic values: Their causes and consequences. In T. Kasser & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world (pp. 11-28). Washington, DC: APA.Kellert, S. R. (1993). The biological basis for human values in nature. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 42-69). Washington: Island Press.Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington: Island Press.Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe: A moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 297–314.116Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121-140.Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating the axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539-548.King, D. B., & DeCicco, T. L. (2009). A viable model and self-report measure of spiritual intelligence. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 28, 68-85.Konow, J., & Earley, J. (2008). The hedonistic paradox: Is homo economicus happier? Journal ofPublic Economics, 92, 1-33.Kuo, F. E. (2003). Social aspects of urban forestry: The role of aboriculture in a healthy social ecology. Journal of Aboriculture, 29, 148-155.Kuo, F., Sullivan, W., Coley, R., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighbourhood of common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 823-851.Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social Anxiety. New York, NY: Guilford.Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M., & Tate, E. M. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity: Incorporating the 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.Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146-159.Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.117Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., Schellevis, F. G., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 63, 967-973.MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global Environmental Change, 23, 992-1000.Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.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.Mayers, A. (2013). Introduction to statistics and SPSS in psychology. Don Mills, ON: Pearson Education.Milfont, T. L., Davis, L., & Konrad, C. (2011). Views of the self and environmental attitudes: An experimental examination. Paper presented at the 9th Bienneial Conference on Environmental Psychology, Eindaven, The Netherlands.Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 40-48.Miller, S. M., Ginsburg, H. J., & Rogow, S. G. (1981). Self-esteem and sharing in fourth-grade children. Social Behavior & Personality, 9, 211-212.118Milton, M. (2009). Waking up to nature: Exploring a new direction for psychological practice. Ecopsychology, 1, 8-13.Monroe, S. M. (2008). Modern approaches to conceptualizing human life stress. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 33-52.Munro, B. H. (2005). Statistical methods for healthcare research (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA:  Lippincot, Williams, & Wilkins.Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgement and Decision Making, 6, 771-781.Nibset, 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.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., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 303-322.Noland, C. M. (2006). Auto-photography as a research practice: Identity and self-esteem. Journal of Research Practice, 2, 1-24.O’Connor, K., & Chamberlain, K. (1996). Dimensions of life meaning: A qualitative investigation at mid-life. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 461–477.Pappas, J. D., & Friedman, H. L. (2007). The construct of self-expansiveness and the validity of 119the Transpersonal Scale of the Self-Expansiveness Level Form. The Humanistic Psychologist, 35, 323-347.Paradise, A. W., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). Self-esteem and psychological well-being: Implicationsof fragile self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 345-361.Passmore, H.-A., Holder, M. D., & Lambert D'raven, L. T. (2014). A cross-cultural study of patterns of relationships between meaning in life, vitality, materialistic values, and well-being. Poster being presented at the 75th Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, B.C.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.Passmore, H.-A., Howell, A. J., & Buro, K. (2012). Nature affiliation and spirituality: Relationships with meaning in life and well-being. Poster presented at the 73rd Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, NS.Passmore, H.-A., Howell, A. J., & Holder, M. D. (2015). Nature, spirituality, and hope: Relationships among transcendent contributors to well-being. Poster presented at the Happiness & Well-Being Preconference, 16th Annual Convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Long Beach, CA.Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011). Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial motives and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 905–917.Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual 120transcendence and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 67, 985-1013.Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347-353.Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93-115.Richins, M. L. (2004). The Material Values Scale: Measurement properties and development of ashort-form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 209-219.Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement scale: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303-316.Rollins, J. (2009). A natural resource. Counseling Today, October 20, Retrieved from http://ct.counseling.org/2009/10/a-natural-resource/Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Ruso, B., & Atzwanger, K. (2003). Measuring immediate behavioral responses to the environment. Michigan Psychologist, 4, 12.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.Ruvio, A., Somer, E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2014). When bad gets worse: the amplifying effect of materialism on traumatic stress and maladaptive consumption. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 42, 90-101.Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic 121motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.Ryan, R. M., Weinstein, N., Bernstein, J., Brown, K. W., Mistretta, L., & Gagne, M. (2010). Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 159-168.Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.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.Saunders, S., & Munro, D. (2000). The construction and validation of a consumer orientation questinnaire (SCOI) designed to measure Fromm's (1955) 'marketing character' in Australia. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 219-240.Sawilowsky, S., & Blair, R. C. (1992). A more realistic look at the robustness and type II error properties of the t test to departures from population normality. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 353–360.Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230-255.Searles, H. F. (1960). The nonhuman environment in normal development and schizophrenia. New York, NY: International Universities Press.Seers, A., McGee, G. W., Serey, T. T., & Graen, G. B. (1983). The interaction of job stress and social support: A strong inference investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 273-284.122Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325-339.Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., Smith, K., & Share, T. (2002). Personal goals and psychological growth: Testing an intervention to enhance goal attainment and personality integration. Journal of Personality, 70, 5-31.Shepard, P. (1982). Nature and madness. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Shepard, P. (1996). The others: How animals made us human. Washington, DC: Island Press.Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 944–963.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.Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptomatic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equationmodels. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Sommer, R. (2003). Trees and human identity. In S. Clayton, & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 179-204). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopex (Eds.), Handbook of 123positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 679-687). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.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 Psychology, 53, 80-93.Steger, M. F., Shim, Y., Barenz, J., & Shin, J. Y. (2014). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3, 27-30.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.Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & Depooter, S. F. (2004). The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood space. Environment and Behavior, 36, 678-700.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.Utz, S. (2004). Self-construal and cooperation: Is the interdependent self more cooperative than the independent self? Self and Identity, 3, 177-190.Van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1203-1210.Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. D. (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self: Implications for self-construals and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1103-1118.124von Dawans, B., Fischbacher, U., Kirschbaum, C., Fehr, E., & Heinrichs, M. (2012). The social dimension of stress reactivity: Acute stress increases prosocial behavior in humans. Psychological Science, 23, 651-660.Walsh, R. (2011). Lifestyle and mental health. American Psychologist, 66, 579–592.Wang, L., & Graddy, E. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Voluntas, 19, 23-42.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.West, S. G., Finch J. F., & Curran P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56-75). Newbery Park, CA: Sage.White, M. P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B. W., & Depledge, M. H. (2013). Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychological Science, 24, 920-928.Wilcox, R. R. (1990). Comparing the means of two independent groups. Biometrics Journal, 32, 771-780.Wilcox, R. R. (1987). New designs in analysis of variance. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 29–60.125Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Yalom, I. H. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York, NY: Bantam Books.Yurchisin, J., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2004). Compulsive buying behavior and its relationship to perceived social status associated with buying, materialism, self-esteem, and apparel-product involvement. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 32, 291-314.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 relation between connectedness with nature and well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 55-63.Zhang, J. W., Piff, P. K., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Keltner, D. (2014). An occasion for unselfing: Beautiful nature leads to prosociality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 61-72.Ziller, R. C., & Lewis. D. (1981). Orientations: Self, social, and environmental percepts through auto-photography. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 338-343.126AppendicesAppendix A: SONA Recruitment AdAbstract: (Online Study) The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a relationshipbetween taking photographs and emotional experiences. (2% credit)Ad: You are invited to participate in a research study on the relationship between taking photographs and emotional experiences.  This study will be conducted partly in person, and partly online.  This study will be completed individually and involves taking digital photos, uploading them to a website, and answering some questionnaires about your emotional experiences.  You will also be asked some demographic questions such as age and gender.  It is expected to take approximately 30 minutes of your time for the initial in-person group session, approximately 1 hour of your time (over the course of two weeks) to take and upload the digital photographs, and approximately 20-30 minutes to complete the online questionnaires.  To participate in this study, you will need to sign up for one of the in-person time-slots available for this study, attend this in-person group session, take digital photos and upload them to a website over the course of two weeks, and answer some questionnaires online.  Detailed instructions regarding the photographs and online questionnaires will be provided at the in-person group session.  You will also answer a few questionnaires at the in-person session.  You will receive 2%credit for your participation in this study. Holli-Anne Passmore and Dr. Mark Holder are conducting this research. If you have any questions concerning this research, please contact Holli-Anne at: PP.Researcher@shaw.ca .127Appendix B: Sample Participant Packet (for Nature Condition)Information sheet and consent form: photoCOSC StudyPrincipal Investigator: Dr. Mark Holder, Psychology, University of British Columbia.  Co-Investigator: Holli-Anne Passmore, Graduate Student, Psychology, University of British Columbia. In partial fulfillment of Master's in Psychological Science.Study Procedure: This is a three-part study.  Part one consists of a 30-minute information session where you will also complete some questionnaires on your emotions.  Part two will take place over the course of a two-week period following the in-person session.  Over this time period, you will take some digital photos and upload them to a website.  For the third part of the study, you will log in to the study's website and answer some questionnaires that examine your emotions and attitudes.  For some participants, part three (answering the questionnaires online) may take place before part two (taking the digital photographs).  You will also be asked some demographic questions such as age and gender.  This part of the study should only take approximately 20-30 minutes.  You are free to withdraw from the study at any time and you are not required to provide a reason for your withdrawal.Eligibility for this study:  You will need to have the ability to take digital photographs and to upload these to a website.  Any type of digital camera camera can be used (e.g., camera on cell phone, tablet, etc.).  We are not concerned with the quality or creativity of the photographs per se; rather we are interested in your emotional experiences regarding the objects/scenes in the photographs.Potential Risk: There are very few potential risks associated with participation in this study.  You will evaluate your emotional states, both good and bad, as well as some characteristics of your personality and attitudes.  This, however, is no more serious than normal day-to-day evaluations.Potential Benefits: Results from this study may help improve our understanding of the links between attitudes, emotions, and well-being.  You may also gain insight into some situations which impact your well-being.Remuneration/Compensation: Each participant will be eligible for 2% for their participation assigned through the online SONA system.  Participants can assign this credit to the participatingclass of their choice. Confidentiality: Responses of all participants are strictly confidential (individual responses will only be seen by the principal and co-investigator).  No personal identification information is attached to your survey responses or to the photographs that you will upload.  A unique identifierwill be automatically added to your responses and to your photographs only in order to grant youcredit for participation.128The website you will upload your photographs to, and answer the questionnaires of the study on, is hosted on a secure website at UBC or on SurveyMonkey.  The website (www.SurveyMonkey.com) is encrypted, and only the investigator and the co-investigators will have access to the original data.  Survey Monkey is an online survey company located in the USA and is thus subject to the US Patriot Act. This act allows authorities to access the records of Internet service providers. Servers used by Survey Monkey record IP addresses, including the address of the computer you use to complete the questionnaires. However, no connection can be made between your data and this IP address. If you participate in this study, your responses to thequestionnaires will be stored and accessed in the USA. The complete security and privacy policy for Survey Monkey can be found at www.surveymonkey.com/Monkey_Privacy.aspx.  All electronic data submitted on the UBC server will be kept in electronic format on secure computerdrives; data collected on paper will be kept in a secure storage space.  It is important to note that the photographs you upload will not be used for any purpose other than for noting a description of the photograph.  You will upload your photos to a secure site (as noted above) that only the researchers will have access to.  As explained in the session today, we are not concerned with the creativity or quality of the photographs per se but rather the emotions which the scenes evoke in you.  Your photos will not be seen by anyone otherthan the researchers solely for the purpose of coding..We plan to submit the findings for publication, but no participant names or photographs will be used in any reports of the study.  The results will only be reported for groups, with no possibility of individual participants being identified. Follow-up: Our findings will be summarized and the results will be posted on Dr. Holder's website at: http://psyo.ok.ubc.ca/research/happy.html.  Public presentations of our results will be made on campus and these will be advertised in advance. Contact for information about the study:  If you have any questions about this study, contact Holli-Anne Passmore (PP.Researcher@shaw.ca) or Dr. Mark Holder (250-807-8728).If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 1-877-822-8598 or the UBC Okanagan Research Services Office at 250-807-8832. It is also possible to contact the Research Participant Complaint Line by email (RSIL@ors.ubc.ca).PLEASE SEE THE NEXT PAGE TO SIGN THE CONSENT FORM129Consent: Your participation in our study is completely voluntary and you may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.  You are free to not respond to specific questions within the survey without penalty; however, this does weaken the value of the data.  If you agree to participate, please sign below, print your first and last name, and list your Student ID number (this is only so we can grant you credit at the end of this study).This will indicate that you have read and understood the above information and have consented to participate in this study.  It will also indicate you are able to take digital photos and upload them to a website.  Signing this form also indicates that you understand that in order to receive your participation credit of 2%, you must log in the research website at the end of the two-week period and provide your name and student ID (which is kept separately from any questionnaire answers).  If you do not wish to participate, please hand this package in to the researcher without signing.Date:  _____________________________________________________________________   ____________________________________First Name                                                           Last Name____________________________________Signature____________________________________Student ID_____________N001ace_________________Participant unique ID assigned to you for purposes of this studyThis form will be kept in a secure place, separate from your responses and any personally identifying information.  This will ONLY be accessed if you forget your participant ID and need to email the researcher.  Personally identifying information will NEVER be stored with your responses.130Email address form for participants: photoCOSC StudyParticipant Group:  NAs explained in the session today, you will receive email reminders to upload your photographs.  These emails will also contain the link to the study website in them.  Additionally, you will receive an email in two-weeks' time with the link to the final questionnaires that you will need to complete.  At the end of the online questionnaires, you will either be given instructions for providing your Student ID so that your participation credits can be given to you in the SONA system, or you will be provided with instructions for the photography part of this study (depending on which condition you have been randomly assigned to), and then instructions on how to provide your Student ID to the researcher to grant you your participation credits.It is therefore IMPERATIVE that you provide us with an EMAIL ADDRESS THAT YOU CHECK ON A DAILY BASIS.  If we cannot reach you by email, you will not receive the link to upload your photographs or to take the questionnaires, and we will not be able to grant you credit for your participation.___________________________________________________Email you wish to be contacted at for the purposes of this study.Please PRINT legibly.131Passcode form for participants: photoCOSC StudyAs explained in today's session, you will need both your assigned participant ID (see below) and a passcode of your choosing in order to log in the photo-upload site and to answer the online questionnaires.  This is a safety measure to ensure that we can anonymously match up your answers from today's questionnaires with your photo details and your answers to the online questionnaires.Your participant ID, your passcode, and the email your provided will never be associated with your name or student ID.  These are only associated with your responses and your photos.  This is to ensure your anonymity.  Please choose a passcode that you will remember!___________________________________________________Passcode of your choosing for the purposes of this study.Please PRINT legibly.__________________N001ace_________________________________Assigned participant IDThis form will be kept in a secure place, separate from any personally identifying information.  This will ONLY be accessed if you forget your passcode and need to email the researcher.  Personally identifying information will NEVER be stored with your responses.132Participant ID: ________________________      Passcode you chose:  ___________________Take home instruction sheet – Nature Condition: photoCOSC StudyKEEP THIS SHEET!Over the next two weeks, we would like you to take, and upload, digital photos of nature scenes, or natural elements, that evoke strong emotions in you—that move you in some way.  You may take as many photographs as you like; however, the study requires a minimum of 10 photographs.  No humans, and if possible no human-built objects, should be inthese photos.  We encourage you to be mindful of the natural elements and objects around you on a daily basis (e.g., trees, moving water, animals, etc.), and to notice how these make you feel.  Space the photos out over the course of the two weeks; allow yourself to truly experience the nature around you.  Take your photos on different days spread out over the two weeks.  We are not concerned with the quality or creativity of the photographs themselves per se.  What we are interested in is your experience with what you are photographing—how these objects and scenes make you feel.  We invite you to upload as many photos as you like; this adds to the quality of our study.Use your participant ID and your passcode (see above) when you upload photos.  You will be sent the photo-upload link in an email tonight.  As demonstrated at the in-person session, in addition to uploading the photos, please complete the brief online form for EACH photo you upload (e.g., date and time you took the photo, how this/these natural scene(s)/object(s) made you feel). You will receive emails every few days reminding you to be mindful of your reactions to the nature around you.  Two weeks from today, you will receive an email with a link to the final questionnaires of the study.  Please log in to the site and complete the questionnaires within a day of receiving the email.  It is important that you complete this step—not only forthe purposes of the study—but also so that you can receive credit for your participation.  At the end of the questionnaires, after you have clicked “submit” to submit your responses, you will be prompted to complete a form with your name and Student ID.  This information will NOT be linked to your responses.  This is only to notify the researcher that you have completed the study;your SONA credit will be granted within 48 hours of submitting this form.133KEEP THIS SHEET!Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday SaturdaySept. 21 Sept. 22 Sept. 23 Sept. 24 Sept. 25 Sept. 26 Sept. 27Sept. 28 Sept. 29 Sept. 30 Oct. 1 Oct. 2 Oct. 3 Oct. 4Oct. 5 Oct. 6 Oct. 7 Oct. 8 Oct. 9 Oct. 10 Oct. 11Oct. 12 Oct. 13 Oct. 14 Oct. 15 Oct. 16 Oct. 17 Oct. 18Oct.19 Oct. 20 Oct. 21 Oct. 22 Oct. 23 Oct. 24 Oct. 25You should receive an email by tomorrow morning which will have the photo-upload link in it.Two weeks from today, you will receive the email with the link to the final questionnaires.Please log in to the site and complete the questionnaires within a day of receiving the email.In order to receive credit for your participation,you need to receive the emails so that you can complete all the steps.If you do not receive the first email by tomorrow morning, or if you do not receive the finalemail, please email the researcher, Holli-Anne Passmore, atPP.Researcher@shaw.ca Please email me, Holli-Anne Passmore, if you have any questions regarding this study.Thank you very much for your participation in our research study.Your efforts and time are greatly appreciated.134Appendix C:  Positive and Negative Affect ScaleThis scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read eachitem and then list the number from the scale below next to each word. For each word, please indicate to what extent you have felt this emotion over the past two weeks.1 2 3 4 5very slightly ornot at alla little moderately quite a bit extremely_______ interested_______ afraid_______ excited_______ scared_______ strong_______ nervous _______ enthusiastic_______ jittery_______ proud_______ irritable_______ alert_______ hostile_______ inspired_______ guilty_______ determined_______ ashamed_______ attentive_______ upset_______ active_______ distressed135Appendix D:  Elevating Experiences ScalePlease indicate how you typically felt, DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS.1 inspired 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely2 in awe 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely3 deeply appreciating 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely4 in wonder 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely5 enriched 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely6 profoundly touchedby experiences1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely7 spiritually uplifted 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely8 part of somethinggreater than myself1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely9 morally elevated 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely10 emotionally moved 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely11 connected with agreater whole1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely12 part of some greater entity1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely13 like I'm in the presenceof something grand1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely136Appendix E:  Sense of Meaning ScaleTo what degree DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS did you typically feel that your activities and experiences were:1 meaningful 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely2 valuable 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely3 precious 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely4 full of significance 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely5 something I can treasure 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely6 dear to me 1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely7 playing an important rolein some broader picture1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely8 making a lot of sense to me1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely9 I can see where theyfit into the bigger picture1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely10 I can see how they all addup1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely11 They contribute to various aspects of myself1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely12 They contribute to mycommunity or the broaderworld.1not atall2 3 4 5 6 7extremely137Appendix F:  Interdependent Subscale from Self-Construal ScaleFor each statement, please use the following scale to indicate your level of agreement.1stronglydisagree2 3 4neutral5 6 7stronglyagree_____  1.  I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in._____  2.  I feel my fate is intertwined with the fate of those around me._____  3.  I feel that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments._____  4.  If a member of my family or a close friend fails, I feel responsible._____  5.  My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me._____  6.  I will stay in a group if they need me, even when I am not happy with the group.138Appendix G:  Metapersonal Self ScaleListed below are a number of statements.  Read each statement as if it referred to you.  Beside each statement write the number that best matches your agreement or disagreement, using the scale below.  Please respond to every statement.StronglyDisagree1Disgree2SomewhatDisagree3Don't Agreeor Disagree4SomewhatAgree5Agree6StronglyAgree7_____  1.  I believe that no matter where I am or what I'm doing, I am never separate from others._____  2.  I feel a real sense of kinship will all living things._____  3.  I feel a sense of responsibility and belonging to the universe._____  4.  My sense of identity is based on something that unites me with all other people._____  5.  I am aware of a connection between myself and all living beings._____  6.  I see myself as being extended into everything else.139Appendix H:  Allo-Inclusive Identity ScaleBelow are seven diagrams that express varying degrees of relatedness or connection with some other person or thing.  For each of the people or things listed below, indicate which diagram best expresses your relationship with that person or thing.  For example, Diagram 1 indicates no relationship or connectedness, Diagram 4 indicates a moderate degree of connectedness, and Diagram 7 indicates complete connectedness._____  The connection between you and the person with whom you feel closest._____  The connection between you and your best friend of the same sex._____  The connection between you and a wild animal (such as a squirrel, deer, or wolf)._____  The connection between you and the average Canadian._____  The connection between you and the moon._____  The connection between you and a person who is homeless on the street._____  The connection between you and your best friend of the other sex._____  The connection between you and a dog._____  The connection between you and a tree._____  The connection between you and a stranger on the bus._____  The connection between you and all living creatures._____  The connection between you and your family._____  The connection between you and the Earth._____  The connection between you and an eagle soaring in the sky._____  The connection between you and the universe._____  The connection between you and a person of another race.1401 2 3 45 6 7Appendix I:  Connectedness to Nature ScalePlease answer each of these questions in terms of THE WAY YOU GENERALLY FELT DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS. There are no right or wrong answers. Using the following scale, simply state as honestly and candidly as you can what you experienced during the past two weeks.1strongly disgree2 3neutral4 5strongly agree_____  1. I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me._____  2. I think of the natural world as a community to which I belong._____  3. I recognize and appreciate the intelligence of other living organisms._____  4. I often feel disconnected from nature._____  5. When I think of my life, I imagine myself to be part of a larger cyclical process of living._____  6. I often feel a kinship with animals and plants._____  7. I feel as though I belong to the Earth as equally as it belongs to me._____  8. I have a deep understanding of how my actions affect the natural world._____  9. I often feel part of the web of life._____ 10. I feel that all inhabitants of Earth, human, and nonhuman, share a common “life force”._____ 11. Like a tree can be part of a forest, I feel embedded within the broader natural world._____ 12. When I think of my place on Earth, I consider myself to a top member of a hierarchy that exists in nature._____ 13. I often feel like I am only a small part of the natural world around me, and that I am no more important than the grass on the ground or the birds in the trees._____ 14. My personal welfare is independent of the welfare of the natural world.141Appendix J:  Social Value Orientation Slider Measure142Appendix K:  Aspiration IndexEveryone has goals or aspirations.  These are the things that individuals hope to accomplish over the course of their lives.  In this section, you will find listed a number of goals, presented one at atime.  For each goal, please rate how important it is to you to accomplish this in the future.  Please use the following scale to rate each goal.not at all1 2 3moderately4 5 6very7How important is it to you that in the future …. _____  you will have a job with high social status_____  you will donate time or money to charity_____  you will work for the betterment of society_____  you will have a job that pays well_____  you will work to make the world a better place_____  you will be financially successful_____  you will have a lot of expensive possessions_____  you will be a very wealthy person_____  you will help others improve their lives_____  you will help people in need, asking nothing in return143Appendix L:  Materials Values ScalePlease indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with each of the following statements:DISAGREE AGREESTRONGLY SOMEWHAT A LITTLE DONTKNOW A LITTLE SOMEWHAT STRONGLY1. I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. The things I own say a lot about how well I'm doing in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. I like to own things that impress people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. I try to keep my life simple, as faras possessions are concerned. 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Buying things gives me a lot of pleasure. 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. I like a lot of luxury in my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. My life would be better if I owned certain things I don't have. 1 2 3 4 5 6 78. I'd be happier if I could afford to buy more things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 79. It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I can't afford to buy all the things I'd like.1 2 3 4 5 6 7144Appendix M:  Engagement with Beauty ScaleIn regard to all responses below, keep in mind that we are only asking about your experience with perceiving and feeling something as beautiful. We are not asking if you like something; we are not asking if you think something is important; we only ask if you feel it as beautiful.1very muchunlike me2unlike me3a littleunlike me4neutral5a littlelike me6like me7very muchlike meStatements 1–4 below refer to experiences with nature and the physical world, including mountains, rocks, rivers, lakes, oceans, deserts, plants, flowers, trees, animals, etc. (but NOT the human body). _____1. I notice beauty in one or more aspects of nature. _____2. When perceiving beauty in nature I feel changes in my body, such as a lump in my throat, an expansion in my chest, faster heart beat, or other bodily responses. _____3. When perceiving beauty in nature I feel emotional; it “moves me,” such as feeling a sense of awe, or wonder or excitement or admiration or upliftment. _____4. When perceiving beauty in nature I feel something like a spiritual experience, perhaps a sense of oneness, or being united with the universe, or a love of the entire world. 1very muchunlike me2unlike me3a littleunlike me4neutral5a littlelike me6like me7very muchlike meStatements 5-8 below refer to experiences with art, such as paintings, sculpture, music, dance, architecture, poetry, novels, literature, etc._____5. I notice beauty in art or human-made objects._____6. When perceiving beauty in a work of art I feel changes in my body, such as a lump in my throat, an expansion in my chest, faster heart beat, or other bodily responses._____7.When perceiving beauty in a work of art I feel emotional; it “moves me,” such as feelinga sense of awe, or wonder or excitement or admiration or a love of the entire world._____8. When perceiving beauty in a work of art I feel something like a spiritual experience, perhaps a sense of oneness, or being united with the universe, or a love of the entire world.145Appendix N:  Stress Overload ScaleIN THE PAST TWO WEEKS, have you felt:0Not At All1 2 3 4A Lot… strained?… inadequate?… overextended?… confident?… no sense of getting ahead?… swamped by your responsibilities?… that the odds were against you?… that there wasn't enough time to get          everything done?… like you were rushed?… like you couldn't cope?… like you had a lot on your mind?… like nothing was going right?… powerless?… overcommitted?… like your life was out of control?… like things kept piling up?… like you had to make quick          decisions?… like asking “what else can go          wrong?”… like you didn't have time to breathe?… like things couldn't get worse?… like there was no escape?… like you were carrying a heavy load?… like just giving up?… like there was “too much to do,          too little time”?146Appendix O:  Rosenberg Self-Esteem ScaleBelow is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself.  Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement.1.  On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 2.  At times I think I am no good at all.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 3.  I feel that I have a number of good qualities.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 4.  I am able to do things as well as most other people.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 5.  I feel I do not have much to be proud of.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 6.  I certainly feel useless at times.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 7.  I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 8.  I wish I could have more respect for myself.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 9.  All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 10.  I take a positive attitude toward myself.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 147

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0166501/manifest

Comment

Related Items