Arts and Sciences, Irving K. Barber School of (Okanagan)
Psychology, Department of
DSpace
UBCO
Passmore, Holli-Anne
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
The overarching goal of this study is to help establish “Noticing Nature” as a valid Positive Psychology Intervention (PPI). The Noticing Nature PPI is a two-week well-being exercise that involves noticing how everyday natural objects and scenes make you feel. This PPI has been tested in two previous studies (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017) with student populations from Canada and China. The current study is unique in several ways. First, in a single study, effects of a two-week Noticing Nature (NN) PPI were compared to one of the most commonly cited PPIs (i.e.,Three Good Things). A control condition employed in previous studies validating PPIs was also utilized. Second, in addition to pre- and post-intervention assessments, the study included a follow-up assessment. Third, a broad array of individual and social well-being indices were employed that previous research has used when assessing the benefits of nature interventions, but that have not been employed when assessing the benefits of common PPIs. This allowed for the determination whether, as a PPI, Noticing Nature has benefits above-and-beyond effects associated with other PPIs. Lastly, four different samples (two from universities in Canada, one from a university in China, and an online sample) were recruited. This allowed for the examination of the generalizability of Noticing Nature as a valid PPI. At the end of the two-week intervention, participants in the Noticing Nature had significantly higher levels of transcendent connectedness, elevation, net-positive affect and significantly lower levels of stress compared to those in the control condition. Compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition, participants in the Noticing Nature condition had significantly higher levels of transcendent connectedness and elevation. One week post-intervention, levels of elevation remained significantly higher for those who noticed nature, compared to both the Three Good Things and the control condition. Participants engaged in the Noticing Nature during the follow-up a significantly greater number of days than did those in the other conditions.
Comparing Hedonic, Eudaimonic, and Social Well-Being Benefits of Engaging in NoticingNature to Benefits of Engaging in a Common Positive Psychology InterventionbyHolli-Anne PassmoreB.A., MacEwan University, 2013M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2015A THEIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Psychology)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA(Okanagan)September, 2019© Holli-Anne Passmore, 2019Committee Recommendation FormThe following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of GraduateStudies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: Comparing hedonic, eudaimonic, and social well-being benefits of engaging in NoticingNature to benefits of engaging in a common positive psychology interventionsubmitted by Holli-Anne Passmore in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of Doctorof Philosophy (Psychology).Supervisor: Paul G. DaviesSupervisor Committee Member: Brian O’ConnorSupervisor Committee Member: Derrick WirtzUniversity Examiner: Johannus JanmaatExternal Examiner: Mirella StroinkiiAbstractThe overarching goal of this study is to help establish “Noticing Nature” as a valid Positive Psychology Intervention (PPI). The Noticing Nature PPI is a two-week well-being exercise that involves noticing how everyday natural objects and scenes make you feel. This PPIhas been tested in two previous studies (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017) with student populations from Canada and China.The current study is unique in several ways. First, in a single study, effects of a two-week Noticing Nature (NN) PPI were compared to one of the most commonly cited PPIs (i.e.,Three Good Things). A control condition employed in previous studies validating PPIs was also utilized. Second, in addition to pre- and post-intervention assessments, the study included a follow-up assessment. Third, a broad array of individual and social well-being indices were employed that previous research has used when assessing the benefits of nature interventions, butthat have not been employed when assessing the benefits of common PPIs. This allowed for the determination whether, as a PPI, Noticing Nature has benefits above-and-beyond effects associated with other PPIs. Lastly, four different samples (two from universities in Canada, one from a university in China, and an online sample) were recruited. This allowed for the examination of the generalizability of Noticing Nature as a valid PPI.At the end of the two-week intervention, participants in the Noticing Nature had significantly higher levels of transcendent connectedness, elevation, net-positive affect and significantly lower levels of stress compared to those in the control condition. Compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition, participants in the Noticing Nature condition had significantly higher levels of transcendent connectedness and elevation. One week post-iiiintervention, levels of elevation remained significantly higher for those who noticed nature, compared to both the Three Good Things and the control condition. Participants engaged in the Noticing Nature during the follow-up a significantly greater number of days than did those in theother conditions.ivLay SummaryWe encounter nature everyday in our routines: a tree at the bus stop, a bird on the grass. Yet, many people don’t actually take notice of the natural world around them. In this study, for two weeks people paid attention, every day, to the nature they encountered in their daily routines,and they jotted down how those aspects of the natural world made them feel. Other participants wrote about three good things that happened each day, while a third group simply wrote about what they did each day. People who noticed nature and how it made them feel ended up experiencing greater feelings of positive emotions, connectedness, elevation, and satisfaction with life, and they felt less stressed.; these people still felt a greater sense of elevation one week after the intervention. These results are important in evidencing that Noticing Nature is effectivein enhancing many aspects of well-being.vPrefaceThe ethics application for this study described in this document was approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia Okanagan Research Services, and was assigned the tracking number H17-01973.Holli-Anne Passmore is the sole author of this dissertation. She designed the research, ran all aspects of the study, analyzed the data, and wrote this manuscript. No publications or submissions have arisen from this work as of the current date.No copyrighted material is included in this dissertation.viTable of ContentsAbstract.........................................................................................................................................iiiLay Summary................................................................................................................................vPreface...........................................................................................................................................viTable of Contents........................................................................................................................viiList of Tables...............................................................................................................................xiiiList of Figures.............................................................................................................................xviAcknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..xviiiDedication…………...…………………………………………………………………………xixIntroduction...................................................................................................................................1Positive Psychology Interventions...............................................................................................3 Inherent Appeal: Critical Factor to the Effectiveness of PPIs.............................................4 Inherent appeal of affiliating with nature..............................................................................4Theoretical Frameworks Explaining Nature’s Inherent Appeal and Beneficial Impact........7 The Biophilia Hypothesis........................................................................................................7 Characteristics of Natural Stimuli.........................................................................................7 Perceptual Fluency Account....................................................................................................8 Attention Restoration Theory.................................................................................................9 Stress Reduction Theory........................................................................................................10 Reasonable Person Model......................................................................................................11 Eco-Existential Positive Psychology Framework.................................................................12 Evolutionary Functional Model of Affect Regulation..........................................................15viiEvidence of Nature’s Beneficial Effects on Individual Well-Being.........................................18 Exposure to Nature and Hedonic Well-Being.......................................................................18 Large-scale studies.............................................................................................................18 Random assignment with control group studies.............................................................20 Exposure to Nature and Eudaimonic Well-Being................................................................23Evidence of Nature’s Beneficial Effects on Social Well-Being.................................................24Positive Psychology Interventions – Nature-Based Interventions: A Gap..............................27Addressing the Gap: The Proposed Research...........................................................................28 Description of Conditions.......................................................................................................29 Dependent Variable.................................................................................................................32 Covariates................................................................................................................................34 Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................35Method..........................................................................................................................................37 Sample size...............................................................................................................................37 Participants..............................................................................................................................37 Procedure.................................................................................................................................39 Part one: Initial instructions and questionnaires............................................................39 Modification of Part One for the undergraduate sample from China....................41 Modification of Part One for the online sample.........................................................41 Part two: Daily exercises and post-intervention questionnaires....................................42 Modification of Part Two for the undergraduate sample from China.....................43 Part three: Follow-up questionnaires...............................................................................43viii Modification of Part Three for the undergraduate sample from China..................45 Modification of Part Three for the online sample......................................................45 Measures..................................................................................................................................45 Well-being...........................................................................................................................46 Positive and negative affect..........................................................................................46 Satisfaction with life......................................................................................................46 Meaning in life...............................................................................................................47 Transcendent connectedness........................................................................................47 Elevation........................................................................................................................47 Ill-being...............................................................................................................................48 Pro-socialiality....................................................................................................................48 Compassion....................................................................................................................48 Perspective taking and empathic concern..................................................................48 Prosocial behaviour......................................................................................................49 Prosocial motivation.....................................................................................................49 Pro-environmental behaviour......................................................................................50 Self-concordant motivation...............................................................................................50 Covariate measures............................................................................................................50 Implicit theories of well-being......................................................................................51 Engagement with beauty..............................................................................................51 Quantitative Analytic Methodology......................................................................................51 Statistical programs...........................................................................................................51ix Data cleaning and calculation of variable scores............................................................51 Initial assessment of normality and identification of outliers........................................52 Correlations........................................................................................................................52 Difference scores................................................................................................................53 ANCOVAs...........................................................................................................................53 Qualitative Analytic Methodology.........................................................................................55Quantitative Results.....................................................................................................................56 Hypothesis Tests......................................................................................................................56 H1 – well-being and ill-being from pre- to post-intervention........................................56 H1a – net-positive affect...............................................................................................56 H1b – satisfaction with life...........................................................................................57 H1c – meaning in life....................................................................................................57 H1d – transcendent connectedness..............................................................................58 H1e – elevation..............................................................................................................59 H1f – depression............................................................................................................59 H1g – anxiety.................................................................................................................60 H1h – stress....................................................................................................................60 H2 – prosociality from pre- to post-intervention and at post-intervention..................61 H2a – compassion..........................................................................................................61 H2b – perspective taking and empathic concern.......................................................62 H2c – pro-environmental behaviour...........................................................................63 H2d – prosocial behaviour...........................................................................................63x H2e – prosocial motivation...........................................................................................63 H3 – motivation to continue with activity at post-intervention.....................................64 H4 – number of days participants engaged in activity follow-up..................................65 Exploratory Analyses..............................................................................................................67 EA1 – time spent in nature during the two-week intervention period..........................67 EA2 – well-being from post- to one-week post-intervention..........................................67 EA2a – net-positive affect.............................................................................................67 EA2b – satisfaction with life.........................................................................................68 EA2c – meaning in life..................................................................................................68 EA2d – transcendent connectedness...........................................................................68 EA2e – elevation............................................................................................................69 Non-inferiority Tests...............................................................................................................69 Non-inferiority test for net-positive affect.......................................................................72 Non-inferiority test for stress............................................................................................72 Summary of quantitative results...........................................................................................73 Hypothesis 1 regarding the impact of condition on well-being and ill-being...............73 Hypothesis 2 regarding the impact of condition on prosociality...................................73 Hypothesis 3 regarding motivation to continue engaging in the activity......................74 Hypothesis 4 regarding number of days engaged in activity during follow-up...........74 Exploratory analyses.........................................................................................................74 Meta-Analyses on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being Outcomes..................................75 Meta-analysis for net-positive affect................................................................................75xi Meta-analysis for satisfaction with life............................................................................76 Meta-analysis for meaning in life.....................................................................................76 Meta-analysis for transcendent connectedness............................................................. 77 Meta-analysis for elevation...............................................................................................77 Summary of meta-analyses...............................................................................................77Qualitative Findings....................................................................................................................79 Comparison of qualitative findings to previous Noticing Nature studies..........................84Conclusion....................................................................................................................................86 Limitations of the Current Study..........................................................................................93 Implications of the Current Study.........................................................................................95 Future Research Directions....................................................................................................98References...................................................................................................................................102Appendices..................................................................................................................................131 Appendix A: SONA recruitment ad...................................................................................131 Appendix B: Pre-intervention participant package..........................................................132 Appendix C: Script for initial in-person session...............................................................142 Appendix D: Emails.............................................................................................................147 Appendix E: Post-intervention participant package........................................................153 Appendix F: Follow-up measures.......................................................................................154 Appendix G: Debriefing sheet.............................................................................................155 Appendix H: All measures...................................................................................................158xiiList of TablesTable 1: Participant demographics and sample sizes by group and condition............................174Table 2: Initial descriptive statistics for all variables: Pre-intervention......................................175Table 3: Initial descriptive statistics for all variables: Post-intervention.....................................176Table 4: Initial descriptive statistics for all variables: Follow-up................................................177Table 5: Correlations between variables: Pre-intervention..........................................................178Table 6: Correlations between variables: Post-intervention with pre-covariates.........................179Table 7: Correlations between variables: Follow-up with pre-covariates...................................180Table 8: Descriptive statistics for difference scores.....................................................................181Table 9: Correlations between pre-covariates and pre-post difference scores.............................182Table 10: Correlations between pre-covariates and pre-follow-up difference scores..................183Table 11: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1a—net-positive affect.......................................................184Table 12: Post-hoc ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1a—net-positive affect........................................185Table 13: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1b—satisfaction with life...................................................186Table 14: Post-hoc ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1b—satisfaction with life....................................187Table 15: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1c—meaning in life............................................................188Table 16: Simple effects for Hypothesis 1c—meaning in life.....................................................189Table 17: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1d—transcendent connectedness.......................................190Table 18: Post-hocANCOVA for Hypothesis 1d—transcendent connectedness.........................191Table 19: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1e—elevation.....................................................................192Table 20: Post-hoc ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1e—elevation......................................................193Table 21: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1f—depression...................................................................194xiiiTable 22: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1g—anxiety........................................................................195Table 23: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1h—stress...........................................................................196Table 24: Post-hoc ANCOVA for Hypothesis 1h—stress............................................................197Table 25: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 2a—compassion.................................................................198Table 26: Simple effetcts for Hypothesis 2a—compassion.........................................................199Table 27: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 2b—perspective taking and empathic concern..................200Table 28: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 2c—pro-environmental behaviour.....................................201Table 29: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 2d—prosocial behaviour....................................................202Table 30: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 2e—prosocial motivation...................................................203Table 31: Simple effects for Hypothesis 2e—prosocial motivation............................................204Table 32: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 3—motivation to continue activity.....................................205Table 33: Simple effects for Hypothesis 3—motivation to continue activity..............................206Table 34: ANCOVA for Hypothesis 4—number of days engaged in activity follow-up.............207Table 35: Post-hoc ANCOVA for Hypothesis 4—number of days engaged follow-up...............208Table 36: Contingency table for Hypothesis 4—likelihood to engage in activity follow-up......209Table 37: ANCOVA for Exploratory Analysis 1—time spent in nature intervention period.......210Table 38: ANCOVA for Exploratory Analysis 2a—net-positive affect follow-up......................211Table 39: Post-hoc ANCOVA for Exploratory Analysis 2a—net-positive affect follow-up.......212Table 40: ANCOVA for Exploratory Analysis 2b—satisfaction with life follow-up..................213Table 41: ANCOVA for Exploratory Analysis 2c—meaning in life follow-up...........................214Table 42: ANCOVA for Exploratory Analysis 2d—transcendent connectedness follow-up.......215Table 43: ANCOVA for Exploratory Analysis 2e—elevation follow-up.....................................216xivTable 44: Post-hoc ANCOVA for Exploratory Analysis 2e—elevation follow-up......................217Table 45: Summary of results Hypothesis 1: well-being and ill-being........................................218Table 46: Summary of results Hypothesis 2: prosociality...........................................................219Table 47: Summary of results Hypothesis 3: motivation to continue activity.............................220Table 48: Summary of results Hypothesis 4: number days engaged in activity follow-up.........221Table 49: Summary of results Exploratory Analyses: well-being and ill-being..........................222Table 50: Sample group statistics for hedonic and eudaimonic well-being for meta-analyses. . .223Table 51: Summary of meta-analyses results...............................................................................224Table 52: Emotional themes emerging from qualitative data for Noticing Nature condition......225xvList of FiguresFigure 1: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 1a—net-positive affect................................................227Figure 2: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 1b—satisfaction with life............................................227Figure 3: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 1c—meaning in life....................................................228Figure 4: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 1d—transcendent connectedness................................228Figure 5: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 1e—elevation..............................................................229Figure 6: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 1f—depression............................................................229Figure 7: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 1g—anxiety.................................................................230Figure 8: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 1h—stress...................................................................230Figure 9: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2a—compassion..........................................................231Figure 10: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2b—perspective taking and empathic concern.........231Figure 11: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2c—pro-environmental behaviour............................232Figure 12: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2d—prosocial behaviour...........................................232Figure 13: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2e—prosocial motivation..........................................233Figure 14: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2a—motivation to continue with activity................233Figure 15: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2a—days engaged in activity during follow-up........234Figure 16: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2a—time spend in nature..........................................234Figure 17: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2a—net-positive affect follow-up.............................235Figure 18: Means by group/condition for Hypothesis 2a—net-positive affect follow-up...........235Figure 19: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2b—satisfaction with life follow-up.........................236Figure 20: Means by group/condition for Hypothesis 2b—satisfaction with life follow-up.......236Figure 21: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2c—meaning in life follow-up..................................237xviFigure 22: Means by group/condition for Hypothesis 2c—meaning in life follow-up...............237Figure 23: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2d—transcendent connectedness follow-up.............238Figure 24: Means by group for Hypothesis 2d—transcendent connectedness follow-up............238Figure 25: Means and CIs for Hypothesis 2e—elevation follow-up...........................................239Figure 26: Means by group/condition for Hypothesis 2e—elevation follow-up.........................239Figure 27: Non-inferiority test Noticing Nature and Three Good Things—net-positive affect. .240Figure 28: Non-inferiority test Noticing Nature and Three Good Things—stress......................241Figure 29: Forest plot of meta-analysis for net-positive affect....................................................242Figure 30: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for net-positive affect.................................................242Figure 31: Forest plot of meta-analysis for satisfaction with life................................................243Figure 32: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for satisfaction with life..............................................243Figure 33: Forest plot of meta-analysis for meaning in life.........................................................244Figure 34: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for meaning in life......................................................245Figure 35: Forest plot of meta-analysis for transcendent connectedness....................................245Figure 36: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for transcendent connectedness..................................246Figure 37: Forest plot of meta-analysis for elevation..................................................................246Figure 38: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for elevation................................................................246Figure 39: Word cloud comparisons of emotional themes evoked by noticing nature................247xviiAcknowledgementsMy deepest gratitude goes to several people:Paul Davies. You turned many tears and stress into an abundance of joy. You always had my back and and provided me with advice that was best for my career and my well-being. And you provided me with so many opportunities and the freedom to pursue them. Derrick Wirtz. Your advice was always sound and you spent so much time editing application letters and statements. I would have never applied for the post-doc if you hadn’t been so strong in your suggestion to do so – and you were right! I learned so much from you.Brian O’Connor. You’ve been there from day one of my graduate studies. You have taughtme, inspired me, supported me, and had confidence in me when I doubted my abilities. You looked out for me in my Masters and in my PhD. It’s been a long road and I appreciate you being there for the whole journey.Jan Cioe. You saved my sanity many times during this adventure. I truly don’t know if I would have made it without your support.Veronika Huta. You have been part of this adventure even before I started graduate school. You encouraged me to stick to my ideas and you expanded my horizons and my ideas. You had confidence in me. You provided effort and resources that enabled me to run participants there at U Ottawa. And you have been, and are, my dear friend.Marla MacDonald. It is simply not possible for any graduate student here to succeed without your amazing support and encouragement. You fixed things when I messed up; you did an enormous amount of behind-the-scenes work so I wouldn’t have to. You listened. You cared. Every single day.Lorrain Tyrany: For running ALL the participants from the Ottawa sample.Megan Severson: For organizing and running participants here at UBC and for your hard work coding ALL those dairy entries.Ying Yang: My dear friend and colleague in China! Thank you for collaborating with me for the China sample and in many other projects we have worked on. You are such a joy to knowand to work with.And last but certainly not least, ALL of my students in my Nature-MILL Research Lab and Discussion Group – current and past. You inspire me; you make me think; you make me laugh; you keep me grounded. I have learned much from each of you.xviiiDedicationto PKL: One monkey at a time! Thank you.to Hilary: from before kindergarten … you’ve always been thereand allways --- my Gnome!xixIntroductionIn every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks. (Muir, 1918, p.128)The idea that “absence does not equate to presence” has long been posited by experts across a variety of domains. Journalist Jonah Goldberg (2016) quipped that “absence of a smoking gun doesn’t equate to innocence”. Occupational health and safety officials warn that “the absence of accidents does not imply the presence of safety” (Idealsafe, 2004). Public health professional, Henry Sigerist (1941) argued that “health is … not simply the absence of disease” but rather requires the presence of “something positive”. This view was subsequently adopted bythe World Health Organization (1948) in defining health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”, in expanding its goals towards not only reducing illness, but also increasing health.Psychologists, too, began to adopt this notion of presence as different than mere absence, and by extension, that positive is more than the absence of negative. In 1954, Abraham Maslow used the term “positive psychology” to propose studying humans who are living to their full potential. In 1958, Marie Jahoda advocated that psychology, as a field, correct its bias of studying only mental disorders and ill-being by also pursuing the study of mental health and well-being, because “the absence of mental illness is not a sufficient indicator of mental health” (p. 15). The humanistic movement in the 1960s-1980s made initial strides towards this goal (see reviews Lambert, Passmore, & Holder, 2015; Resnick, Warmoth, & Serlin, 2001; Wade & Jones, 2015). However, the scientific study of mental health and well-being was catalyzed with Seligman and Csikszentihalyi’s official introduction to “positive psychology” in 2000, a follow-up to Seligman’s 1998 presidential address to the American Psychological Association. Since that time, positive psychology has experienced impressive growth in terms of both theoretical 1frameworks and supportive research with regard to establishing that well-being is qualitatively different than the mere absence of ill-being (Keyes, 2002; 2005).Across disciplines, ideas with regard to “absence not equating to presence” converge on an underlying sentiment: that in order to attain the presence of something, we need to engage in action geared specifically towards that presence. Within the domain of positive psychology, suchactions are deemed Positive Psychology Interventions (PPIs); PPIs are empirically validated activities designed specifically to enhance well-being.2Positive Psychology InterventionsWell-being is often conceived as comprising both feeling good and functioning well, hedonia and eudaimonia respectively (Keyes & Annas, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2001; cf. Kashdan, Biswas-Diener, & King, 2008). Although positively correlated, hedonia, the pursuit of pleasure (Huta, Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2006; Miquelon & Vallerand, 2008), and eudaimonia, a way of life wherein individuals strive to be better by using talent and making meaning (Huta et al., 2006; Waterman, 2007), arise from conceptually distinct theories (for review see Lambert et al, 2015) and, thus, have distinct measurement indices. For example, hedonic well-being (often referred to as subjective or emotional well-being) is commonly assessed with indices of positive and negative emotions, satisfaction with life, and happiness; eudaimonic well-being is generally assessed with measures of meaning or purpose in life, social and psychological well-being, and transcendent feelings such as elevation. Hedonia is more associated with short-term well-being; eudaimonia is associated with longer-term, more enduring well-being (Huta & Ryan, 2010). Both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being are necessary for a full sense of flourishing. However, the majority of PPIs have focused on enhancing, and assessing, hedonic well-being (Bolier et al.,2013; Lopes, de Palma, Garcia, & Gomes, 2016; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009). In the past five years, though, there has been an increase in also targeting, and measuring, aspects of eudaimonic well-being (e.g., Weiss, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2016).The general structure of PPIs is that of brief, self-administered, practical exercises or activities carried out daily, or a few times a week (Bolier et al., 2013; Ng, 2015). Several PPIs have been developed and validated as effective in boosting well-being in non-clinical populations. These PPIs include: counting your blessings (Emmons & McCullough, 2012), practicing or counting kind acts (Otake. Shimai, Tanaka-Matsumi, Otsui, & Fredrickson, 2006), 3expressing gratitude (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006), and writing about three good things (Mongrain & Anselmo-Matthews, 2012; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).Inherent Appeal: Critical Factor to the Effectiveness of PPIsWithin the sustainable happiness model (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005), two related factors that are identified as being critical to the effectiveness of any given PPI are 1) performing the exercise with effort and habitual commitment, and 2) person-activity “fit” (see also Fordyce, 1983). With regard to effort and commitment, “[o]bviously, if an individual desires to feel happier and more joyful but does not exert dedicated effort to regularly perform a relevant mood-enhancing strategy, he will see few or no results” (Sheldon & Lyubomirksy, 2006,p. 74). With regard to “fit”, the sustainable happiness model predicts that well-being will be more likely to increase when activity-relevant motives are in alignment with intrinsic, or self-concordant, motivation. Longitudinal research in the area of goal pursuit has demonstrated that greater self-concordant motivation with respect to personal goals predicts greater commitment and sustained engagement in activities pursuant to those goals, which in turn results in a higher likelihood of goal achievement, and a subsequent increase in well-being (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998,1999; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995, 1998).In the context of PPIs, self-concordant motivation provides a vehicle for establishing which activities are more inherently enjoyable and engaging to individuals. For example, Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006) reported that self-concordant motivation was significantly higher in the best possible selves PPI condition than in the active control condition (ds = 0.32), and that self-concordant motivation predicted engagement/performance in the best-possible selves PPI (r = .36).Inherent appeal of affiliating with nature. Empirical research has also evidenced that 4self-concordant motivation is high for nature-based activities. For example, Passmore and Howell (2014a) reported (1) that participants assigned to a nature-based activity condition reported significantly greater self-concordant motivation to engage in their task than those assigned to an active control condition (d = 0.81), (2) that high levels of engagement in the nature-based condition were sustained throughout the two-week study period, and (3) that participants in the nature-based condition evidenced significantly higher levels of well-being at the end of the two-week study compared to those in the control group.More recently, Passmore and Holder (2017) reported an additional three ways in which the inherent appeal of affiliating with nature was demonstrated. In their two-week study, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: nature, human-built, or a business-as-usual control. Participants paid attention to how nature (or human-built objects, depending on assignment) in their everyday surroundings made them feel, photographed the objects/scenes that evoked emotion in them, and provided a description of emotions evoked. Theinherent appeal of nature was firstly evidenced in participants’ descriptions of their emotional reactions. Nature photos were significantly more likely to be associated with positive emotions, and significantly less likely to associated with negative emotions. Moreover, emotional reactionsto nature appeared to be evoked directly by the natural object or scene, rather than by a memory, activity, or function that the individual associated with the object/scene, such as was evident for photos of human-built objects/scenes. Second, although participants assigned to the human-builtcondition were explicitly, and repeatedly, instructed to notice, and report on, how human-built objects/scenes made them feel, the majority still submitted at least one photo of a natural object/scene which had evoked a strong emotion in them. Lastly, at the end of the two-week study, “many participants in the human-built condition expressed their affinity for nature and 5their difficulty in connecting emotionally with a built environment” (p. 8). In essence, natural objects and scenes were simply more emotionally evocative.Why would this be so? Why does it appear that people are inherently pulled towards nature? Why is the “call of the wild”, and even the call of everyday nature (as exhibited in Passmore and colleagues’ studies: Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Howell, 2014a; Passmore & Yang, 2017) so strong? Why does affiliating with nature have a positive impact on our well-being?6Theoretical Frameworks Explaining Nature’s Inherent Appeal and Beneficial ImpactThe Biophilia HypothesisFindings noted above regarding the inherent appeal that nature has for people are consistent with the biophilia hypothesis (Shepard, 1982; Ulrich, 1983; Wilson, 1984). The biophilia hypothesis posits that we have an evolved inclination to affiliate with the greater-than-human natural world and to respond with emotional intensity to it. A substantial body of literature and research supports the biophilia hypothesis (see literature reviews by Grinde & Patil2009; Joye, 2007; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; cf. Joye & De Block, 2011). Our ancestor’s survival and well-being depended on their ability to be aware of their natural surroundings. Automatic affective responses to natural environments were adaptive given that features of the landscape signalled danger, refuge, or sustenance. For example, flowers originally signalled the presence of food, and trees offered protection from the elements and from predators. Although now, as modern urbanites, we no longer forage for our food, are not completely subject to the elements, and do not need to routinely escape from predators, the vestiges of our evolutionary past still lay within us. We are not that far removed from the time when we lived immersed in nature via a hunter-gather lifestyle (Burns, 2005; Frumkin, 2001; Gullone, 2000; Kahn,1997; Kellert,1997; Nesse and Wiliams, 1996 ); too short of a time period has passed to allow for any evolutionary biological adaptations to our current technological-based urban lifestyle (Gullone, 2000). Thus, flowers and trees still awaken aesthetic and pleasant reactions in us. Indeed, Buss (2000) noted that when we appreciate the beauty of a blossom or the loveliness of a lilac, we are filling our lives with evolutionarily inspired epiphanies of pleasure (p. 22).Characteristics of Natural StimuliIn addition to biological fit, Burns (1998) detailed four characteristics of stimuli found in 7natural environments that also help to explain their inherent appeal: variety, intensity, motion, and anticipation (see also Grinde, 1996). Human-constructed environments are generally mechanized, sterilized, static, and composed of geometric patterns within a relatively narrow range of colours (see also Söderlund & Newman, 2015). Nature, however, provides a much broader array of multimodal sensual experiences. While our constructed environments are built to minimize intensity—we climate-control our living spaces—nature provides us with varying intensities of warm, cold, dry, and wet. Natural stimuli also offers us a greater range of intensities of tactile sensations than is commonly found within constructed environments (e.g., prickly grass under our feet, the softness of rose petals). Nature is awash in subtle movement—clouds, the sun, the moon and stars, leaves on a tree, birds and insects flying by. Natural stimuli and scenes are also constantly changing; even indoors plants grow, drop leaves, and turn towardsthe sun over the course of night and day. Burns argues that these characteristics of variety, intensity, and motion provide for a sense of enjoyable anticipation.Perceptual Fluency AccountThe Perceptual Fluency Account (PFA; Joye & van den Berg, 2011) posits that our visual systems more fluently process aspects of the visual structure of natural environments than of urban environments (see also Redies, 2007). Thus, processing natural scenes requires fewer cognitive resources; in turn, this fluent processing is accompanied by positive affect and cognitive restoration. Rather than attributing nature’s beneficial effects to evolutionary factors, the PFA views positive affect, and in particular, attention restoration and stress reduction, as by-products of fluent processing. Nonetheless, PFA is compatible with evolutionary theories; indeed, the core supposition of PFA is inherent in evolutionary models described below such as Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and Stress Reduction Theory (Ulrich et 8al., 1991). Supportive evidence for PFA is found in studies demonstrating that natural scenes are categorized faster than artefactual scenes (Greene & Oliva, 2009).In part, it is the mathematical structure of natural objects and scenes which account for fluent processing of them (Cheung & Wells, 2004; Joye, 2007). In contrast to human-made objects, which are in large part characterized by smooth lines and elements of traditional Euclidian geometry, natural forms are characterized by boundaries of roughness, irregularity, andin particular, infinitely repeating patterns of increasingly finer magnification, a property referred to as fractal (Burton & Moorhead, 1987; Field, 1987; Spehar, Clifford, Newell, & Taylor, 2003). Empirical studies have consistently found that people respond most positively to images and patterns with an intermediate fractal dimension, which is most commonly found in nature (Aks & Sprott, 1996; Hägerhäll, Purcell, & Taylor, 2004; Taylor, Spehar, Hägerhäll, & Van Donkelaar,2011). These “fingerprints of nature” (Taylor, Micolich, & Jonas., 1999, p. 422) appear to be inherently pleasing to us (Orians, 1986; Spehar et al., 2003; Spehar & Taylor, 2013) and have proven to be restorative (Van den Berg, Joye, & Koole, 2016).Attention Restoration TheoryExposure to the fractal geometry found in nature induces alpha brain waves, indicating “awakefully relaxed state and internalized attention” (Hägerhill et al., 2015). This type of involuntary (or effortless) attention lies at the heart of Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989) Attention Restoration Theory (ART). ART positions exposure to nature as an important resource for restoring our ability to engage in directed attention (involving prolonged focus and effort to ignore nonsalient and nonrelevant distracters). Directed attention is limited, and when depleted leads to cognitive impairment and negative emotional states (e.g., irritability). The Kaplans surmised that from an evolutionary perspective, a limited capacity for directed attention was 9reasonable. Of greater importance to our ancestors than a capacity for extended, intense concentration on one particular thing, was the capacity for awareness and vigilance to one’s surroundings. Such attention allowed evolving humans to continually scan their (natural) environment for signs of refuge and danger. However, “it is only in the modern world that the split between the important and the interesting has become extreme. All too often the modern human must exert effort to do the important while resisting distraction from the interesting. Thusthe problem of fatigue of directed attention may well be of comparatively recent vintage” (Kaplan, 1995, p. 170).Exposure to nature can ameliorate the discordant mismatch between our evolutionarily adaptive limited capacity for directed attention and our current living environment which demands extended periods of this limited attentional resource (Grinde & Patil, 2009). As noted above, natural environments are characterized by several features which are inherently appealingand fascinating (Burns, 1998; Cheung & Wells, 2004; Grinde, 1996; Orians, 1986; Spehar et al., 2003; Spehar & Taylor, 2013), yet are not demanding of, or draining on, our attention. Additionally, Wohlwill (1983) proposed that natural content may take less effort to process because our brain and sensory systems evolved in natural environments. Evidence of the restorative properties of nature has been demonstrated in several studies (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; Berto, 2005; Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis, & Gärling, 2003; Joye, Pals, Steg, & Evans, 2013; Van den Berg, Koole, & van der Wulp, 2003; see also reviews by Howell & Passmore, 2013; Ohly et al., 2016).Stress Reduction TheoryUlrich et al. (1991) proposed that a variety of stress-reducing psychophysiological responses are automatically induced when we are exposed to unthreatening natural 10environments. Stress Reduction Theory (SRT) is based upon several premises and perspectives including cultural learning-based perspectives which argue that we are conditioned to revere nature and view it as an escape from bustling city life, and arousal theories which posit that stress-reduction more easily occurs in less arousing settings (in-line with ART; Kaplan & Kaplan 1989). SRT is, though, mainly premised upon the evolutionary perspective that “humans have anunlearned predisposition to pay attention and respond positively to natural content (e.g. vegetation, water) and to configurations characteristic of settings that were favorable to survival or ongoing well-being during evolution” (p. 205; cf. Joye & van den Berg, 2011). This argumentparallels the evolutionary-based arguments of ART and the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson, 1984). However, SRT differs in that it not only proposes that psychophysiolgical stress-reducing responses occur as a result of exposure to unthreatening nature, SRT also proposes that unthreatening nature promotes rapid stress reduction after exposure to threatening nature, which in turn fosters rapid recharging of physical and emotional energy. Several decades of research demonstrate that exposure to nature decreases blood pressure, lowers pulse rates, reduces cortisollevels, and improves immune functioning (see reviews: Capaldi et al., 2015; Howell & Passmore, 2013; Russell et al., 2013).Reasonable Person ModelA more recent model that has been proposed to help explain nature’s beneficial effects on our well-being is that of the Reasonable Person Model (RPM; Kaplan & Kaplan, 2003, 2009). The RPM offers an evolutionary/cognitive/motivational approach to the understanding of our relationship with the greater-than-human natural world. From an evolutionary standpoint, our information processing needs—our capacity to seek out, store, and share information—enabled us to survive and thrive as a species. At the same time, this evolved capacity leaves us 11vulnerable in situations and environments where we are bombarded with an overwhelming, confusing, and untrustworthy amount of information. In such environments we cannot process information efficiently because our basic informational needs are not met. When this occurs, we become uncomfortable and our ability to be cooperative, helpful, and constructive (i.e., reasonable) is threatened (see also Laughlin, 1968). It is adaptive, therefore, for humans to prefer environments that facilitate their information processing activities. Thus, the basic premise of the RPM is that “people are more likely to be reasonable in environments that supporttheir informational needs” (Kaplan & Kaplan, 2005).Several studies, such as those referenced above in support of the Kaplan’s (1989) earlier ART and Ulrich et al.’s (1991) SRT, have demonstrated that we process information more readily, easily, and efficiently in natural environments. The RPM suggests that when we are exposed to natural environments, we are more reasonable people—more cooperative, helpful, and constructive. Experiencing this state of reasonableness is inherently pleasant. It follows thatnatural environments, by meeting our informational needs, would be inherently appealing to us and would benefit our well-being.Eco-Existential Positive Psychology FrameworkWhile the RPM (Kaplan & Kaplan, 2003, 2009) proposes that natural environments meet our informational needs, the Eco-Existential Positive Psychology (EEPP; Passmore & Howell, 2014b) perspective postulates that cultivating our biophilic tendencies through nature experiences can help address our existential needs (i.e., anxieties relating to identity, death, isolation, freedom, happiness, and meaning). Several writers and researchers have expounded upon how the greater-than-human natural world plays an essential role in our self-concept and personality formation (Chawla, 2002; Cobb, 1977; Sebba, 1991; Taylor, 2007). For example, 12throughout our history we have compared ourselves to other animals in an attempt to define the boundaries of our uniqueness (Kalof, 2003; Shepard, 1996). Our relationships with other species(wild and domesticated animals) and elements of the natural world (i.e., landscape features) can shape and enhance our sense of identity, creating a broader sense of self and a more collective identity (Leary, Tipsord, & Tate, 2008; Myers, 2003; Myers & Russel, 2003; Sommer, 2003). Moreover, the degree to which an individual incorporates nature into their identity is positively associated with well-being (Capaldi et al., 2017; DeCicco & Stroink, 2007; Howell, Dopko, Passmore, & Buro, 2011; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2012).As outlined by the EEPP framework (Passmore & Howell, 2014b), affiliating with nature is also important in assuaging our anxieties regarding our own mortality. By identifying with thenatural world, we embed ourselves into a larger circle and cycle of life and existence (Becker, 1973; Berger & McLeod, 2006; Pienaar, 2011). In this way, nature serves as a transcendent symbol of immortality (Lifton, 1979; Shneidman, 1995). The transcendent aspect of nature also contributes to reducing feelings of existential isolation (Searles, 1960). Connecting with nature connects us to a larger functioning system (Clayton, 2003), which includes both the human and the greater-than-human natural world (Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009; Schwarz, 1994). Empirical studies have found that when immersed in a natural environment, people report feeling more connected (Shiota, Keltner, & Mossman, 2007; Terhaar, 2009). Exposure to nature also helps reduce our isolation via its effects on prosocial behaviour, which inturn improves our social relationships (see review Passmore & Howell, 2014b). Individuals whoare highly connected to nature have higher levels of social well-being (Howell et al., 2011; Howell, Passmore, & Buro, 2013).Nature has long been linked to feelings of spontaneity, authenticity, and freedom (Drew, 131999; see also reviews by Passmore & Howell, 2014b; Norton, 1986; Ridder, 2005; Sessions, 1992). As detailed by the EEPP framework (Passmore & Howell, 2014b), this freedom includes an enhanced sense of individuality. Nature provides us with a space where we are free to be our true selves, away from the expectations that society imposes on us (Clayton, 2003; Kellert, 1997). Several studies support the link between exposure to nature and greater feelings of freedom and authenticity (Hammit, 1982; Fredrickson & Anderson, 1999; Mayer et al., 2009; Weinstein, Przybylski, & Ryan, 2009).Lastly, the EEPP framework (Passmore & Howell, 2014b) outlines how affiliating with nature can address our existential needs regarding happiness and meaning in life. In an existential sense, happiness refers to general well-being, of which spirituality is an important component. People spanning belief systems from Atheist to Catholic, appear to routinely intertwine concepts of spirituality with aspects of the natural world (e.g., Caldwell-Harris, Wilson, LoTempo, & and Beit-Hallahmi; 2008). Indeed, Soule (1993) proposed that ‘‘biophilia may be difficult to tease apart from what some people call a relationship with ‘spirit’ or ‘God’” (p. 444). Key elements of meaning in life can be found in nature. For example, numerous literary sources refer to the stable patterns that are evident in nature which can provide us with a sense of deep order, comfort, and meaning (Byrd, 1938/2003; Camus, 1995; McKibben, 1989, Vernon, 2008). Connection is the essence of meaning (Baumeister, 1991); a broad sense of connection to the natural world enhances our sense of connectedness, and thereby one’s sense of meaning in life (Buber, 1923/1958; Frankl, 1959; Kellert, 2002; Note, 2009; Reker; 1996; Verbeek & de Waal, 2002). Additionally, exposure to nature often elicits a sense of awe, transcendence, and ‘something greater’, which adds meaning to life (Keltner & Haidt, 2003; Shiota et al., 2007).14Evolutionary Functional Model of Affect Regulation (Three Circle Model of Emotion)The three circle model of emotion (Gilbert, 2005) is an evolutionary functional model of affect regulation that has recently been used as a framework with which to consider the mental well-being benefits of nature (Richardson, McEwan, Maratos, & Sheffield, 2016). The three circle model of emotion emphasizes positive emotions and is based upon the following tenets: emotions catalyze action in a way that cognition alone cannot (Gilbert, 2014); emotions have a biological basis involving regulatory processes, therefore analysis of emotion must include regulatory processes (Kappas, 2011); and optimal well-being is a result of a balance between emotions and their respective regulatory processes (Kappas, 2011). Each of the circles in the three circle model represents an emotion that is associated with a biological regulatory function and an evolutionary motivation function. The three circles are: drive, contentment, and threat.Gilbert (2005, 2014) assimilated research from varied biological approaches to emotion regulation. Perspectives incorporated into Gilbert’s model include the following: 1) Gray’s (1982) model of a fight or flight system (involving the amygdala, hypothalamus, and central grey), a behavioural activation system (involving the basal ganglia and dopaminergic tracts), and a behavioural inhibition system (involving septo-hippocampal circuits); 2) Panksepp’s (1998a, b)research and perspective on emotion regulation via neurochemical systems linked to particularly affective states (see also Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky 2005 for review on dopamine and oxytocin reward pathways/systems); and 3) Porges’ (1995, 2007, 2009) work on the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system.As explained by Richardson, McEwan, et al, (2016), drive comprises high pleasure, high arousal positive emotions (e.g., joy, excitement, pleasure). Biologically, the drive system is linked to the sympathetic nervous system and the dopaminergic systems; motivationally, the 15evolutionary function of the drive system is to orient us towards resources and rewards. Contentment comprises high pleasure, low arousal positive emotions (e.g., safety, connectedness,calm). Biologically, the contentment system is linked to the parasympathetic nervous system andthe oxytocin and opiate systems; motivationally, the evolutionary function of the contentment system is to ramp down the drive system so that individuals can engage with affiliative signals and attachment behaviours. Threat comprises feelings related to anger, anxiety, disgust, and sadness. Biologically, the threat system is linked to the sympathetic nervous system and the adrenaline, noradrenaline, and cortisol systems; the evolutionary function of the threat system is to alert us to danger and motivate us to seek safety. These three systems regulate each other to produce a blend of emotional affects.Within this framework, the experience of being in nature is viewed from a dimensional, rather than categorical, approach to the emotions that are evoked (Richardson, McEwan et al., 2016). Rather than focusing on a single emotion, importance is placed upon continuums of valence and arousal. Exposure to nature elicits feelings that fall within both the drive system (e.g., joy, vitality, wonder, rejuvenation) and within the contentment system (e.g., peacefulness, comfort, relaxed, calm) (Howell et al., 2011; Howell & Passmore, 2013; Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017; Richardson & Sheffield, 2015; see also reviews Capaldi, Dopko, & Zelenski, 2014; Capaldi et al., 2015; Howell & Passmore, 2013). Thus, affiliating with nature is conducive to optimal well-being in that nature evokes a balance between drive-related emotions (and their regulatory process involving the sympathetic nervous system) and contentment-related emotions (and their regulatory process involving the parasympathetic nervous system).Heart rate variability (HRV) is an additional way of measuring the balance between the 16drive (sympathetic) and contentment (parasympathetic) systems. High HRV indicates a dynamicbalance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, and by extension, higher well-being. Low HRV indicates predominance of the sympathetic system and is linked to poor well-being and health outcomes (Carney et al., 2005; Thayer, Yamamoto, & Brosschot, 2010). Richardson, McEwan and colleagues (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of primary research that that measured HRV indicators in nature exposure compared to an urban control (N = 14) in order to investigate the extent to which findings regarding exposure to nature are in accordance with the outcomes predicted by the three circle model. That is, if parasympathetic nervous system activity (contentment) was higher in nature.Results supported the three circle model, revealing a medium effect size (g = 0.71) for greater parasympathetic activity (contentment) and somewhat lower sympathetic activity (drive) in the nature conditions compared to control. In studies that measured within-group temporal changes in components of HRV, an increase in HRV over time was found in the nature conditions(Lee et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2014; Song et al., 2015; Tsunetsugu et al., 2007). “Therefore, there can be confidence that it is in fact nature bringing benefits, rather than urban environments removing them” (Richardson, McEwan, et al., p. 7). Additionally, Beute & Kort (2014) used HRV to demonstrate that exposure to natural environments had a beneficial effect, even when resources had not been depleted. Thus, not only does nature have a restorative effect as emphasized by ART (Kaplan & Kaplan 1989) and SRT (Ulrich et al., 1991), nature also has an additive effect on our well-being.17Evidence of Nature’s Beneficial Effects on Individual Well-BeingNumerous studies lend support to the above noted theories, models, and frameworks regarding the beneficial additive effects of affiliating with nature. Across these studies, affiliating with nature has consistently been demonstrated to enhance a variety of aspects of well-being (see reviews by Bratman, Hamilton, & Daily, 2012; Capaldi et al., 2015; Howell & Passmore, 2013; Russell et al., 2013; Selhub & Logan, 2014; Williams, 2017). This includes indices of hedonic well-being, that is, high levels of positive affect, low levels of negative affect, and a high degree of overall satisfaction with one’s life (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Diener, 1984; 2009;Keyes, 2002, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman et al., 2010), as well as indices of eudaimonicwell-being, which includes constructs of meaning in life, authenticity/true self, and transcendent feelings such as awe and elevation.Exposure to Nature and Hedonic Well-BeingLarge-scale studies. Several large-scale studies provide consistent evidence that exposure to more natural surroundings leads to higher levels of positive emotions and life satisfaction. For example, in a large experience sampling study conducted over a six-month period, MacKerron and Mourato (2013) analyzed over a million responses from more than 20,000 participants in the United Kingdom. A smartphone app that recorded geographical coordinates and weather was utilized. Participants were signalled twice a day at random times, and were asked to rate, within 20 minutes, their current level of happiness and life satisfaction, the activity they were engaged in, and if they were alone. Even when controlling for weather, time of day, day of the week, type of activity, and social companionship, people were substantially happier and more satisfied with their lives when they were in more natural than more urban environments.18Findings from large survey studies conducted in Finland (N = 3,000, Korpela, Borodulin, Neuvonen, Paronen, & Tyrväinen, 2014) and England (N > 10,000, White, Alcock, Wheeler, & Depledge, 2013; N > 7,000, White, Pahl, Wheeler, Depledge, & Fleming, 2017) also evidenced the positive relationship between “green” areas and hedonic well-being. Indeed, White et al., (2017) reported that people who had visited nature the day before were 1.5 times more likely to report experiencing high levels of happiness that day than individuals who had not spent time in nature; moreover, visiting nature the previous day was at least as impactful on happiness and life satisfaction as having good (vs poor) physical health and living with (vs without) a partner.Large-scale mass-participation programs, in which participants are specifically asked to engage with nature each day for a month, have taken place in Canada and the United Kingdom. In Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation’s (DSF) 30x30 Nature Challenge is an annual campaignthat began in 2012. Each May, Canadians are encouraged to sign-up to commit to spending a minimum of 30 minutes outdoors, in contact with nature, each day for the month. In 2013, and again in 2014, changes in well-being were empirically assessed (Nisbet, 2013, 2014). When signing up online for the challenge, people were invited to take part in a survey in which they completed a brief measure of mood (along with measures of nature relatedness and time spent in nature). At the end of May, these individuals were emailed an invitation to complete a post-participation survey consisting of the same questions. Participants (2013, N = 2,225, 2014, N = 2,542; for both years: M age = 45, age range from 17-83) reported significant improvements in positive mood (ds from 0.52 to 0.76).A similar campaign, 30 Days Wild, was developed and launched in the United Kingdom in June, 2016 by The Wildlife Trusts in collaboration with researchers from two major research centers (Richardson, Cormack, McRobert, & Underhill, 2016). Participants were called upon to 19“do something wild every day” during the month of June. A list of 101 suggested activities was promoted on the website. Participants who signed up online received a booklet outlining 30 additional activities and a wall-chart to record activities along with badges and stickers. A series of 12 emails were sent to participants over the month; participants were encouraged to share theirexperiences on social media.Although designed specifically to improve well-being, the campaign was not promoted assuch. Rather, an emphasis was placed on focusing on, and valuing, everyday nature for its own sake (e.g., take a moment to watch a butterfly on your walk to the bus). Participants were asked to answer a “Wildness Quiz” (so-called in order to reduce demand characteristics) which consisted of questions assessing happiness (as well as connection to nature, pro-nature behaviour, and physical health). These questions were completed at the beginning of June (pre-participation), the end of June (post-participation), and in September (follow-up). Although 12,400 individuals formally signed up for 30 Days Wild, only 126 completed measurements at all three time points (M age = 43, age range from 22-71). Nonetheless, these individuals experienced a significant increase in happiness from pre-participation to post-participation at the end of June, and again at the follow up in September (ds = 0.29, 0.32).Random assignment with control group studies. Empirical studies utilizing random assignment and control groups have also evidenced improvements in hedonic well-being after exposure to nature. A meta-analysis of 32 studies with a total of 2,356 participants revealed that across these studies, moderate, significant increases in positive affect (r = 0.31) and small, but significant, decreases in negative affect (r = 0.12) resulted from exposure to nature (McMahan &Estes, 2015). Studies included in this meta-analysis typically involved brief exposure (live or virtual) to either natural or urban/built environments. For example, comparisons were made 20between groups of participants who had walked for varying lengths of time in a nature setting (15 minutes, Mayer et al., 2009; 50 minutes, Berman et al., 2012) to those who had walked in a more urban/built setting, or between participants who had viewed photos (Berman et al., 2008) or virtual reality (Valtchnov & Ellard, 2010) of either nature or urban/built environments. One limitation that McMahan and Estes (2015) noted regarding all of the studies includedin their meta-analysis, was that positive and negative affect were assessed at a single point in time immediately after only a single brief exposure to nature. They called for, as did Capaldi et al. (2015), randomized, controlled experimental studies assessing the positive effects of nature involvement on well-being over more extended periods of time, rather than in a direct “stimulus-response” manner.One such study was conducted by Hamann and Ivtzan (2016), who examined the effects of an existing nature-based online intervention program, Rewild Your Life (RYL), over the course of a month. Similar to the 30x30 Nature Challenge described above (DSF), RYL challenges individuals to spend 30 minutes a day in nature for 30 days. Participants were recruited through Facebook groups targeted at individuals interested in positive psychology, well-being, self-improvement, or nature. Upon signing up, participants (N = 62, M age: 40, age range: 19-over 55) were alternately assigned to either the control or the nature-based RYL experimental group.The RYL group was instructed to spend at least 30 minutes every day in outdoor/natural environments, engaged in “nature-oriented activities such as focusing on birdsong, meditating bya lake or river, or learning about local wildlife” (Hammon & Ivtzan, 2016, p. 37). Participants were encouraged to turn off all cell phones, except for the camera function; a social media page was created so that participants could share their photos, discuss their experiences, and be 21inspired by others’ nature-oriented activities. Those assigned to the control group were informedthat they would receive their instructions in 30 days. All participants completed the questionnaire package at the beginning and end of the 30-day study period. Compared to the control group, those in the nature group had significantly higher levels of positive affect and significantly lower levels of negative affect.In a series of three, randomized controlled two-week nature-based positive psychology intervention studies, Passmore and colleagues (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Howell, 2014a; Passmore & Yang, 2017) examined the effects of nearby nature on positive and negative affect. In the first study (Passmore & Howell, 2014a) participants were randomly assigned to either a control condition or to the nature condition, in which they were instructed to increase thetime they spent in nature. In the second study (Passmore & Holder, 2017), participants were instructed to pay attention to how nature (or human-built objects, depending on assignment) in their everyday surroundings made them feel, photograph the objects/scenes that evoked emotion in them, and provide a description of emotions evoked; a business-as-usual control condition wasalso utilized. While the first two studies were conducted in Canada, the third study (Passmore & Yang, 2017) was conducted in China. This study was similar to the second study except that participants merely wrote down a description of the objects/scenes that evoked emotion in them, rather than taking a photograph; descriptions of the emotions were also noted. In all three studies, at the end of the two-week intervention period, participants in the nature conditions reported significantly higher levels of net-positive affect compared to those in the control conditions and, for the second and third studies, also compared to those in the urban/built conditions (ds from 0.46 to 0.90 across the three studies).22Exposure to Nature and Eudaimonic Well-BeingThe bulk of experimental research in this area has focused on the link between exposure to nature and emotional or hedonic well-being. Yet, as described earlier, well-being is also composed of eudaimonia, components of mental health beyond merely feeling good, such as psychological well-being, meaning in life, and transcendent feelings such as a general sense of connectedness, awe, and elevation. Recognizing this, Hamann and Ivtzan (2016) and Passmore and colleagues (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Howell, 2014a; Passmore & Yang, 2017)examined nature’s impact on facets of eudaimonic well-being, in addition to the above-noted impact on hedonic well-being (i.e., positive and negative affect).Hamann and Ivtzan (2016) reported that participants in the nature condition also reported significantly higher levels of psychological well-being and meaning in life at the end of their month-long study. In Passmore and colleagues’ series of studies (Passmore & Howell, 2014a; Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017), significantly higher levels of meaning in life (Study 1 and 3), elevation (Study 1 and 2), and a general sense of connectedness (Study 2 and 3) were reported by participants in the nature conditions compared to those in the control conditions at the end of the two-week interventions (ds from 0.29 to 0.63).23Evidence of Nature’s Beneficial Effects on Social Well-BeingGiven that experiences in nature appear to increase a general sense of connectedness, perhaps it is not surprising that evidence supporting a positive relationship between exposure to natural environments and other-oriented prosocial behaviour is also accumulating. Stronger social ties, more concern regarding helping and supporting others, and greater amounts of prosocial activity are found in neighbourhoods with more (rather than less) green space (Kuo, 2003; Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998; Sommer, 2003; Sullivan, Kuo, & Depooter, 2004). Results from experimental studies corroborate these findings.Passmore & Holder (2017) reported that, compared to participants who had spent two weeks noticing how urban/built objects and scenes made them feel, and compared to those in a control condition, participants who had noticed how nature made them feel reported significantlyhigher levels of prosocial orientations (ds = 0.30, 0.38). These participants indicated greater valuing of intrinsic aspirations (e.g., wanting to make the world a better place, helping others asking nothing in return) compared to extrinsic aspirations (e.g., striving for a job with high social status, wanting to own many expensive possessions). In a give-some joint-pay game, these individuals also made resource allocation decisions that were more cooperative and prosocial than competitive and individualistic.In two field experiments involving over 400 participants, Guéguen and Stefan (2014) demonstrated that even just a walk in a heavily treed urban park increased prosocial behaviour. In these two studies, a confederate approached passersby 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 of the dropped item. Observer confederates recorded whether the passersby informed the confederate of the dropped glove 24within ten seconds. Individuals who were leaving the park, and thus had been immersed in nature, helped more readily and more frequently than those who were entering the park, and thus had not been immersed in nature.Brief exposure to nature in the lab, via plants, has evidenced this prosocial effect. Weinstein and collleagues (2009) reported that, compared to participants who rested in a lab withno plants, participants who rested for five minutes in a laboratory containing plants endorsed goals relating to closeness and community to a greater degree. These participants also exhibited more generous behaviour in a ‘trust game’. They gave more actual money to another person thatthey could have kept for themselves without negative consequence.Prosocial effects have been evidenced even in response to watching brief slideshows of natural scenes. Weinstein et al. (2009) reported that across three studies, participants who viewed a two-minute nature (vs urban) slideshow endorsed intrinsic goals to a greater degree. Zelenski, Dopko, and Capaldi (2015) randomly assigned participants to view a two-minute videoof either a pleasant nature scene, a pleasant urban scene, an unpleasant nature scene, or an unpleasant urban scene. Participants who watched either the pleasant or unpleasant nature videos scored higher in social value orientation than did participants who had watched either the pleasant or unpleasant urban videos. Passmore, Howell, Severson, Delmar, & Holder (2017) found that compared to participants who viewed a two-minute slideshow of healthy humans, participants who viewed a slideshow of healthy nature reported higher levels of compassion. Prosocial effects of exposure to nature appear to hold cross-culturally. Students at a university inChina scored lower on an implicit association task of aggression, reported greater motivation to help, and displayed less hurting and more helping behaviour in a help/hurt task after watching a 3.5-minute nature video (views included polar scenes, forests, oceans, and mountains), compared25to those who had watched an amusing or neutral video (Yang, Yang, Bao, Liu, & Passmore, 2016).26Positive Psychology Interventions – Nature-Based Interventions: A GapA sufficient corpus of validated PPIs now exist to enable meta-analyses examining their effectiveness on enhancing well-being (Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; Weiss et al. 2016). At the same time, as several researchers have pointed out, positive psychology has taken relatively little notice of nature as an effective intervention to increasing well-being (Capaldi et al., 2015; Hamann & Ivtzan, 2016; McMahan & Estes, 2015). This is surprising given, as reviewed above: (1) the consistent evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of nature on hedonic, eudaimonic, and social aspects of well-being; (2) the intrinsic, inherent appealthat nature appears to have for people; (3) evidence suggesting that this inherent appeal is indicative of high self-concordant motivation to engage with nature; and (4) the relative ease with which people can incorporate nature into their daily lives (the bulk of research in this area has exposed people to nearby, everyday nature). Moreover, research examining nature’s impact on well-being has evidenced effect sizes at the high-end of, or higher than, the average effect sizeof other PPIs commonly cited in the literature (Hamann & Ivtzan, 2016; McMahan & Estes, 2015; Nisbet, 2013, 2014; Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Howell, 2014a; Passmore & Yang, 2017; Richardson, McCormack et al., 2016; see Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009 for average effect sizes of PPIs).27Addressing the Gap: The Proposed ResearchThe overarching goal of the currently proposed research is to help establish “Noticing Nature” as a valid PPI. To that end, this study expanded upon Passmore and colleagues’ series ofnature-based positive psychology intervention studies (Passmore & Howell, 2014a; Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017). This fourth study adds to the literature and advances thefield in the following unique ways. The current study:1. directly compared, in a single study, the efficacy of the Noticing Nature PPI (NN-PPI) to a commonly cited PPI with regard to an array of indices of individual and social well-being;2. included a one-week follow-up assessment (in addition to pre- and post-intervention assessments), in order toa) assess and compare the duration of any evidenced well-being effects, specifically if hypothesized beneficial effects on well-being were still evident one-week post-intervention,c) examine the relative continued engagement in the NN-PPI compared to the commonly cited PPI at post-intervention;3. assessed specific aspects of individual and social well-being associated with nature interventions but that previous research has not examined with regard to commonly cited PPIs, inorder to determine if the NN-PPI has benefits above-and-beyond the effects thus far associated with current PPIs; and 4. utilized four different sample groups (i.e., University of British Columbia, University of Ottawa, Zhejiang Ocean University, and a separate online sample) in order to further examine the generalizability of the Noticing Nature intervention.The design of this study also allowed for conceptual replication of the previous two 28Noticing Nature intervention studies (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017), an important step in establishing Noticing Nature as a valid PPI.Description of ConditionsSpecifically, in the current two-week study, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: nature, common PPI, or active control. In the nature condition, the NoticingNature exercise (as per Passmore & Yang, 2017) was utilized. Participants were asked to notice, on a daily basis, what emotions were evoked by the natural objects and scenes they encountered in their regular routines. Participants briefly noted a description of which natural objects/scenes evoked emotions, in addition to providing a description of the emotions they felt in response to these natural object/scenes.In the common PPI condition, the Three Good Things exercise (Seligman et al., 2005) was utilized. Participants in this condition were instructed to list daily three good things that went well that day and why they happened. This PPI was chosen for two main reasons.Firstly, part of the mission (and strength) of Positive Psychology, is the development of practical, evidence-based interventions that are accessible to “the broadest possible audience” (International Positive Psychology Association, 2007). It was with this mission in mind that University of California, Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center launched the Greater Good in Action (GGIA) website. GGIA aims to promote psychological well-being via dissemination on its website of “the best research-based methods for a happier, more meaningful life”; thus making these evidence-based well-being exercises available to the public at their “fingertips in a format that's easy to navigate and digest”. Within this forum, the Three Good Things exercise is ranked as the most popular PPI listed on the site. Indeed, the Three Good Things intervention is commonly presented to the public, by positive psychologists and academics, as an easy, 29effective, proven PPI to engage in on one’s own (e.g., ChristineCarter.com, 2017; Happiness India Project, 2017; PositivePsychologists.com, 2017).Secondly, empirical evidence has demonstrated the efficacy of the Three Good Things (3GT) intervention in enhancing net-happiness via either increased well-being or positive affect or via decreased negative affect or depressive symptoms (e.g., Bahník, Vranka, & Dlouhá, 2015; Frein & Ponsler, 2014; Killen & Macaskill, 2015; Krentzman et al., 2015; Mongrain & Anselmo-Matthews 2012; Sekizawa & Yoshitake, 2015; Vella-Brodrick, 2013). Although originally validated (Seligman et al, 2005) and subsequently replicated (Mongrain & Anselmo-Matthews, 2012) as a one-week intervention, support exists for the efficacy of the 3GT exercise when engaging in it for longer periods of time. For example, Gander, Proyer, Ruch, and Wyss (2013) reported that, compared to a placebo group, happiness levels were higher in participants who had engaged in a two-week version of the3GT intervention; a reduction in depressive symptoms was also noted. Bahník and colleagues (2015) reported a decrease in participants’ negative affect after engaging in the exercise daily for a period of two weeks. Krentzman et al. (2015) utilized a 2-week version of 3GT with adult participants in an outpatient treatment program for alcohol use disorder; they reported a significant decrease in negative affect and a significant increase in positive affect at the end of the two-week study period. Killen & Macaskill (2015) reported significant differences in older adult’s levels of flourishing, net-positive affect, and perceived stress after 2 weeks of daily engagement of the 3GT intervention. In Frein and Ponsler’s (2014) study, college students engaged in the 3GT intervention daily for a period of 3 weeks reported a significantly greater increase in positive affect compared to the control group.Moreover, the Greater Good in Action website recommends engaging in the Three Good 30Things exercise for “at least once week”. Seligman and colleagues (2005) suggested that, although happiness was higher after engaging in the exercise for one week, this may not be enough time for individuals to reap the full benefits of the exercise. Indeed, they found that participants who reported benefits at the follow-up points of two weeks, one month, three months, and six months were those who had engaged in daily recording of three good things for durations of longer than one week. Additionally, Sin and Lyubomirsky, 2009 recommended that PPIs be delivered for relatively longer periods of time.It is important to note, however, that although many studies report on the efficacy of the Three Good Things intervention when used for periods longer than one week, findings are somewhat inconsistent. For example, while Bahník et al. (2015) and Krentzman et al. (2015) reported a decrease in negative affect, Frein and Ponsler (2014) did not find an effect on negativeaffect. With regard to positive affect, Frein and Ponsler reported an increase in positive affect, Killen and Macaskill (2015) reported an increase in net-positive affect, and Krentzman et al. (2015) reported an increase in unactivated positive affect (i.e., calm, at ease, relaxed) but not activated positive affect (i.e., active, alert, enthusiatic), but no effect on positive affect was evidenced by Bahník et al. (2015). With regard to other indices of well-being, Killen and Macaskill found an effect on flourishing and perceived stress, but Bahník et al. (2015) reported no effect on life satisfaction. On balance, the 3GT intervention appears to enhance net-happiness; however, by utilizing larger sample sizes and an adequate control group, the current study aims to help shed light on the efficacy of this popular PPI.In the active control condition, participants were instructed to, on a daily basis, write a brief, yet detailed description about the events of their day (e.g., classes/meetings they attended, books they read, shows they watched, social interactions, other activities they engaged in). This 31affectively-neutral active control activity (Life Details) has been used in previous research examining the effectiveness of well-being interventions (e.g., Bhullar, Schutte, & Malouff, 2011; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006; Passmore & Yang, 2017; Trew & Alden, 2015).The structures of the activities in each condition (Noticing Nature, Three Good Things, Life Details) are similar—each exercise required about 10 minutes a day and each involved attending to an aspect of one’s daily routine. Additionally, inherent within each condition was anaspect of novelty. As noted previously (see section: Characteristics of Natural Stimuli), nature is constantly changing in small ways, so too does the content of our lives change every day in smallways. This element of change helps to reduce the repetitiveness often observed in PPIs, such as Gratitude Journals, wherein the level of analysis focuses on broad, ongoing aspects of one’s life, rather than on current daily events (Parks & Biswas-Diener, 2013). As per similar PPI studies (Mongrain & Anselmo-Matthews, 2012; Seligman et al., 2005; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006), in order to control for expectancy effects across conditions (and to increase adherence), each exercise was introduced with the same priming statements outlining the “benefits” of the exercise and that greater benefits emerge with consistent daily adherence to the task.Dependent VariablesAn array of well-being and pro-social tendencies assessments were administered pre- andpost-intervention, a subset of which were administered at a follow-up assessment one week after the end of the two-week intervention period. Facets assessed were: positive and negative affect, satisfaction with life, meaning in life, transcendent connectedness, elevation, and pro-social tendencies (i.e., compassion, perspective taking and empathic concern). A behavioural indicator of pro-social actions was administered at the post-intervention assessment. Although positive psychology focuses on increasing well-being, decreasing ill-being is also, of course, an important32concern. Therefore, a measure of ill-being was also included to assess depression, anxiety, and stress.The founding fathers of positive psychology called for attention to be focused on individual, social, and environmental health and well-being (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; see also Biswas-Diener, Linley, Govindji, & Woolsten, 2011). This entails an alignment between Positive Psychology and Conservation Psychology to address the goals of sustainable well-being on both an individual and a broad level (O’Brien, 2012; Clayton & Myers, 2015; Corrall-Verdugo, V., 2012). Yet, relatively little attention has been paid to such issues within positive psychology. As Csikszentmihalyi noted in his address at the Fourth World Congress of Positive Psychology in 2015, at this time of climate change and increasing environmental degradation, it is vital that we recognize the symbiotic, bi-directional relationship between human well-being and the well-being of the larger-than-human natural world. Therefore, also included in this study was an assessment of pro-environmental behaviour.Self-concordant motivation is an indicator of which activities are inherently enjoyable to individuals (Sheldon & Elliott, 1999; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006). Thus in the current study, self-concordant motivation (SCM) to continue engaging in the assigned well-being exercises during the follow-up period was assessed post-intervention.All participants were asked how much time they spent in nature the past two weeks during the course of the intervention period; at the one-week post-intervention follow-up, this question was modified to refer to the past week. However, to help cloak the intention of the study, participants were also asked to estimate how much they time spent shopping and at the gym the past two weeks (or past week at the follow-up assessment point). Additionally, at the follow-up assessment, all participants were asked if they continued with their assigned activity 33past the end of the 2-week intervention period, and if so, how many days they completed the exercise in the past week.CovariatesStevens (2007) recommended that two or three covariates be considered that theoreticallycorrelate with the dependent variable(s) of interest and that have been shown to correlate with the dependent variable(s) on similar samples of subjects. Inclusion of such covariates helps to remove bias or possible confounding effects of these variables.Recent research has demonstrated that implicit theories of well-being (i.e., participants’ beliefs regarding the malleability or immutability of well-being) are predictive not only of well-being itself, but also of the endorsement of activities conducive to well-being (Howell, Passmore,& Holder, 2016). Greater endorsement of an incremental theory of well-being was also positively correlated with greater perceived utility of well-being activities. It appears likely that believing well-being can be changed would positively influence the amount of effort one exerts when engaging in activities meant to increase well-being. Performing well-being exercises with sustained and true effort (not merely going through the motions) is critical to the effectiveness of any given PPI (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Therefore in the current study, implicit theories of well-being (ITWB) were assessed pre-intervention in order to control for this impact.Diessner and colleagues (2008, 2017, 2018) have evidenced in several studies that individuals who react more strongly to beauty (in nature, in art, in moral actions of others, in ideas) have higher levels of well-being. Moreover, evidence also exists for a positive relationship between the trait of engagement with beauty and prosociality, as well as transcendent connectedness and meaning in life (Capaldi et al., 2017; Diessner, Davis, & Toney, 2009; Diessner, Iyer, Smith, & Haidt, 2013; Martinez-Marti, Hernandez-Llorenda, & Avia, 2016;34Piff, Iyer, Koleva, & Keltner, 2014). In the current study, it is likely that participants high in this trait would be attending to (whether consciously or not), and thus impacted by, aspects of beauty in each of the three conditions—that is, beauty in nature, beauty of all kinds in the good things that happened day, and even beauty in the mundane details of daily life. Therefore, to control forthis influence, the propensity to engage with beauty was assessed pre-intervention.HypothesesSpecifically, I hypothesized that compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control condition:Hypothesis 1 (H1). Participants in the Noticing Nature condition would evidence significantly greater upwards shifts from pre- to post-intervention in hedonic and eudaimonic well-being as measured by net-positive affect (H1a), satisfaction with life (H1b), meaning in life (H1c), transcendent connectedness (H1d), and elevation (H1e), and a significantly greater downward shift in ill-being as measured by depression (H1f), anxiety (H1g), and stress (H1h).Hypothesis 2 (H2). Participants in the Noticing Nature condition would evidence significantly greater upwards shifts from pre- to post-intervention in prosociality as measured by compassion (H2a), perspective taking and empathic concern (H2b), and pro-environmental behaviour (H2c), and would evidence significantly higher levels of prosociality at post-intervention as measured by prosocial behaviour (H2d) and prosocial motivation (H2e).Hypothesis 3 (H3): Participants in the Noticing Nature condition would evidence significantly higher levels of self-concordant motivation to continue engaging in their randomly assigned exercise.Hypothesis 4 (H4): At the follow-up assessment (one week after the end of the two-weekintervention period), participants in the Noticing Nature condition would report engaging in their35respective well-being exercise a significantly greater number of days during the follow-up week.Exploratory analysis will examine if differences emerge across the three conditions in theamount of time participants spent in nature during the two-week intervention period (EA1). Exploratory analysis will also examine, and compare across conditions, if any emergent beneficial effects on eudaimonic and hedonic well-being were still evident one-week post-intervention, as measured by net-positive affect (EA2a), satisfaction with life (EA2b), meaning in life (EA2c), transcendent connectedness (EA2d) and elevation (EA2e).36MethodSample size Using G*Power, an analysis was done to estimate the sample size that would be required in order to have a .80 probability of detecting significant effects with a small effect size. Specifically, the following parameters were chosen: F-tests; ANCOVA with fixed effects, main effects and interactions; effect size f = 0.10 (small); α error probability = .05; power (1 – β error probability) = .80; numerator degrees of freedom = 1; number of groups = 3; number of covariates = 2 (i.e., ITWB, Engagement with Beauty). Analysis suggested a total sample size of 787.ParticipantsFour groups of participants were recruited (See Appendix A for recruitment ads) to aid in obtaining the total sample size required to ensure that the study was adequately powered (see Sample Size section), in addition to helping test the generalizability of the Noticing Nature intervention. The first sample was recruited through the University of British Columbia (UBC) Okanagan psychology research participant pool website. The second sample was recruited through the University of Ottawa’s (Ottawa-U) psychology research participant pool website. Participants from UBC and Ottawa-U received 4% course credit for a psychology class, as per UBC’s and Ottawa-U’s protocol for research participation compensation. The third sample was recruited through the Psychology Educational Center at Zhejiang Ocean University (ZOU) in China. Participants from ZOU received 1% course credit, as per ZOU’s protocol for research participation compensation. The fourth group of participants consisted of a sample recruited through online social networking sites, websites, and listservs targeting individuals interested in positive psychology, well-being, or self-improvement (as per Gander et al., 2013; Hamann & 37Ivtzan, 2016; Mongrain & Anselmo-Matthews, 2012; Seligman, 2005). Participants were compensated for their participation via having their name entered into a draw to win one of five $100 Amazon giftcards. All samples participated in the study over the course of the same time period, from September 2017 to end of October 2017.Although to some extent these samples were convenience populations, there is also an empirical rationale for choosing these sites. For example, the UBC Canadian student sample andthe ZOU Chinese student sample were chosen to enable testing for conceptual replication of Passmore and Holder’s (2017) and Passmore and Yang’s (2017) Noticing Nature intervention in these student samples. The Ottawa-U Canadian university sample was chosen because previous research examining the benefits of engaging with nature has evidenced responses in student populations from Ottawa similar to those found in UBC and ZOU student samples (Zelenski et al., 2015; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2012).Somewhat surprisingly, all undergraduate participants from UBC, Ottawa, and China completed all three parts of the study. With regard to the online sample, although 215 people completed the pre-intervention questions, only 77 of these completed the daily diaries and post-intervention questionnaires, and 73 of these participants completed the follow-up questionnaires. Thus, total sample obtained was 784. These participants were split across samples as follows: UBC N = 320; Ottawa N = 198; China N = 193; Online N = 73. Each sample group was roughly equally split (by random assignment) into the 3 conditions of Noticing Nature, Three Good Things, and Life Details. Overall, the mean age of participants was 20.79 years (SD = 7.17, range: 17-70). Males comprised 39.9% of the sample, females comprised 60.0%; 1 participant (0.1%) choose “other” in response to gender identity. (See Table 1 for complete statistics.) The UBC, Ottawa, and China samples were undergraduate university students. The online sample 38was largely from the United States (n = 51), with the remaining from Canada (n = 11), Australia (n = 3), United Kingdom (n = 3), Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands (ns = 1 each country). The online samples was composed mainly of graduate students (n = 42), with the remaining participants listing their occupations as follows: professional (n = 7), teacher (n = 7), psychologist (n = 4), nurse (n = 2), retired (n = 4), unemployed (n = 2) and miscellaneous administration jobs (n = 5).ProcedurePart one: Initial instructions and questionnaires. General procedures were consistent with previous research studies validating PPIs (e.g., Mograin & Anselmo-Matthews, 2012; Selgiman et al., 2005, Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006) and with Passmore and colleagues’ previous NN-PPI studies (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017). Unless otherwisenoted, all procedures were consistent across locations and samples. Across the four samples, procedures were held as similar as possible; minor logistical differences across the university samples were necessary to accommodate various university requirements and protocols and are noted below. With regard to the on-line sample, no initial in-person session was held; rather, as detailed below, all instructions and random assignment were delivered on-line.For the university participants, an initial in-person session was held. Participants at each university self-selected a time slot from a list of available times, and were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: Noticing Nature, Three Good Things, or Life Details (active control).Several in-person group sessions at each university were conducted to accommodate the complete sample size of participants (see Analytic Methodology section for computation of required sample size). Sessions were from the beginning of the September semester until the endof October. This time frame is consistent with the time frame in Passmore and colleagues’ 39previous NN-PPI studies (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017).Each session consisted of approximately 20 participants and took approximately 30 minutes. Each participant was given a participant package consisting of:1) an information sheet outlining the overall steps and general requirements of the study;2) a consent form;3) an email and self-selected passcode form;4) a take-home card listing: a) their randomly-generated participant ID and self-selected passcode, b) the website link where they would input their daily “reports”, c) dates on which the researcher would be emailing them a link to instructions for completing the next phase of study (i.e., post-intervention and follow-up questionnaires), d) the researcher’s contact information should any questions arise during the course of the study; and e) instructions for their randomly assigned PPI exercise to be completed over the course of the following two weeks;5) a duplicate take-home instruction sheet detailing the specifics of the randomly assigned PPI exercise to be completed over the course of the following two weeks; and 6) pre-intervention measures to complete on-site. (See Appendix B for complete participant package.)Eligibility for participation in this study was working comprehension of English, the ability to input daily “reports” on the internet via a link provided, and daily access to email (to receive reminder emails and links) over the 3-week course of the study. These eligibility requirements were included in the ad for the study, explained to participants at the in-person sessions, and were included as part of the consent form.Trained research assistants provided a verbal overview of the study (see Appendix C for scripts). Participants were thanked for their interest in the study, reminded that this is a scientific40study for which their conscientious participation is appreciated and important, and reminded to not discuss their participation with others in order to protect the integrity of the study. Participants were then given time to complete the forms and questionnaires, and to carefully readover the instructions for their assigned PPI. When participants were finished completing the package, they handed in their signed consent form, completed email and passcode form, and their completed questionnaire package. The research assistant double checked to ensure that the consent form was signed, that the email and passcode form was complete and legible, that the participant had recorded on their take-home card and sheet their passcode and the dates which they would receive emails with instructions for the next phases of the study, and that the participant took their take-home card and instruction sheet with them.Modification of Part One for the undergraduate sample from China . The following modifications were based on Passmore and Yang’s (2017) NN-PPI study conducted at Zhejiang Ocean University in China. Participants received a text (rather than email) form. Rather than inputting their daily dairy “report” on a website, participants completed paper daily-diary forms; packages included 14 daily-diary forms. Rather than completing the second (post-intervention) and third (follow-up) questionnaire parts of the study online, participants returned to subsequent in-person sessions to complete the questionnaires. The take-home card and sheet, thus, listed thedates the participants were to return (with their completed packages) to complete the post-intervention and follow-up questionnaires at the two-week and three-week time points. Eligibility for participation in this study was working comprehension of Chinese, and daily access to text messages (to receive reminder texts) over the 3-week course of the study. All measures were translated into Chinese as per procedures followed by Passmore and Yang.Modification of Part One for the online sample . Participants recruited from online 41sources did not attend an initial in-person session. All instructions and information were delivered online. Interested individuals clicked on a link in the ad which directed them to the study’s website displaying an information sheet. The information sheet was also available as a .pdf to download and keep for participants’ records and reference. Individuals who wished to participate in the study were then presented with the consent form, which also had a .pdf copy they could download for their records. Clicking “yes” on that page indicated consent. Congruent with the in-person sessions, the email and passcode form were presented next, followed by instructions detailing the specifics of the randomly assigned daily PPI to be completed over the course of the following two weeks, and lastly the pre-intervention questionnaires. Participants were instructed to click on a .pdf icon to download a copy of the instructions for their reference over the next two weeks of the study.To confirm which condition individual participants were randomly assigned to, participants were asked to enter the group letter that appeared at the top of the page and on the top corner of the instruction sheet they just downloaded. (N signified Noticing Nature, T signified Three Good Things, and L signified the Life Details active control condition.) A printable version of the take-home card and sheet that the in-person participants received was then displayed. Eligibility for participation in this study for this group was a working comprehension of English, the ability to input daily “reports” to the internet via a link provided, daily access to email (to receive reminder emails) over the 3-week course of the study, and participants had to be over the age of 18 years.Part two: Daily exercises and post-intervention questionnaires. The day after the initial session, participants were sent an email verification notice directing them to a website to verify their email address and passcode. This initial verification helped to ensure that all 42participants were actively checking their email for notices regarding the study. Participants then received a reminder email (see Appendix D) every second day over the two-week intervention period. This reminder email included the appropriate instructions for the participant’s randomly assigned condition, along with the link for the site where participants were to input their daily “reports”. For the next two weeks, participants were asked to spend approximately 10 minutes per day engaging in their randomly assigned PPI and completing their daily reports online.At the end of the two-week intervention period, participants received an email directing them to the website where they completed the post-intervention questionnaires. Participants were instructed to click on the link and to complete the questionnaires within 24 hours. Participants who did not respond within this time frame were sent a second email notification. Participants who responded after a 36-hour window had elapsed still received their compensation, but their data was dropped from the study. The post-intervention questionnaires were the same questionnaires administered at the initial session, with the exception of the implicit theories of well-being measure and the engagement with beauty measure, and with the addition of a measure of self-concordant motivation and the behavioural measure of pro-social action (see Appendix E). As noted above (see Dependent Variables section), participants were asked how much time they spent in nature the past two weeks. However, to help cloak the intention of the study, participants were also asked to estimate how much they time spent shopping and at the gym over the past two weeks. The post-intervention questionnaires took approximately 30 minutes to complete.Modification of Part Two for the undergraduate sample from China . Reminder text messages (see Appendix D), rather than emails, were sent to participants. At the end of the two-weeks, participants received a reminder text message noting the location and time they were to 43report the next day, with their completed daily diary packages, in order to complete the post-intervention questionnaires.Part three: Follow-up questionnaires. One week after the post-intervention questionnaires were completed, participants received a final email directing them to the website where they completed the follow-up questionnaires. Participants were instructed to click on the link and to complete the questionnaires within 24 hours. As with the post-intervention questionnaires, participants who did not respond within this time frame were sent a second email notification. Participants who responded after a 36-hour window has elapsed still received their compensation, but their data was dropped from the study.In order to reduce survey fatigue and survey “practice” confounds, the follow-up questionnaires were a subset of the pre- and post-intervention questionnaires (see Appendix F). Measures included at the follow-up assessment were the measures of hedonic well-being (i.e., positive and negative affect, satisfaction with life) and the measures of eudaimonic well-being (i.e., meaning in life, transcendent connectedness, elevation). All participants were asked how much time they spent in nature the past week. However, to help cloak the intention of the study, participants were also asked to estimate how much they time spent shopping and at the gym overthe past week. Additionally, participants were asked if they continued with their assigned activity past the end of the 2-week intervention period, and if so, how many days they completedthe exercise in the past week.After completing the questionnaires, participants were presented with a debriefing explanation page (see Appendix G). A .pdf version of the debriefing explanation was also available for participants to download and keep for their records. At the end of the debriefing sheet, participants were informed that they had the option of having their data withdrawn from 44the study. If a participant choose to withdraw their data, they indicated so on a checkbox at the bottom of the page, along with indicating their randomly assigned participant ID. This information had to be returned to the researcher within 48 hours of reading the debriefing form.Participants were then directed to a different secure site where they entered their name as it appeared on the SONA system so that their credits could assigned to them. This procedure wasdone to preserve participants’ anonymity; the researcher was not able to match up participants’ responses with participants’ names. Compensation credits were assigned within 48 hours of completion of the final part of the study.Modification of Part Three for the undergraduate sample from China . One-week after the post-intervention questionnaire is completed, participants received a final text message noting the location and time they were to report the next day in order to complete the follow-up questionnaires. Participants then completed a form so that their course compensation credits could be assigned to them. This form was separate from their responses.Modification of Part Three for the online sample . When participants completed the final questionnaires, and the debriefing page had been shown to them, they were forwarded to a page where they entered their name and contact information to be entered into a draw for one of five $100 Amazon giftcards. This information was submitted to the researcher separately from the responses. A verification page was then returned to the participant confirming their entry in the draw. The draw was held in mid-November after the study was completed; all gift-cards were emailed and received by the draw-winners.MeasuresParticipants completed two measures of hedonic well-being, three measures of eudaimonic well-being, one measure of ill-being (with three subscales), three measures of pro-45social tendencies, one behavioural measure of pro-social action, one measure of pro-environmental behaviour, and one measure each of self-concordant motivation, implicit theories of well-being, and engagement with beauty. (See Appendix H for a copy of all measures; see Tables 2, 3, 4 for Cronbach's αs and aggregate descriptive statistics in the current study.)Well-being. An array of well-being indices were used to capture facets of both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.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 rated the extent to which they experienced each of the listed emotions over the past two weeks (at follow-up, over the past one week). A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely was 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; Passmore & Howell, 2014a; Passmore & Holder, 2017). The PANAS is a widely used scale that has been validated on both student and psychiatric inpatient samples. Watson et al. reported Cronbach's αs ranging from .84 to .90.Satisfaction with life. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a widely used five-item scale that assesses global cognitive judgments of satisfaction with one’s life as a whole. Items (e.g., The conditions of my life are excellent) are rated on a 6-point scale with endpoints 1 (strongly disagree) and 6 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s α near .84 is typically reported.46Meaning in life. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006) is the most commonly used measure of meaning in life. The MLQ contains a 5-item Presence subscale which assesses the extent to which a sense of meaningful existence is present in a person’s life either generally or with reference to a specific time frame. Items (e.g., ‘‘I understand my life’s meaning’’) are rated on a scale with endpoints 1 = absolutely untrue and 7 = absolutely true. The summed scale score has good internal consistency (coefficient α of .86)and good test–retest stability (coefficient α of .70). Steger et al. reported high convergent correlations (.61-.74) with other meaning measures.Transcendent connectedness . Six items selected from the Metapersonal Self (MPS) Scale (DeCicco & Stroink, 2007) were used (as per Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017). Items (e.g., “My sense of identity is based on something that unites me with all other people” and “I see myself as being extended into everything else”) are rated on a 7-point scale with end points of 1= Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. The MPS has been validated on samples of university students, and has shown satisfactory internal consistency with a Cronbach's α of .80. (The 6-item version has a reported Cronhach’s α = .89; Passmore & Yang,2017.) Validity of the MPS was established by examining correlations between the MPS and the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994) measure of interdependent and independent self-construal, and by establishing independence from socially desirable responding.Elevation . A 13-item measure of elevating experiences (Huta & Ryan, 2010) was used. These items (e.g., “I felt inspired”, “I felt profoundly touched”) capture the essence of feelings ofelevation without measuring meaning or transcendent connectedness. Thus, cross-contaminationbetween measures is avoided. Using a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely), participants rate how often they have felt each item over a specified time period.47Ill-being. The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995; Crawford & Henry, 2003) is a validated 21-item questionnaire measuring depression, anxiety, and stress. Participants are asked to report how often they experienced the symptoms listed (e.g.,“I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all”, “I experienced trembling”, “I found it hard to wind down”) during a specified time period. Items are rated on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (almost always). Three subscale scores are calculated for depression, anxiety, and stress; Cronbach αs between .82 and .93 for each subscale have been reported.Pro-socialiality. The following measures of pro-social tendencies, behaviour, and motivation were used.Compassion. Compassion was measured via 3 items (sympathetic, compassionate, moved; Thompson, 2007) embedded within the 20-item list of emotions comprising the PANAS (Watson et al. 1988) in order to reduce demand effects (as per Howell & Woolgar, 2013; Oveis, Horberg, & Keltner, 2010; see also Pfattheicher, Sassenrath, & Schindler 2016). Respondents rate the extent to which they experienced each of the listed emotions over the past two weeks (at follow-up, over the past one week). A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely is utilized. An averaged, composite rating for compassion will be calculated. Cronbach's α of .76 and .93 have been reported for this measure (Howell & Woolgar,2013; Oveis et al., 2010).Perspective taking and empathic concern. The perspective taking and empathic concern subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983) were used to further assesspro-social tendencies beyond compassion. The seven-item perspective taking subscale measures the tendency to spontaneously understand others’ psychological point of view (e.g., “I sometimesfind it difficult to see things from the ‘other guy’s’ point of view”). The seven-item empathic 48concern subscale evaluates the respondent’s feelings of warmth and compassion for others (e.g., “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me”). Items are rated on a scale ranging from 0 (does not describe me well) to 4 (describes me very well). Davis reported Cronbach's αs between .68 and .75 for the subscales. These subscales have been used previouslyin nature-related research to assess pro-social tendencies (Zhang et al., 2014). An aggregate scorewas calcuated.Prosocial behaviour. The Tangram Help/Hurt Task (Saleem, Anderson, & Barlett, 2015)is a validated measure that assesses both helpful (prosocial) and hurtful (aggressive) behaviours and motivation. This task is composed of 30 puzzles pre-classified into three levels of difficulty:easy, medium, and hard. Each level contains 10 puzzles. Participants are instructed to select 11 of the 30 puzzles, across the three difficulty levels, for an ostensible partner in a different study to complete. Participants are told that if their “partner” completes 10 of these puzzles in 10 minutes, then that individual will win a prize (e.g., gift certificate). But, if the participant’s “partner” cannot complete the task in 10 min, he/she will get nothing. The number of easy and hard puzzles that the participant chooses for their “partner” to complete are used as indices of prosocial/helpful and aggressive/hurtful behaviour respectively. A net-prosocial/helpful score is then calculated wherein higher scores denote greater prosocial behaviour.Prosocial motivation. Participants then rate the extent to which they agree with each of four items assessing their motivation while completing the Tangram Help/Hurt Task (Yang et al., 2016). Two items assess prosocial/helping motivation (i.e., “I wanted to help the other person win the gift card”, “I wanted to make it easier for the other participant to win the gift card”); two items assess aggressive/hurting motivation (i.e., “I wanted to make it difficult for the other person to win the gift card”, “I wanted to hurt the other person's chances of winning the gift 49card”). Items are rated on a 5-point scale with end points of 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (stronglyagree) scale. A net-prosocial/helping motivation score is then calculated wherein higher scores denote greater prosocial motivation.Pro-environmental behaviour. Eight items from Schultz et al. (2005) were used to assess pro-environmental behaviour. These items include easy, everyday kinds of activities and behaviours that are in accordance with a sustainable lifestyle and with pro-environmentalism (e.g., looked for ways to reuse things; recycled bottles; conserved gasoline by walking, cycling, or taking public transit). Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often); an aggregate score is calculated by summing the items.Self-concordant motivation. Response items from the Person-Activity Fit index (Lyubomirsky, 2007, adapted from Sheldon & Elliot, 1999) were utilized. Participants rated the extent to which they might engage in their assigned activity in the week following the intervention period in terms of the reason described by each item, using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all for this reason) to 9 (completely for this reason). Three intrinsic (i.e., self-concordant) reasons are rated: 1) the activity will feel natural, 2) the activity will be enjoyable, interesting, and challenging, and 3) the activity will be valuable regardless of how enjoyable it is.Two extrinsic reasons are rated: 1) not engaging in the activity will cause feelings of guilt and anxiety, and 2) situational pressures compel engagement in the activity. As per Sheldon and Elliot, a net-intrinsic motivation score was calculated by subtracting the average of the extrinsic ratings from the average of the intrinsic ratings for each item. Higher scores reflect greater self-concordant motivation. Cronbach's αs between .72 and .88 have been reported for this measure (Sheldon & Elliot, Passmore, Howell, & Holder, 2017).Covariate measures. As noted above, two variables were measured as covariates.50Implicit theories of well-being . Howell et al.’s (2016) measure of implicit theories of well-being was employed. Four entity items (e.g., “You have a certain amount of well-being, and you can’t really do much to change it”) and four incremental items (e.g., “No matter who you are, you can significantly change your well-being level”) are rated on a 5-point scale with endpoints of 1 (strongly agree) and 5 (strongly disagree). Items are reverse-scored where appropriate and then summed; higher scores denote greater incremental beliefs. Instructions to participants define well-being as “the extent to which people feel good and function well in their lives”. Howell et al. reported alphas of .81 and .83 over three studies for the Implicit Theories ofWell-Being scale.Engagement with beauty. The Engagement with Beauty Scale (Pohlin, Diessner, Stacy, Woodward, & Stroble, 2017) assesses the extent to which individuals engage with and respond tobeauty in four domains: nature, human-made objects, moral acts, and ideas. Participants rate how self-descriptive statements—measuring perceptual, physiological, emotional, and transcendental/spiritual processes thought to be involved in experiences of beauty—were on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very much unlike me) to 7 (very much like me). Four items measure engagement with natural beauty, four items measure engagement with human-made beauty, seven items measure engagement with moral beauty, and four items measure engagement with beautiful ideas. A total score was calculated as per Pohlin, et al.Quantitative Analytic MethodologyStatistical programs. G*Power 3.1.9.2, SPSS v. 25, and JAMOVI version 9.5.5 were used to conduct analyses.Data cleaning and calculation of variable scores. Before conducting analyses, data was screened for missing values. Data from participants who did not answer at least 75% of the 51survey questions were dropped. Variable scores for each of the measures were calculated as per customary methods for each measure. A double check was made to ensure that any items that required reverse scoring or needed to be removed (due to cross-measure contamination) were dealt with appropriately. 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.Initial assessment of normality and identification of outliers. Data was examined to assess normality and identify outliers. For each measure, raw values of skew and kurtosis were examined for values that were significantly different than zero; skew and kurtosis values were standardized by conversion to z scores, and then examined for values greater than 2.58 (Field, Miles, & Field, 2012). Additionally, QQ-plots and histograms were visually assessed for departure from normality. Box plots and scatterplots were inspected to identify problematic outliers. Additionally, z scores were examined to ensure that less than 5% were greater than 1.96, less than 1% were greater than 2.58, and that no z scores were above 3.29 (Field et al., 2012). No problematic outliers were found; values of skew and kurtosis for all measures were within acceptable range for normality. (See Tables 2, 3, 4 for aggregate descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, skew, kurtosis, and alphas.) Descriptive statistics by condition, group, and/or as appropriate for significant interactions of condition by group are included with each hypothesis analysis below.Correlations. Correlation matrices for the covariates and main dependent variables wererun as a preliminary overview of the relationships among them, and to compare with previous research findings. (See Tables 5, 6, 7 for aggregate statistics.) At all three measurement points (i.e., pre-intervention, post-intervention, follow-up), all relationships (both significant and non-52significant) among all variables were as expected based on theoretical frameworks and previous research.With regard to covariates, in addition to being theoretically justified, Stevens (2007) recommended that ideally covariates meet the following two criteria to ensure that relatively distinct pieces of error variance are being removed: (1) covariates have low correlations (around r = .20) among themselves, and (2) covariates be significantly correlated with the dependent variables. In the current study, a significant correlation emerged between the measured covariates of Implicit Theories of Well-Being (ITWB) and Engagement with Beauty (EWB), r = .19, p < .001. Significant correlations emerged between each of the covariates and the main dependent variables at all three measurement points (-.07 < r < .49, ps < 05 to < .001) with the following exceptions. At the post-intervention measurement point, ITWB was not significantly correlated with measurements of prosocial behaviour and pro-environmental behaviour; EWB was not significantly correlated with measurements of depression, anxiety, stress, prosocial behaviour, or prosocial motivation. Given that the bulk of correlations were, however, significant, for theoretical consistency both ITWB and EWB are included as covariates in all subsequent analyses described below.Difference scores. Difference scores were calculated in order to conduct the hypothesis tests and exploratory analyses examining responses across the randomly-assigned conditions (i.e., Noticing Nature, Three Good Things, and the Life Details active placebo control activity). For each dependent variable that was measured at different time points, two difference scores were calculated: (1) post-intervention score minus pre-intervention score and (2) follow-up score minus pre-intervention score. (See Table 8, 9, and 10 for aggregate descriptive statistics.)ANCOVAs. Hypotheses testing and exploratory analyses with regard to differences 53across conditions (i.e., Noticing Nature, Three Good Things, Life Details control) were carried out via conducting ANCOVAs on difference scores, with (as noted above) Implicit Theories of Well-Being and Engagement with Beauty pre-intervention scores as covariates. Significant differences in response to the interventions across the four samples (i.e., the three student samples and the on-line community sample) were not expected. As reviewed above, numerous studies utilizing various sample populations in different countries have consistently evidenced well-being benefits of affiliating with nature and with positive psychology interventions such as Three Good Things. Nonetheless, to be conservative, all analyses described below first utilized both group and condition as fixed factors to assess possible significant (p < .05) interactions.In order to more cleanly assess the impact that the manipulated conditions had on the dependent variables of interest, the following approach was utilized. If the interaction term (group*condition) was non-significant, but a significant main effect of condition emerged, analyses were repeated using just condition as a fixed factor. (This was done regardless of whether group emerged significant or not, as group differences by themselves are beyond the scope and focus of the current study; however, group statistics are still provided.) Subsequent post-hoc analyses with Sidak correction were then conducted comparing (1) the Noticing Nature condition to the Three Good Things condition, (2) the Noticing Nature condition to the Life Details control condition, and (3) the Three Good Things condition to the Life Details control condition. If the interaction term (group*condition) was non-significant and only group (i.e., notcondition) emerged as a significant main effect, no further analyses were conducted as (noted above) group differences are beyond the scope and focus of the current study; however, statistics are still provided. If the interaction term (group*condition) was significant, simple effects tests with Sidak corrections were conducted comparing the main effect of condition for each group.54Qualitative Analytic MethodologyAs per McMahan and Estes’ (2015) recommendation, a brief qualitative analysis was conducted on the daily “reports” from the two-week intervention period for participants in the Noticing Nature condition. This analysis provides additional insight into the types of emotions evoked for participants in the Noticing Nature condition, painting a more nuanced picture of nature’s effect on emotions. Emotional descriptions were first manually coded for valence: positive, negative, or mixed. Next, descriptions were manually coded into thematic categories ofemotions. Comparisons were made with previous research (i.e., Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017).55Quantitative ResultsHypothesis TestsH1 – differences across conditions in shifts of well-being and ill-being from pre- to post-intervention. H1 predicted that compared to participants in the Three Good Things and theLife Details control conditions, participants in the Noticing Nature condition would evidence significantly greater upwards shifts from pre- to post-intervention in hedonic and eudaimonic well-being and a significantly greater downward shift in ill-being. Separate analyses were run for each dependent variable.H1a – differences across conditions in shifts of net-positive affect. (See Tables 11 and 12 for complete statistics; see also Figure 1.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .279), a non-significant main effect of group (p = .084), and a significant effect of condition F(2, 693) = 4.03, p = .018 on net-positive affect. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .467; EWB: p = .137). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, the analysis was rerun using only condition as a fixed factor, along with Sidak-corrected post-hoc analyses. Condition still emerged as a significant main effect F(2, 702) = 3.83, p = .022. Both covariates remained non-significant in their effect (ps= .289, .168). Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 2.70) did not experience a significantly different shift in net-positive affect compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 1.86) p = .693, d = 0.09. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition did evidence a significantly greater upwards shift in net-positive affect compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 0.35) p = .019, d = 0.25. No significant difference emerged between the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control 56condition p = .217, d = 0.16. Thus, Hypothesis 1a was partially supported.H1b – differences across conditions in shifts of satisfaction with life. (See Tables 13 and 14 for complete statistics; see also Figure 2.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .093), a significant main effect of group (p = .009), and a significant main effect of condition F(2, 707) = 5.37, p = .005 on satisfaction with life. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .862; EWB: p = .915). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, the analysis was rerun using only condition as a fixed factor, along with Sidak-corrected post-hoc analyses. Condition still emerged as a significant main effect F(2, 716) = 3.35, p = .036. Both covariates remained non-significant in their effect (ps= .349, .491). Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 2.45) experienced asignificantly greater upwards shift in satisfaction with life compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 1.39) p = .036, d = 0.23. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition did not evidence a significantly greater shift in satisfaction with life compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 1.69) p = .200, d = 0.17. No significant difference emerged between the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control condition p = .861, d = -0.11. Thus, Hypothesis 1b was partially supported.H1c – differences across conditions in shifts of meaning in life. (See Tables 15 and 16 for complete statistics; see also Figure 3.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a significant interaction between group and condition F(6, 707) = 2.12, p = .049, a non-significant main effect of group (p = .123), and a non-significant effect of condition p = .558 on meaning in life. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .534; EWB: p = .146). Thus, as per the analytic approach 57described above, a simple effects tests with Sidak corrections was conducted comparing the maineffect of condition for each group. Condition did not emerge as significant for the UBC (p = .422), Ottawa (p = .175), or Online (p = .091) sample groups. Condition emerged as marginally significant for the China sample group F(2, 707) = 2.90, p = .056. Post-hoc analyses for the China group revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 2.44) did not experience a significantly different shift in meaning in life compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 1.35) p = .508, d = 0.22. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition did evidence a significantly greater upwards shift in meaning in life compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 0.33) p = .048, d = 0.43. No significant difference emerged between the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control condition p = .531, d = 0.21. Thus, overall, Hypothesis 1c was not supported.H1d – differences across conditions in shifts of transcendent connectedness. (See Tables 17 and 18 for complete statistics see also Figure 4.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .987), a non-significant main effect of group (p = .912), and a significant effect of condition F(2, 703) = 5.94, p = .003 on transcendent connectedness. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .876; EWB: p = .609). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, the analysis was rerun using only condition as a fixed factor, along with Sidak-corrected post-hoc analyses. Both covariates remained non-significant in their effect (ps= .787, .543). Condition still emerged as a significant main effect F(2, 712) = 8.41, p < .001. Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 2.65) experienced a significantly greater upwards shift in transcendent connectedness compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 0.62) p < .001, d = 0.37. Participants in 58the Noticing Nature condition also evidenced a significantly greater upwards shift in transcendent connectedness compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 1.36) p = .031, d = 0.24. No significant difference emerged between the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control condition p = .356, d = -0.14. Thus, Hypothesis 1d was supported.H1e – differences across conditions in shifts of elevation. (See Tables 19 and 20 for complete statistics; see also Figure 5.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .058), a non-significant main effect of group (p = .288), and a significant effect of condition F(2, 696) = 21.56, p < .001 on elevation. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .245; EWB: p = .081). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, the analysis was rerun using only condition as a fixed factor, along with Sidak-corrected post-hoc analyses. Condition still emerged as a significant main effect F(2, 705) = 26.83, p < .001. Both covariates remained non-significant in their effect (ps= .210, .146). Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 9.24) experienced a significantly greater upwards shift in elevation compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 1.66) p < .001, d = 0.54. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition also evidenced a significantly greater upwards shift in elevation compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 0.66) p <.001, d = 0.62. No significant difference emerged between the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control condition p = .825, d = 0.07. Thus, Hypothesis 1e was supported.H1f – differences across conditions in shifts of depression. (See Table 21 for completestatistics; see also Figure 6.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed 59factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .607), a significant main effect of group F(3, 701) = 5.02, p = .002, and a non-significant effect of condition p = .240 on depression. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .123; EWB: p = .279). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, no further analysis were conducted. Thus, Hypothesis 1f was not supported.H1g – differences across conditions in shifts of anxiety. (See Table 22 for complete statistics; see also Figure 7.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .230), a significant main effect of group F(3, 698) = 5.23, p = .001, and a non-significant effect of condition p = .105 on anxiety. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB:p = .889; EWB: p = .661). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, no further analysis were conducted. Thus, Hypothesis 1g was not supported.H1h – differences across conditions in shifts of stress. (See Tables 23 and 24 for complete statistics; see Figure 8.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .866), a non-significant main effect of group (p = .698), and a significant effect of condition F(2, 698) = 3.62, p = .027 on stress. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .236; EWB: p = .620). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, the analysis was rerunusing only condition as a fixed factor, along with Sidak-corrected post-hoc analyses. Condition still emerged as a significant main effect F(2, 707) = 3.42, p = .033. Both covariates remained non-significant in their effect (ps= .131, .444). Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants in theNoticing Nature condition (M = -1.64) did not experience a significant difference in shift in stress compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = -1.14) p = .329, d = 600.14. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition did evidence a significantly greater downwards shift in stress compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = -0.78) p = .028, d = 0.24. No significant difference emerged between the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control condition p = .632, d = -0.10. Thus, Hypothesis 1f was partially supported.H2 – differences across conditions in shifts of prosociality from pre- to post-intervention and differences across conditions at post-intervention in levels of prosociality. H2 predicted that compared to participants in the Three Good Things and the Life Details controlconditions, participants in the Noticing Nature condition would evidence significantly greater upwards shifts from pre- to post-intervention in prosocial tendencies (compassion, perspective taking and empathic concern, and proenvironmental behaviour and significantly higher levels of prosocial behaviour and motivation at post-intervention. Separate analyses were run for each dependent variable.H2a – differences across conditions in shifts of compassion. (See Tables 25 and 26 forcomplete statistics; see Figure 9.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a significant interaction between group and condition F(6, 708) = 3.05, p =.006, a significant main effect of group (p < .001), and a significant effect of condition p = .022 on compassion. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .440; EWB: p = .145). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, a simple effects tests with Sidak corrections was conducted comparing the main effect of condition for each group. Condition did not emerge as significant for the Ottawa (p = .313) or Online (p = .187) sample groups. Condition emerged as significant for the UBC sample group F(2, 705) = 3.83, p = .022 and for the China sample group F(2, 705) = 9.18, p < .001. Post-hoc analyses for the UBC 61sample revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 1.21) did not experience a significantly different shift in compassion compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 0.49) p = .116, d = 0.29. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition did evidence a significantly greater upwards shift in compassion compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 0.31) p = .026, d = 0.37 No significant difference emerged between the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control condition p = .936, d = 0.08. Post-hoc analyses for the China sample revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 2.32) did not experience a significantly different shift in compassion compared toparticipants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 1.46) p = .134, d = 0.35. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition did evidence a significantly greater upwards shift in compassion compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 0.45) p < .001, d = 0.76 Participants in the Three Good Things condition experienced a marginally significant greater upwards shift in compassion compared to participants in the Life Details control condition p = .049, d = 0.41. Thus overall, Hypothesis 2a was not supported.H2b – differences across conditions in shifts of perspective taking and empathic concern. (See Table 27 for complete statistics; see Figure 10.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .287), a significant main effect of group F(3, 688) = 23.99, p < .001, and a non-significant effect of condition p = .416 on perspective taking and empathic concern. The covariate ITWB did not emerge has having a significant effect (p = .130), but EWB did emerge as a significant effect (p < .001, d = 0.30). Thus, as per our analytic approach described above, no further analysis were conducted. Hypothesis 2b was not supported.62H2c – differences across conditions in shifts of pro-environmental behaviour. (See Table 28 for complete statistics; see Figure 11.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .455), a significant main effect of group F(3, 689) = 3.15, p = .025, and a non-significant effectof condition p = .081 on perspective taking and empathic concern. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .305; EWB: p = .260). Thus, as per our analytic approach described above, no further analysis were conducted. Hypothesis 2c was not supported.H2d – differences across conditions in levels of prosocial behaviour. (See Table 29 for complete statistics; see Figure 12.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .532), a significant main effect of group F(3, 610) = 11.01, p < .001, and a non-significant effect of condition p = .702 on prosocial behaviour. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .269; EWB: p = .307). Thus, as per our analytic approach described above, nofurther analysis were conducted. Hypothesis 2d was not supported.H2e – differences across conditions in levels of prosocial motivation. (See Tables 30 and 31 for complete statistics; see Figure 13.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a significant interaction between group and condition F(6, 704) = 3.10, p = .005, a significant main effect of group (p < .001), and a non-significant effect of condition p = 1.00 on prosocial motivation. The covariate ITWB did not emerge as having a significant effect (p = .940) but EWB did emerge as a significant effect (p = .006. d = 0.21) Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, a simple effects tests with Sidak corrections was conducted comparing the main effect of condition for each group. Condition did not emerge63as significant for the Ottawa (p = .423), China (p = .101), or Online (p = .595) samples. Condition emerged as significant for the UBC sample group F(2, 704) = 6.45, p = .002. Post-hocanalyses for the UBC group revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 15.95) evidenced significantly lower levels of prosocial motivation compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 17.11) p = .018, d = -0.30. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition not did evidence significantly different levels of prosocial motivation comparedto participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 15.66) p = .867, d = 0.10. Participants in the Three Good Things condition evidenced significantly higher levels of prosocial motivationcompared to participants in the Life Details control condition p = .002, d = 0.37. Thus, Hypothesis 2e was not supported.H3 – differences across conditions in self-concordant motivation at post-interventionto continue with their respective well-being activity. (See Tables 32 and 33 for complete statistics; see Figure 14.) H3 predicted that compared to participants in the Three Good Things and the Life Details control conditions, participants in the Noticing Nature condition would report a significantly higher level of self-concordant motivation to continue engaging in their randomly assigned well-being activity. Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a significant interaction between group and condition F(6, 706) = 2.95, p = .008, a significant main effect of group (p < .001), and a non-significant effect of condition p = .117 on self-concordant motivation. Both covarites emerged as having a significant effect: ITWB: p < .001, d = 0.31; EWB: p < .001, d = 0.28). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, a simple effects tests with Sidak corrections was conducted comparing the maineffect of condition for each group. Condition did not emerge as significant for the Ottawa (p = .276) or China (p = .630) sample groups. Condition emerged as significant for the UBC sample 64group F(2, 706) = 4.35, p = .013 and the Onoline sample group F(2, 706) = 4.38, p = .013. Post-hoc analyses for the UBC sample revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 1.54) did not evidence significantly different levels of self-concordant motivation compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 1.63) p = .988, d = -0.04. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition not evidence significantly higher levels of self-concordant motivation compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 0.81) p = .045, d = 0.34. Participants in the Three Good Things evidenced significantly higher levels of self-concordant motivation compared to participants in the Life Details control condition p = .024, d = 0.38.Post-hoc analyses for the Online group revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 3.58) evidenced significantly higher levels of self-concordant motivation compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 1.80) p = .010, d = 0.84. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition did not evidence significantly different levels of self-concordant motivation compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 2.46) p = .245, d = 0.53. Participants in the Three Good Things did not evidence significantly different levels of self-concordant motivation compared to participants in the Life Details controlcondition p = .664, d = -0.31. Thus overall, Hypothesis H3 was not supported.H4 – differences across conditions at follow-up in the number of days participants engaged in their respective well-being activity. (See Tables 34, 35, and 36 for complete statistics; see also Figure 15.) H4 predicted that, compared to participants in the Three Good Things and the Life Details control conditions, participants in the Noticing Nature condition would report engaging in their respective well-being activity a significantly greater number of days during the follow-up week. Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as 65fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .058), a significant main effect of group F(3, 746) = 11.09, p < .001, and a significant effect of condition F(2, 746) = 11.16, p < .001 on number of days engaged in activity. The covariate ITWB did not emerge as having a significant effect (p = .571), but EWB did emerge as significant (p = .006, d = 0.20). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, the analysis was rerun using only condition as a fixed factor, along with Sidak-corrected post-hoc analyses. Condition still emerged as a significant main effect F(2, 755) = 10.78, p < .001. Neither covariate now emergedas a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .495; EWB: p = .092). Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 2.33) reported engaging in their well-being activity a significantly greater number of days compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 1.50) p < .001, d = 0.36, and compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = 1.49) p < .001, d = 0.36. No significant difference emerged between the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control condition p = 1.00, d = 0.01.A chi-square analysis was also conducted revealing a significant association between condition and if participant continued with their randomly assigned activity or not after the end of the study intervention period χ2(2) = 28.91, p < .001, ν = .21. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition were just under one and a half times as likely to continue in engaging in their randomly assigned activity than were participants in the Three Good Things condition (RR = 1.38, z = 3.84, p < .001, 95%CI [1.17, 1.63]), and just over one and a half times as likely as were participants in the Life Details condition (RR = 1.55, z = 4.80, p < .001, 95%CI [1.30, 1.86]). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.66Exploratory AnalysesEA1 – differences across conditions in time spent in nature during the two-week intervention period. (See Table 37 for complete statistics; see also Figure 16.) EA1 examined whether differences emerged across the three conditions in the amount of time that participants spent in nature during the two-week intervention period. Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .563), a significant main effect of group F(3, 662) = 23.27, p < .001, and a non-significant effect of condition p = .115 on time spent in nature during the two-week intervention. The covariate ITWB emerged as having a significant effect (p = .020, d = 0.18), but EWB was not significant (p = .109). Thus, as per our analytic approach described above, no further analysis were conducted.EA2 – differences across conditions in shifts of well-being from post- to one-week post-intervention. EA2 examined, and compared across conditions, shifts in hedonic and eudaimonic well-being from post-intervention to the follow-up assessment one-week post-intervention. Separate analyses were run for each dependent variable.EA2a – differences across conditions at one-week follow-up in shifts of net-positive affect. (See Tables 38 and 39 for complete statistics; see also Figures 17 and 18.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .333), a non-significant main effect of group (p = .088), and a significant effect of condition F(2, 630) = 3.03, p = .049 on net-positive affect. The covariate ITWB did not emerge as having a significant effect (p = .977) but EWB did emerge as significant(p = .040, d = 0.17). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, the analysis was rerun using only condition as a fixed factor, along with Sidak-corrected post-hoc analyses. Condition 67no longer emerged as a significant main effect F(2, 639) = 1.78, p = .169. Neither covariate nowemerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .978; EWB: p = .055). No significant differences emerged between conditions in post-hoc analyses (ps = .803, .170, .636, ds = 0.08, 0.18, 0.10).EA2b – differences across conditions at one-week follow-up in shifts of satisfaction with life. (See Table 40 for complete statistics; see also Figures 19 and 20.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .203), a significant main effect of group F(3, 644) = 7.92, p < .001, and a non-significant effect of condition p = .137 on satisfaction with life. Neither covariateemerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .437; EWB: p = .237). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, no further analysis were conducted.EA2c – differences across conditions at one-week follow-up in shifts of meaning in life. (See Table 41 for complete statistics; see also Figures 21 and 22.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .055), a significant main effect of group F(3, 647) = 4.42, p = .004, and a non-significant effect of condition p = .580 on meaning in life. Neither covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .944; EWB: p = .187). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, no further analysis were conducted.EA2d – differences across conditions at one-week follow-up in shifts of transcendentconnectedness. (See Table 42 for complete statistics; see also Figures 23 and 24.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .967), a significant main effect of group F(3, 639) = 3.36, p = .018, and a non-significant effect of condition p = .091 on transcendent connectedness. Neither 68covariate emerged as a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .479; EWB: p = .331). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, no further analysis were conducted.EA2e – differences across conditions at one-week follow-up in shifts of elevation. (See Tables 43 and 44 for complete statistics; see also Figures 25 and 26.) Results of an ANCOVA using both group and condition as fixed factors revealed a non-significant interaction between group and condition (p = .806), a non-significant main effect of group (p = .084), and a significant effect of condition F(2, 637) = 7.00, p = .001 on elevation. Neither covariate emergedas a having a significant effect (ITWB: p = .446; EWB: p = .499). Thus, as per the analytic approach described above, the analysis was rerun using only condition as a fixed factor, along with Sidak-corrected post-hoc analyses. Condition still emerged as a significant main effect F(2,646) = 7.49, p < .001. Both covariates remained non-significant in their effect (ps= .198, .361). Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants in the Noticing Nature condition (M = 4.62) experienced a significant upwards shift in elevation compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (M = 0.67) p = .017, d = 0.27 and compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (M = -0.64) p = .001, d = 0.36. No significant difference emerged between the Three Good Things condition and the Life Details control condition p = .732, d = 0.09.Non-inferiority TestsAs reported above, traditional null-hypothesis testing proved inconclusive as to the effect of Noticing Nature on net-positive affect and stress compared to the commonly used PPI, Three Good Things (ps > .05). Although non-significant null-hypothesis results are often reported as the absence of an effect, this is an incorrect interpretation. One cannot conclude that the two activities are equally effective; one can only conclude that evidence is insufficient to indicate thatthey are equal. Yet, as several researchers have argued (Lakens, 2017; Lakens, Scheel, & Isager, 692018; Magnusson, 2019; Schumi & Wittes, 2011; Walker & Nowacki, 2010; Wellek, 2010), it would be beneficial to be able to test for both the presence of an effect and the absence of an effect, in order to provide support for the null hypothesis, to test to falsify predictions, and to provide support for the absence of a meaningful effect.While “it is statistically impossible to support the hypothesis that a true effect size is zero” a frequentist hypothesis testing framework enables one to “argue for the absence of an effect that is large enough to be worthwhile to examine” (Lakens, 2017, p. 355). In this framework, non-inferiority testing is used to determine if new therapies are at least as good as—that is, are non-inferior to—therapies commonly used. Although this approach is so prevalent in medicine and clinical drug trials (e.g., Hauck & Anderson, 1984; Senn, 2007) that regulatory agencies in both the United States and Europe have issued guidelines for such trials (Schumi & Wittes, 2011), in psychological research the use of equivalence and/or non-inferiority testing is practically non-existent. However, it would behoove psychological scientists to adopt this approach when testing new interventions geared to improving well-being or reducing ill-being. Indeed, Lakens and colleagues recommend utilizing both null-hypothesis significance testing andequivalence (or non-inferiority) testing by default in “order to improve the falsifiability of predictions in psychological science” (p. 267).In the current study, the overarching goal was to help establish Noticing Nature as a validPPI. Establishing the efficacy of Noticing Nature as a valid PPI does not solely rely on establishing significantly greater efficacy in boosting well-being than other common PPIs, in thiscase, Three Good Things. There is no single intervention that is “best” at enhancing well-being; indeed engaging in a variety of validated PPIs is recommended for maximum efficacy in boosting well-being (Bolier et al., 2013; Mazzucchelli, Kane, & Rees, 2010; Sin & Lyubomirksy,702009). Rather, establishment of the Noticing Nature Intervention as a valid PPI rests on two requirements. First of course, it is necessary to demonstrate that engaging in the Noticing Natureintervention does significantly enhance well-being. As reported in the above analyses, Noticing Nature (compared to a control condition) does appear to be significantly effective in boosting well-being, in particular net-positive affect, transcendent connectedness, and elevation, in addition to reducing stress. The second requirement in establishing Noticing Nature as a valid PPI, is to provide supportive evidence that Noticing Nature is not any less effective at a meaningful level than commonly used PPIs, in this case, Three Good Things. Thus, with respect to the non-significant results on the effects of Noticing Nature on net-positive affect and stress compared to Three Good Things, the question to be tested becomes: Is Noticing Nature significantly inferior to Three Good Things in its effects on these dependent variables?To that end, two non-inferiority tests were conducted, one for each dependent variable. Acombination of the TOSTER module version 0.3.3 for JAMOVI version 9.5.5. and Magnusson’s (2019) online interactive visualzation app was used. When testing if one treatment is not less effective than another treatment (i.e., that one is non-inferior to the other), the null hypothesis tested is that an effect is at least as large as a prescribed non-inferiority margin (-Δ). In other words, in a non-inferiority test, the null hypothesis states that the new treatment is worse than theold treatment by more than -Δ, while the alternative hypothesis states that the difference in the effect between the new and old intervention is less than -Δ. Significant results leading to rejecting the null hypothesis indicate that the difference between the two treatments is not larger than the prescribed non-inferiority margin and thus provide support for the new treatment not being less effective than (non-inferior to) the other treatment.Selection of this non-inferiority margin, also known as the Smallest Effect Size of 71Interest (SESOI), can justifiably be predicated on previous related studies and mean effect sizes established. Lakens and colleagues (2018) recommend that a conservative approach be taken by utilizing the “lower end of the confidence interval around the meta-analytic estimate of the effectsize” (p. 262). Previous meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of PPIs reported a meta-analytic effect size ranging from d = 0.20 to d = 0.61 ( Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; Weiss et al. 2016; White, Uttl, & Holder, 2019). Thus, following Lakens et al. recommendation, a d = 0.20 was used as the lower-bound margin.Non-inferiority test for net-positive affect. (See Figure 27.) A null-hypothesis t-test examining the difference in shift of net-positive affect from pre- to post-intervention between theNoticing Nature and Three Good Things conditions was non-significant t(482) = 1.16, p = .247, d = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.28]. A non-inferiority test was conducted wherein -Δd = 0.20; that is where the null hypothesis stated that the difference between Noticing Nature and Three Good Things is greater than d = 0.20, and the alternative hypothesis stated that the difference is not greater than d = 0.20. Results t(479.25) = 3.36, p < .001, 95%CI d [-0.17, 0.39] indicated rejection of the null hypothesis, supporting that Noticing Nature was non-inferior to Three Good Things in the enhancement of well-being from pre- to post-intervention.Non-inferiority test for stress. (See Figure 28.) A null-hypothesis t-test examining the difference in shift of stress from pre- to post-intervention between the Noticing Nature and ThreeGood Things conditions was non-significant t(475) = 1.65, p = .101, d = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.33]. A non-inferiority test was conducted wherein -Δd = 0.20; that is where the null hypothesisstated that the difference between Noticing Nature and Three Good Things is greater than d = 0.20, and the alternative hypothesis stated that the difference is not greater than d = 0.20. Resultst(474.37) = -3.83, p < .001, 95%CI d [-0.13, 0.43] indicated rejection of the null hypothesis, 72supporting that Noticing Nature was non-inferior to Three Good Things in the reduction of stressfrom pre- to post-intervention.Summary of quantitative resultsHypothesis 1 regarding the impact of condition on well-being and ill-being. This hypothesis was partially supported. (See Table 45 for summary statistics.) Compared to both theThree Good Things and the Life Details control conditions, participants in the Noticing Nature condition evidenced significantly greater gains from pre- to post-intervention in transcendent connectedness (ds = 0.37, 0.24) and elevation (ds = 0.54, 0.62). With regard to boosting net-positive affect and lowering stress, the Noticing Nature condition emerged as non-inferior to the Three Good Things condition (-Δd = 0.20) and superior to the Life Details condition (ds = 0.25, -0.24 respectively). Greater gains in satisfaction with life were evidenced in the Noticing Naturecondition compared to the Three Good Things condition (d = 0.23), but the Noticing Nature condition did not emerge as significantly different from the Life Details control condition with regard to enhancing satisfaction with life (d = 0.17). Levels of meaning in life, depression, and anxiety were not significantly impacted by condition.Hypothesis 2 regarding the impact of condition on prosociality. For the most part, this hypothesis not supported. (See Table 46 for summary statistics.) With regard to compassion, significant differences across conditions only emerged in the UBC and China samples. In both of these samples, participants in the Noticing Nature condition evidenced a non-significant greater boost in compassion compared to participants in the Three Good Things condition (ds = 0.29, 0.35), and a significantly greater boost in compassion compared to participants in the Life Details control condition (ds = 0.37, 0.76). With regard to prosocial motivation, significant differences across condition only emerged in the UBC sample wherein 73participants in the Noticing Nature condition evidenced significantly lower levels compared to those in the Three Good Things condition (d = -0.30), but not a significant difference compared to participants in the Life Details control condition. Levels of perspective taking and empathic concern, pro-environmental behaviour, and prosocial behaviour were not significantly impacted by condition.Hypothesis 3 regarding motivation to continue engaging in the activity. For the most part, this hypothesis was not supported. (See Table 47 for summary statistics.) Only for the smaller Online sample did the Noticing Nature condition evoke significantly greater motivation than the Three Good Things condition (d = 0.84); in all other samples, a significant difference did not emerge. Only in the UBC sample did Noticing Nature evoke a (marginally) significantly greater motivation than did the Life Details condition (d = 0.34); in all other samples, a significant difference did not emerge.Hypothesis 4 regarding number of days engaged in activity during follow-up. This hypothesis was supported. (See Table 48 for summary statistics.) Participants in the Noticing Nature condition engaged in their respective activity a significantly greater number of days than did participants in the Three Good Things (d = 0.36) and the Life Details control conditions (d = 0.36).Exploratory analyses. (See Table 49 for summary statistics.) Exploratory analyses did not reveal a significant difference across conditions for time spent in nature during the intervention, nor for shifts in net-positive affect, satisfaction with life, meaning in life, or transcendent connectedness from pre-intervention to follow-up. A significantly greater boost in elevation from pre-intervention to follow-up was evident for participants in the Noticing Nature condition compared to those in the Three Good Things condition (d = 0.27) and compared to 74participants in the Life Details control condition (d = 0.36).Meta-Analyses on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being OutcomesAs noted previously, the design of the current study allowed for conceptual replication of the previous two Noticing Nature Intervention studies conducted by Passmore and colleagues (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017). Replication is vital in establishing Noticing Nature as a valid PPI. Using the two samples from the previous studies, and the four samples from the current study, meta-analyses were conducted to assess the aggregate effect of the Noticing Nature Intervention (compared to a control condition) on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (i.e., net-positive affect, satisfaction with life, meaning in life, transcendent connectedness, and elevation). (See Table 50 for statistics used to conduct meta-analyses.) All meta-analyses were conducted using JAMOVI version 9.5.5. Hunter-Schmidt random-effects meta-analyses were conducted as per Field and Gillett’s (2010) recommendation (see also Field, 2005; Schmidt & Hunter, 2014).Meta-analysis for net-positive affect. (See Figure 29 for forest plot of effect sizes and confidence intervals; see Figure 30 for funnel plot of asymmetry.) A pooled effect size estimate of d = 0.27 [0.02, 0.51], Z = 2.11, p = .035, SE = 0.13 emerged for net-positive affect. A test for heterogeneity was significant, Q(5) = 18.21, p = .003, but moderate, I2 = 66.05%, therefore moderation analyses were not conducted. Additionally, the small number of studies was not conducive to moderation analyses. A Rosenthal file-drawer analysis indicated that 24 unpublished or un-retrieved studies averaging null results would be required to bring the average unweighted effect size to non-significance. Tests for funnel plot asymmetry did not clearly indicate a publication bias (Begg’s regression test: Z = -0.31, p = .756; rank correlation test: τ = 0.07, p = 1.000; however given the relatively small number of studies, caution is advised in 75interpreting these asymmetry statistics.Meta-analysis for satisfaction with life. (See Figure 31 for forest plot of effect sizes and confidence intervals; see Figure 32 for funnel plot of asymmetry.) A pooled effect size estimate of d = 0.21 [0.02, 0.40], Z = 2.15, p = .032, SE = 0.10 emerged for life satisfaction. A test for heterogeneity was not significant, Q(4) = 6.95, p = .138, and moderate I2 = 27.14%, therefore moderation analyses were not conducted. Additionally, the small number of studies was not conducive to moderation analyses. A Rosenthal file-drawer analysis indicated that 6 unpublished or un-retrieved studies averaging null results would be required to bring the average unweighted effect size to non-significance. Tests for funnel plot asymmetry did not clearly indicate a publication bias (Begg’s regression test: Z = -0.49, p = .627; rank correlation test: τ = 0.20, p = .817; however given the relatively small number of studies, caution is advised in interpreting these asymmetry statistics.Meta-analysis for meaning in life. (See Figure 33 for forest plot of effect sizes and confidence intervals; see Figure 34 for funnel plot of asymmetry.) A pooled effect size estimate of d = 0.14 [0.01, 0.28], Z = 2.10, p = .036, SE = 0.07 emerged for meaning in life. A test for heterogeneity was not significant, Q(5) = 5.41, p = .367, I2 = 0.00%. A Rosenthal file-drawer analysis indicated that only 2 unpublished or un-retrieved studies averaging null results would berequired to bring the average unweighted effect size to non-significance. Tests for funnel plot asymmetry did not clearly indicate a publication bias (Begg’s regression test: Z = -0.97, p = .334;rank correlation test: τ = -0.07, p = 1.000; however given the relatively small number of studies, caution is advised in interpreting these asymmetry statistics.76Meta-analysis for transcendent connectedness. (See Figure 35 for forest plot of effect sizes and confidence intervals; see Figure 36 for funnel plot of asymmetry.) A pooled effect size estimate of d = 0.31 [0.17, 0.45], Z = 4.33, p < .001, SE = 0.07 emerged for transcendent connectedness. A test for heterogeneity was not significant, Q(5) = 4.26, p = .513, I2 = 0.00%. ARosenthal file-drawer analysis indicated that 28 unpublished or un-retrieved studies averaging null results would be required to bring the average unweighted effect size to non-significance. Tests for funnel plot asymmetry did not clearly indicate a publication bias (Begg’s regression test: Z = -1.45, p = .146; rank correlation test: τ = -0.33, p = .469; however given the relatively small number of studies caution is advised in interpreting these asymmetry statistics.Meta-analysis for elevation. (See Figure 37 for forest plot of effect sizes and confidence intervals; see Figure 38 for funnel plot of asymmetry.) A pooled effect size estimate of d = 0.38 [0.24, 0.52], Z = 5.44, p < .001, SE = 0.07 emerged for elevation. A test for heterogeneity was not significant, Q(5) = 5.44, p = .365, I2 = 0.00%. A Rosenthal file-drawer analysis indicated that 46 unpublished or un-retrieved studies averaging null results would be required to bring the average unweighted effect size to non-significance. Tests for funnel plot asymmetry did not clearly indicate a publication bias (Begg’s regression test: Z = -1.84, p = .066;rank correlation test: τ = -0.60, p = .136; however given the relatively small number of studies caution is advised in interpreting these asymmetry statistics.Summary of meta-analyses. (See Table 51 for summary statistics.) Meta-analyses revealed significant pooled effect sizes ranging from d = 0.14 to d = 0.38 for the impact of the Noticing Nature intervention on five aspects of well-being (i.e., net-positive affect, satisfaction with life, meaning in life, transcendent connectedness, and elevation). Rosenthal fail-safe ns andeffect sizes for net-positive affect, transcendent connectedness, and elevation were acceptable (ns77= 24, 28, 46 respectively; ds = 0.27, 0.31, 0.38 respectively). However, the fail-safe ns and effectsizes for satisfaction with life (n = 6; d = 0.21) and meaning in life (n = 2; d = 0.14) were quite low. Given these relatively low statistics and the relatively small number of studies included in the meta-analyses (study n = 6), extra caution is advised for interpreting the meta-analytic resultsfor satisfaction with life and meaning in life.78Qualitative FindingsGiven that the qualitative responses from the Chinese sample group were not in English, only responses from the remaining three sample groups were coded. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition from the UBC, Ottawa, and Online sample groups (n = 201) submitted a total of 2,312 daily reports of what emotions were evoked by the nature they noticed during the two-week intervention (an average of approximately 11 responses per participant). A surprisingly small minority of these participants—only 24 (11.9%)—wrote a list of just one or two emotions for each daily report (e.g., “Relaxed, Amazed, In Awe”; “empowered”; “joy, sense of wellbeing”). Most participants provided daily reports consisting of at least one or two complete, descriptive sentences, while many participants provided rich, detailed reports, for example:“Grass is not only a symbol of growth but also a symbol of life. I felt rejuvenated just by profoundly observing the shades of green battle against the wind in a calm manner. I wondered about how long it would take for the soil to be that fertile for the grass to grow. This evoked a positive reaction within me because I felt the need to grow. And, looking atmyself, I know I have grown; emotionally, physically and mentally. The manner in which the growth resulted in something so beautiful and calming motivated me to keep continuing my journey against the obstacles.” – participant NN_047or“While looking at the sky during the day I felt a sense of calm wash over me, as I was reassured that even with the stress of midterms everything would be alright. When I came to the night sky I felt overcome by a sense of wonder when taking a brief look up above. I realized the sheer vastness of the universe and began to think about the beauty of our planet as a whole.”- participant O-NN_020.Reports were first coded for overall valence: positive, negative, or mixed. For example, a response such as “the snow evoked feelings of sadness and depression as well as joy. the winds blowing evoked feelings of freedom” [participant O-NN_039] would be classified as mixed. A 79response such as “Awe, wonder - made me feel a little more part of the universe, made me appreciate how beautiful our surroundings can be” [participant champy12] was classified as positive; while a response such as “The sight of the trees bending made me feel a little down, it was so dark and depressing” [participant O-NN_067] was coded as negative. The majority (72%) of reports reflected solely positive emotions, 11% of reports reflected solely negative emotions, and 15% of the reports reflected emotions of mixed valence mentioning both positive and negative emotions.Responses were then coded for emotional themes; 18 positive (e.g., peaceful, happy, awe,joy, rejuvenated, safe, connected, free) and 14 negative (e.g., sad, frustrated, lonely, nervous, tired, scared) themes emerged (see Table 52 for complete list of themes) reflecting a nuanced andvaried array of emotions. Most reports reflected more than one theme; each report was, therefore, categorized and counted in more than theme. The total number of specific themed emotional-responses was 4,213; of these, 85% of the responses fell into the positive category and15% were fell into the negative category.A representative selection of reports reflecting positive emotional responses and themes are included below.“As I was walking back to residence from a UCM meeting, I was looking up at the night's sky and I was overcome by a sense of joy and peace which has carried on through the night. ”- participant NN_027 | themes: joy, peace / calm“Amazed at how bright it can pierce through the sky In awe of how many stars there must be out there in the atmosphere”- participant NN_098 | theme: awe“When I looked at the leaves it kinda looked like the hillside was on fire. I felt inspired and after daydreaming for a bit about the trees I had enough much needed energy to continue my schoolwork.” “It made me feel warm and like my batteries charged in the space of 3 minutes.”- participants NN_094, NN_005 | themes: rejuvenated, inspired80“Today's natural elements made me feel happy and energized, as if i was excited for something because of all of the excitement and movement in the nature surrounding me.”- participant O-NN_40 | themes: rejuvenated, happy“I woke up early enough to see the sunrise, as I had lots of homework to get done. I wasn't in a good mood, since I had so much work to catch up on but observing the sun float up into the sky and the warm tones and colours from its rays made me think of who else was watching the sun as well. It made me feel connected, and like I was apart of something greater.I was reminded that every individual can relate to some degree, and I felt happy.”- participant NN_043 | themes: connected, happy“Studying underneath the large tree made me feel safe because of it's overarching branches.” “The emotion I felt from this was security because no matter how dark things get there will always be a light glowing at the end of the day.”- participants O-NN_038, NN_099 | theme: safe / reassured“Wind makes me feel happy and free” “The wind makes me feel free. I mean, the wind is able to go wherever it wants. When I close my eyes and feel the wind, I believe I can also go everywhere with the wind. It let my mind be free.”- participants NN_072, NN_012 | themes: free, happyThe emotions reflected in the above examples support the quantitative results noted above which demonstrated that participants randomly assigned to engage in the Noticing Nature Intervention experienced significant boosts of net-positive affect, and in particular, transcendent connectedness and elevation compared to participants in the control and the Three Good Things conditions. It is particularly interesting that numerous participants reported feelings similar to participant NN_043’s comment that watching the sunrise made him/her wonder “who else was watching the sun” and that he/she felt “connected”, and “apart of something greater”. For example, participant NN_027 wrote, “I felt homesick and yet at home because I see the same sky here as my family and bestfriends do back home. Though I would love to be with them and have my family and bestfriends around, I felt connected to them while looking at the sky.” These sentiments are closely akin to items in the Transcendent Connectedness Scale (e.g., “I am aware 81of a connection between myself and all living beings”). Items from the Elevating Experience Scale (e.g., inspired, in awe, appreciative, in wonder) were also widely present in the qualitative data.Also of interest is that many of the reports falling within the “peaceful/calm” category mentioned feelings of de-stressing, for example: “the creek made me feel empty of stress” [participant NN_076); “I felt my stress dissipating” [participant NN_028]; “felt like it resets my stress meter” [participant stud13pa55c03]; “I noticed the rain hitting my window so I went outside and immediately, my stress was relieved” [participant NN_069]; “made me feel less stressed than I was for the rest of the day” [participant NN_025]; “I was for once not that stressed out” [participant O-NN_35]. These findings, coupled with the findings reflecting feelings of rejuvenation, are in line with the significant reduction in stress evidenced in the quantitative results by participants in the Noticing Nature condition compared to those in the control condition. Moreover, these findings are in line with Ulrch et al.’s (1991) Stress Reduction Theory and the Kaplan’s (1989) Attention Restoration Theory.As mentioned above, in addition to positive themes, negative themes also emerged in the daily reports. A representative selection of reports reflecting negative emotional responses and themes are included below.“the dead leaves made me feel sad because something was ending.” “The fog made me feel quite down.” “The sunlight paves the way of my depression. Then, the wind gang up with the leaves to mess my mind up. I feel a piece of blue in my mind and get a little bit choked.”- participants O-NN_042, NN_086, NN_023 | theme: sad“I found their chirping to be annoying and it made me angry” “I felt annoyed as I went through the group of flies and this is because they got caught in my head hair as well as arm hair which is very unusual. This part of nature I am not to fond of.” “Slightly annoyed about the squirrel in the walnut tree”82- participants O-NN_55, NN_075, aroundbaseumbrellaexplore | themes:annoyed / irritated, angry“The storm made me feel like a little bit nervous. It made me feel a lack of my own safety. It seems everything around me were dangerous.”- participant NN_110 | themes: nervous“The emotion evoked by this is loneliness. This is because the dandelion isall by itself in such a big field of grass.” “The sight of the one violet flower made me feel a sense of loneliness.”- participant NN_062, O-NN_055 | theme: lonelyNegative emotions are a part of life, so it is not surprising that some negative feelings would surface in participants daily reports. There did not seem to be a consistent theme for what aspects of nature evoked negative emotions. For instance, while a few participants mentioned signs of fall as being sad, others reported similar seasonal scenes as evoking more positive emotions. For example, participant NN_009 wrote,“I can tell that Autum is approaching by seeing the grass turning brown along the mountain. This gives me a feeling of death, yet also a feeling of a blank slate. Not a negative emotion, more like a fresh start.”Nonetheless, dark, gloomy skies devoid of sunshine or being caught in the elements (e.g.,rain, extreme heat) did seem to generally evoke feelings of sadness and frustration, respectively, for may participants. It is important to note that many of the instances of sadness, anger, nervousness, and frustration evident in participant’s reports were not evoked by noticing nature herself, but rather by noticing evidence of destruction of nature caused by humans. These emotional markers of ecoanxiety were present in several participants’ reports. For example:“I was walking home, and I passed trough a park, then I started to wonderhow would it be if we all die. If all humans were to disappear, nature will actually save itself. we're pure evil. we don't care about nature and how we are killing thousands of innocent animals.”– participant O-NN_004 | theme: anger“This was a terrible start to my day as it made me feel incredibly sad and frustrated. I love walking by those grasses on a daily basis and to see them chopped down to nothing and know that I won't be able to enjoy 83them for some time was very disheartening.”- participant boomer | theme: sad, frustration“I realized that the stars could not be seen in the city during the night time, which made me sad.” “ the grass was dry it made me sad. the grasswas dead like everything else that's good in this world we are killing it” “happy at beauty of day; sad at the idea of imminent destruction of earth as we know it by human rapaciousness.”- participant O-NN_008, NN_042, felicity | sad“The emotion this evoked out of me was that it made me feel uneasy and nervous because, I know they are doing that to make more homes for people or maybe a mall or something, but I don't like how they are taking away animal's homes and cutting down one of our main source for air justto build another shopping mall or something. This makes me neurvous about our future and what our world would look like or be like if unnecessary plans continue.”- participant O-NN_32 | nervousComparison of qualitative findings to previous Noticing Nature Intervention studies.As a parallel to the meta-analyses (reported above) conducted on the quantitative results, qualitative findings from the current study were compared to the qualitative findings reported by Passmore and colleagues in their previous two Noticing Nature Intervention studies (Passmore &Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017). Consistent findings are apparent across all three studies.Previously, Passmore and Holder (2017) reported that “It appeared that it was nature itself that people were reacting to, rather than, … a memory, activity or function that the individual associated with the object/scene” (p. 542). Similarly, in the current study, although some individuals commented that a scene reminded them of their home which made them feel homesick, or that a scene evoked pleasant memories for them, for the most part, the emotions participants reported after noticing nature were simply a reaction to nature itself. The marked exception to this were the ecoanxiety-related negative emotions that surfaced in the current study. Both positive and negative themes emerged in the previous studies, as they did in the current studies. On the negative side, sadness, anxiety, loneliness, and frustration / irritability 84emerged as themes across all three studies. On the positive side, themes of peace, hope, freedom, nostalgia, awe, rejuvenation, inspiration, joy, gratefulness, and of course happiness, were prevalent in all three studies. (See Figure 39 for word clouds of emotional themes.) Acrossall three studies, the majority of emotional responses were positive. Indeed, the ratio of positive to negative emotions evoked by noticing nature was remarkably consistent among the previous two studies and the current study (i.e., Passmore & Holder, 2017: 85% positive, 16% negative; Passmore & Yang, 2017; 79% positive to 21% negative; current study as noted above: 85% positive to 15% negative).85ConclusionThe overarching goal of the current study was to help establish “Noticing Nature” as a valid positive psychological intervention. Over the course of a two-week period, Noticing Nature did prove to have beneficial effects in boosting hedonic and eudaimonic well-being and reducing ill-being across four samples of participants from different universities and different countries. Specifically, the present research compared the effects of the two-week Noticing Nature well-being intervention to one of the most commonly used positive psychology interventions, Three Good Things, and to the effects of an active-control condition, Life Details. Participants in the Noticing Nature condition were instructed to take notice of how the nature they encountered in their everyday routines made them feel, and to jot down on a daily basis these emotions along with what nature scenes or objects evoked these emotions. Participants in the Three Good Things condition were instructed to daily list three good things that went well that and why they happened, while those in the active-control Life Details condition were instructed to provide a daily detailed description of the events of their day.In general, Noticing Nature outperformed the common positive psychology intervention (Three Good Things) for enhancing eudaimonic well-being, and was comparable to the common positive psychology intervention at boosting hedonic well-being. Social well-being, for the mostpart, was not notably impacted by either the Noticing Nature or the Three Good Things interventions. Specifically, Noticing Nature enhanced feelings of transcendent connectedness and elevation to a significantly greater extent than did either the Three Good Things or the control activities. Additionally, Noticing Nature effectively boosted net-positive affect and reduced stress to an extent on par with the Three Good Things activity and to a significantly greater extent than the control condition. These effects held across all four samples of 86participants. Effect sizes ranging from d = 0.24 to 0.62 were on par with the previously determined meta-analytic effect size of Positive Psychology Interventions (Bolier et al., 2013; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; Weiss et al. 2016; White et al., 2019). Noticing Nature also enhancedsatisfaction with life to a significantly greater extent than did the Three Good Things activity, butno significant difference was demonstrated compared to the active-control Life Details activity. No significant effect on meaning in life, depression, or anxiety was evident for any of the activities.Overall, quantitative results of the current study replicated findings from two previous Noticing Nature Intervention studies conducted by Passmore and colleagues (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017). Given that the Noticing Nature Intervention has now been tested on six different samples, meta-analyses were conducted to examine the effects on different aspects of well-being. Significant pooled effect sizes were revealed for Noticing Natureboosting transcendent connectedness (d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.17, 0.45]) and elevation (d = 0.38, 95% CI [0.24, 0.52]). These effect sizes, including their lower limits, are on par with results from previous meta-analyses of Positive Psychology Interventions as noted above.A significant pooled effect size of d = 0.27 emerged for the effect of Noticing Nature on net-positive affect, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was d = 0.02. Caution is thus warranted when interpreting this statistic. Significant pooled effect sizes also emerged for satisfaction with life (d = 0.21) and meaning in life (d = 0.14). However, the lower limits of the 95% CI for these effect sizes are d = 0.02 and d = 0.01 respectively, and analyses indicated that only 6 and 2 (respectively) studies with non-significant results would attenuate these effect sizes. Thus, caution is warranted when interpreting the meta-analytic results for life satisfaction and meaning in life. Further research utilizing large sample sizes is called for to more realistically assess the 87effect of Noticing Nature on these facets of well-being (i.e., net-positive affect, satisfaction with life, meaning in life). Nonetheless, particularly with respect to transcendent connectedness and elevation, results of these meta-analyses suggest that Noticing Nature Intervention is effective in enhancing well-being.Qualitative findings from participants who had been randomly assigned to the Noticing Nature activity support the quantitative findings. The vast majority of the daily reports from these participants reflected solely positive emotions. Emergent themes of happiness, joy, awe, connectedness, inspiration, rejuvenation, and peace/calm, parallel the quantitative results that Noticing Nature significantly enhanced net-positive affect, transcendent connectedness, and elevation while significantly reducing stress. Moreover, the rich array of natural scenes described which evoked these emotions support Burns’ (1998) proposition that the physical characteristics of natural stimuli (e.g., variety, intensity, motion) provide for a sense of enjoyable anticipation. The emergence of themes of peaceful/calm, safe/reassured/comforted, clear, and rejuvenation lend support to theoretical perspectives such as the Perceptual Fluency Account (Joye and van den Berg, 2011), Attention Restoration Theory (1989), and Stress-Reduction Theory (Ulrich et al., 1991), all of which posit that experiences in nature will lower stress and leave us feeling refreshed. Emergent themes of happiness, joy, and connectedness lend support to the Eco-Existential Positive Psychology theoretical framework (Passmore & Howell, 2014b) which, in part, posits that affiliating with nature can help to assuage our existential isolation and yearning for happiness.The Eco-Existential Positive Psychology theoretical framework (Passmore & Howell, 2014b) also posits a link between engaging with nature and enhanced meaning in life; extant empirical evidence supports this link as participants in previous studies have reported 88significantly higher levels of meaning in life after engaging with or noticing nature (e.g., Hamann & Ivtzan, 2016; Passmore & Howell, 2014a; Passmore & Yang, 2017). Thus, it was predicted in the current study that Noticing Nature would enhance levels of meaning in life. Contrary to this prediction, levels of meaning in life were not significantly different across the Noticing Nature, Three Good Things, and Life Details activities. One reason for these findings could be that meaning in life is a multiply-determined emotion and appears to be a somewhat stable trait-like construct of which most people score above the mid-point (Heintzelman & King, 2014, 2019). As such, significant change in meaning, while possible, may be hard to evidence.Further, meaning in life is framed as consisting of three facets: purpose, coherence, and significance or mattering (George & Park, 2017; Martela & Steger, 2016). The global measure of meaning used in the current student did not distinguish between these facets of meaning. Perhaps Noticing Nature predominantly enhances only one or two facets of meaning. For example, meaning as coherence is defined, in part, as discerning stable patterns in one’s environment. Passmore and Howell (2014b) provided theoretical support for their supposition that nature contains elements of stability and order which could help to address our existential anxiety regarding the meaningfulness of our lives. These attributes relate to the coherence facet of meaning in life. Qualitative findings from the current study suggest that the coherence aspect of meaning may be triggered by noticing nature. A theme of feeling safe, comforted, and reassured emerged. These emotions are reflective of a sense that all is “right” in the world, indicative of the coherence facet of meaning (Heintzelman & King, 2013). Additionally, a themeof nostalgia emerged. Nostalgia has also been to linked to the coherence aspect of meaning in life (van Tilburg, Sedikidst, Wildschut, & Vingerhoets, 2019; Waytz, Hershfield, & Tamir, 2015).The significance facet of meaning refers to feeling that one’s life matters in the grand 89scheme of themes. A sense of significance comes, in part, from feeling connected to a greater whole. Both the qualitative findings and the quantitative results of the current study demonstrated that participants in the Noticing Nature condition had enhanced levels of connectedness. The use of a measure such as the Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (George & Park, 2017) in future studies may prove fruitful in helping to discern the relationship between Noticing Nature and subsequent ratings of distinct facets of meaning in life.Contrary to predictions, Noticing Nature did not have an significant effect on reducing depression or anxiety. These findings could reflect a floor effect, in that pre-intervention levels of depression and anxiety were very low. Moreover, results of McMahan and Estes’ (2015) meta-analysis suggested that the beneficial effect of connecting with nature may be stronger for enhancing well-being than for reducing ill-being. Nonetheless, as noted above, Noticing Nature did significantly reduce levels of stress.The prediction that Noticing Nature would boost prosociality was based on theoretical frameworks (e.g., Reasonable Person Model, Kaplan & Kaplan, 2003, 2009) and on an abundance of empirical evidence linking exposure to nature with greater prosocial tendencies (e.g., Gueguen & Stefan, 2014; Kuo, 2003; Passmore & Howell, 2017, Weinstein et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2016; Zelenski et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2014). This prediction was not, however, supported. The non-significant results of the current study in this domain were surprising. Prosociality was measured in five ways: (1) perspective taking and empathic concern, (2) pro-environmental behaviour, (3) prosocial behaviour, (4) prosocial motivation, and (5) compassion. Previous research (Zhang et al., 2014) has demonstrated a positive correlation (r = .35, p < .001) between engaging with natural beauty and perspective and empathic concern. This correlation is virtually identical to that found in the current study (r = .34, p < .001). It is possible that 90perspective taking and empathic concern is a relatively stable trait-like personality trait just as engaging with natural beauty appears to be (Diessner, Woodward, Stacy, & Mobasher, 2015; Diessner, Pohling, Stacy, & Gűsewell, 2018). If so, the Noticing Nature intervention may not be strong enough to influence the trait of perspective taking and empathic concern.Previous research has evidenced that exposure to nature can enhance pro-environmental behaviour (e.g., Zelenski, et al., 2015). It is possible that the measure of pro-environmental behaviour used in the current study did not capture either a broad enough or a nuanced enough range of environmentally sustainable behaviours. In addition to a more comprehensive self-report measure, using a more active behavioural measure would be worth investigating. For example, previous research in this area has used a nature-based commons dilemma (Gifford & Gifford, 2000; Zelenski et al., 2015) to assess increases in pro-environmental behaviours after exposure to nature. Consideration could also be given to using the recently developed Pro-Environmental Behavior Task (Lange, Steinke, & Dewitte, 2018), a “computerized assessment ofactual pro-environmental behaviour under controlled laboratory condition” (p. 46). Of course it is also possible that merely noticing nature may not provide enough of a connection to nature to prompt people to change their daily habits with regard to eco-friendly practices in daily routine. Further research is needed to determine this.Exposure to nature has been shown to enhance a variety of prosocial behaviours and intentions including expressing more concern for others (Kuo, 2003), assigning more generous pay to others in give-some joint-pay games (Passmore & Holder, 2017), and more readily helping others (Gueguen & Stefan, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014). In the current study, prosocial behaviour and motivation was assessed by the Tangram Help/Hurt Task (Saleem et al., 2015). This game has previously been shown to reflect greater prosocial behaviour and motivation in 91participants who had viewed videos of nature (Yang et al., 2016). Yet in the current study, no significant difference was evidenced across conditions for prosocial behaviour, and no significantdifferences emerged for prosocial motivation across conditions in three of the four samples. In the UBC sample prosocial motivation was actually lower for the Noticing Nature condition compared to the Three Good Things condition, and was not significantly different than the Life Details active-control condition. It is somewhat unclear why Noticing Nature did not effect a significant impact on this measure of prosociality. In future studies assessing the efficacy of Noticing Nature on prosocial behaviour, using different measures of prosocial behaviour, particularly face-to-face opportunities to help another individual, may help to clarify this finding.Lastly, prosociality was measured via a standard three-item measure of compassion (Thompson, 2007). Passmore and colleagues (2017) found that participants who watched a brief 2-minute slideshow of healthy nature reported higher levels of compassion compared to a controlgroup; numerous studies, as outlined above, have evidenced an increase in other-oriented emotions and cognitions after exposure to nature. Yet, in the current study only participants in the UBC and China sample evidenced significant differences in compassion compared to the control group. Again, it is somewhat unclear why Noticing Nature did not effect a significant impact on compassion across all four samples. It is possible that the intervention is simply not powerful enough, and that people need to engage with nature on a more interactive or intense level. It is also possible that the UBC and China samples were unique in some related way, although this seems unlikely given the consistency of results for well-being and ill-being.Empirical evidence (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Howell, 2014a, Passmore & Yang, 2017) and numerous theoretical frameworks suggest that engaging with nature holds inherent appeal for people (e.g., Biophilia Hypothesis: Wilson, 1984; characteristics of natural 92stimuli: Burns, 1998; Perceptual Fluency Account: Joye & van den Berg, 2011). Thus, in the current study it was predicted that self-concordant motivation for continuing with the Noticing Nature activity past the two-week intervention period would be significantly higher than motivation for continuing with the other randomly-assigned activities. This prediction was not supported. Nevertheless, across the four sample groups, participants were significantly more likely to continue engaging in the Noticing Nature activity than the Three Good Things activity (RR = 1.38) or the Life Details active-control activity (RR = 1.55) and participants reported a significantly greater number of days during the follow-up week engaging in the Noticing Nature activity compared to engaging in the Three Good Things (d = 0.36) or Life Details active-control(d = 0.36) activities.Exploratory analyses examined if shifts in well-being from pre-intervention to one-week post-intervention were significantly different across conditions. Although follow-up levels of net-positive affect, satisfaction with life, meaning in life, and transcendent connectedness were not significantly different across the three conditions, levels of elevation did differ. Participants from the Noticing Nature condition reported significantly higher levels of elevation compared to participants in the Three Good Things (d = 0.24) and the active-control Life Details (d = 0.36) conditions. It is important to note that the feeling of elevation, as measured in the current study, includes a mix of powerful, uplifting emotions such as inspiration, awe, wonder, and deep appreciativeness for life. That merely Noticing Nature had a substantive enduring effect on this composite of emotions warrants further investigation.Limitations of the Current StudyLimitations of the current study should be considered. The samples were largely undergraduate students who were primarily female, possibly limiting the generalizability of the 93results. Even in the Online sample, most participants were university students. It would be beneficial to utilize a larger community sample wherein participants span a diverse range of ages and a diverse array of occupations. Nonetheless, 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 beyond undergraduate samples.The majority of participants were from universities with campuses situated in landscapes affording relatively easy access to large natural areas and much greenery. This may have inflatedthe power of the Noticing Nature intervention. Alternatively, having nature so prevalent may have attenuated the results. Noticing nature when it is less salient in one’s daily routines may render the beneficial effects of noticing nature more impactful. Future research should test the intervention in areas that are less “green” to examine the effects of Noticing Nature in dense, urban environments where, for example, trees are somewhat less abundant. The current study and the previous two Noticing Nature intervention studies have been conducted during mild fall weather. Testing the intervention over different seasons would provide a more stringent test of the intervention and could test if aspects of weather such as temperature, precipitation, and sunshine/cloud cover moderate effects.By and large, assessments in the current study were self-report measures. While the measures used have proven validity in assessing the constructs of interest, greater use of behavioural measures is warranted. Given that both the Noticing Nature and the Three Good Things activities entailed a degree of mindfulness to one’s surroundings and experiences, it 94would have been beneficial to asses mindfulness and control for its impact. Lastly, Noticing Nature was only compared to one Positive Psychology Intervention, that is, the Three Good Things activity. This PPI was chosen because it has been ranked as the most popular well-being activity among many validated exercises. Nevertheless, future studies comparing the efficacy of Noticing Nature to other well-being interventions would be informative.It is possible that participants in the Noticing Nature were simply more mindful and that this drove the beneficial effects found. Although thinking about Three Good Things and Life Details requires mindfulness to recall events of the day, these exercises may not activate a more general sense of mindfulness throughout the day as the Noticing Nature intervention may be likely to activate. Given research evidencing the beneficial effects of mindfulness (e.g., Davis & Hayes, 2011; Keng, Smoski, & Robins, 2011), future studies could assess trait levels of mindfulness as an additional covariate to control for, or assess state mindfulness post-intervention to examine if any differences across conditions were evident.Implications of the Current StudyTo recap, engaging in the Noticing Nature intervention for two weeks significantly enhanced well-being by boosting net-positive affect, transcendent connectedness, and feelings of elevation. In addition to enhancing well-being, Noticing Nature significantly reduced ill-being by lowering levels of stress. These results are important not only in and of themselves, but also because they replicate results from two previous studies examining the effect of Noticing Nature (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017). Significant effects on both well-being and ill-being in the current study were evident even after controlling for the propensity to believe thatwell-being can be improved and controlling for trait levels of engaging with beauty, two variables related to enhanced well-being. Previously, Noticing Nature’s effects on well-being 95were demonstrated even after controlling for trait levels of connectedness to nature (Passmore & Holder, 2017). This has important implications for the likely efficacy of this intervention for a wide variety of people. These results suggest that irrespective of the degree to which people normally feel connected with nature, respond to beauty around them, or believe that well-being can be changed, Noticing Nature is likely to make people feel better—happier, more connected, uplifted, and less stressed.Moreover, consistent with Passmore and colleagues’ previous studies (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017), Noticing Nature boosted well-being and lowered ill-being even though participants in the Noticing Nature condition did not report spending significantly more time in nature over the two-week intervention period than did participants engaged in the other randomly-assigned activities. This is important in evidencing that everyday,mundane nature encountered in urban environments during one’s daily routine can have a powerful impact on one’s well-being merely by noticing and attending to it. Thus results from the current study are aligned with Kurtz and Lyubomirsky’s (2008) proposal that “attaining long-lasting happiness does not require a large-scale overhaul of the conditions of one’s life” (p. 33). Results are also aligned with, and extend, Richardson and colleagues’ (Richardson & Hallam, 2013; Richardson, Hallam & Lumber, 2015) findings that, with mindful attentiveness to nearby, mundane nature, one can reap psychological rewards without having to travel into the wilderness.Richardson and colleagues (2016) previously reported on the extended benefits to happiness for participants who had engaged in a nature-based activity every day for the month ofJune. In their 30 Days Wild Campaign, individuals reported significantly greater happiness not only from the beginning of the month to the end of the month, but even 2 months later at the 96beginning of September. In the current study, significant effects on elevation were evident one-week post-intervention. These results are important as this is the first study (to my knowledge) in which the extended effects of a brief nature-based well-being intervention have been examinedwithin a randomized-controlled experimental design.Individuals continued to engage of their own accord in the Noticing Nature activity (to which they had been originally randomly assigned) a significantly greater number of days post-intervention compared to individuals who had been randomly assigned to other activities. Indeed, individuals were approximately one and a half times more likely to continue engaging in the Notice Nature exercise compared to either the Three Good Things and active-control Life Details activities. These results not only parallel previous findings demonstrating the intrinsic appeal that nature seems to have for people (see Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Howell, 2014b), they are important at a practical level. Durable well-being requires consistent engagement in activities that provide well-being boosts (Mochon, Norton, & Ariely, 2008). Noticing Nature appears to be one such activity.A rich array of positive emotional themes emerged from the current study. Participants who Noticed Notice reported feelings ranging from calm and comforted to joy and awe. Nature evoked emotions such as connectedness, gratefulness, and rejuvenation. These qualitative findings coupled with the quantitative results lend support to several theoretical frameworks (including the Biophilia Hypothesis: Shepard, 1982; Ulrich, 1983; Wilson, 1984) which propose that connecting with the nature world is inherently appealing and beneficial to our to restoring and enhancing our well-being.The over-arching goal of the current study was to help establish the Noticing Nature Intervention as a valid Positive Psychology Intervention. Solid support emerged (in the current 97study and in meta-analytic results across three studies containing six samples) for the efficacy of Noticing Nature in enhancing well-being. Moreover in a direct comparison, Noticing Nature emerged as comparable to or significantly more effective than one of the most commonly used Positive Psychology Interventions (Three Good Things) in enhancing well-being.Thus, results of the current study validating the effectiveness of Noticing Nature as a Positive Psychology Intervention have a number of important theoretical and practical implications. Individuals who wish to introduce moments of joy into their daily lives could consider engaging in Noticing Nature as they go about their daily routines. Practitioners may want to consider prescribing this activity to their clients as an pathway to sparking well-being from which they can build upon to address other therapeutic goals, particularly as Noticing Nature is likely to be an activity that clients will remain engaged with. The addition of Noticing nature as part of, or as an adjunct to, comprehensive well-being intervention programs is likely toprove beneficial. Results of this study have practical implications for urban planners whose focus is on salutogenic design (i.e., intentionally incorporating elements that promote well-being). Results of this study suggest that individual well-being would be enhanced if layouts of neighbourhoods and cities were such that people frequently encountered nature in their daily lives and travels and their attention draw to it. Findings may also inform governments about the importance of funding green spaces in urban areas.Future Research DirectionsMuch research is still needed to further advance this area of study. For example, the first study by Passmore and colleagues introducing Noticing Nature as a well-being intervention had participants take daily photos of the nature they encountered which evoked emotions in them (Passmore & Howell, 2017). The second study (Passmore & Yang, 2017) and the current study 98involved participants writing down descriptions of emotion-evoking nature. Directly comparing these two versions of the Noticing Nature intervention in a single study would be helpful in clarifying if these versions are equivalent in their ability to boost well-being.Given that in two studies Noticing Nature demonstrated effectiveness at reducing stress, the intervention could be tested with students over the course of final exam weeks or with employees in businesses during particularly hectic and stressful periods. A theme of hope arisingfrom noticing nature emerged in the current study as well as in the previous two Noticing Nature intervention studies (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017). Quantitatively assessing changes in hope as a result of engaging in Noticing Nature would corroborate these qualitative findings.Research with broader sample populations is needed, particularly cross-culturally and in clinical populations. Although in previous research, connectedness with nature did not emerged as a significant moderator of the effect of Noticing Nature on well-being, a more stringent test would be to screen participants and use samples of individuals with very low levels of nature connectedness. It may also be fruitful to measure nature connectedness as a dependent variable—that is, to assess nature connectedness pre- and post-intervention to test if Noticing Nature increases the degree to which people feel connected specifically to nature.In the current study, results indicated that Noticing Nature has an enduring impact on enhancing levels of elevation. It is important to note that the feeling of elevation is a mix of powerful emotions such as inspiration, awe, wonder, being moved, and a deep appreciativeness for life. To date, the bulk of psychological research examining the composite experience and emotion of elevation has focused on the feeling of elevation evoked from witnessing acts of moral goodness. Indeed, “elevation” has been characterized almost solely as “moral elevation”, 99defined as feeling uplifted, moved, and inspired by others (see reviews by Pohling & Diessner, 2016; Thomson & Siegel, 2017). Yet, as Huta and Ryan (2010) noted, the broader state of elevating experience (that is, this composite of emotions evoked by stimuli not related to moral actions) has received little empirical attention. They proposed that this broader sense of elevation is “especially important for a comprehensive assessment of well-being” (p. 759). Thus findings from the Noticing Nature research with respect to elevation may be a particularly important area to focus on in future research.Elevation evoked by witnessing moral goodness fosters positive feelings about the goodness of others, compassion towards, and feelings of closeness to others (Aquino, McFerran, & Levan, 2011; Erickson & Abelson, 2012; Haidt, 2000). In the current study, Noticing Nature significantly enhanced both elevation and connectedness across all four sample groups, and in two of the sample groups, levels of compassion were significantly enhanced. It would be interesting to compare downstream consequences of nature-evoked elevation to downstream consequences of elevation evoked by witnessing acts of moral goodness (moral-evoked elevation). For example, Siegel and Thomson (2017) reported that moral-evoked elevation in participants with depressive symptomatology increased intentions to seek help for their depression. There is much item overlap between the measure of elevation Siegel and Thomson used and the measure of elevation developed by Huta and Ryan (2010) that was used in the current study. For instance, both scales ask participants to rate the extent to which they feel “inspired”, “in awe”, “moved”, “uplifted”. Huta and Ryan’s scale includes an item “morally elevated”. The Noticing Nature intervention could be tested to see if resultant feelings of elevation have a similar effect on help-seeking intentions.These are only a few suggestions to build on the current study’s findings. Quantitative 100results from the current study and meta-analytic results of the effects across the Noticing Nature Intervention studies clearly support the efficacy of this positive psychology intervention by evidencing the power of simply noticing nearby nature. As one participant wrote:“It really makes you enjoy life.” – participant NN_059101ReferencesAcquino, S. B., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 100, 703-718.Adler, M. G., & Fagley, N. S. (2005). Appreciation: Individual differences in finding value and meaning as a unique predictor of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 73, 79-114.Aks, D. J., & Sprott, J. C. (1996). Quantifying aesthetic preference for chaotic patterns. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 14, 1–16.Bahník, S., Vranka, M, & Dlouhá, J. (2015). X good things in life: Processing fluency effects in the “Three good things in life” exercise. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 91-97.Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373-400.Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York, NY: Guilford.Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 505-516.Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Berger, R., & McLeod, J. (2006). Incorporating nature into therapy: A framework for practice. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 25, 80–94.Berman, 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, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., ... Jonides, J. 102(2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 300–305.Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259.Beute, F., & Kort, Y. A. (2014). Salutogenic effects of the environment: Review of health protective effects of nature and daylight. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6, 67–95.Bhullar, N., Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2011). Writing about satisfaction processes increases well-being. Individual Differences Research, 9, 22–32.Biswas-Diener, R., Linley, P. A., Govindji, R., & Woolston, L. (2011). Positive psychology as a force for social change. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 410 – 418). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.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.Bratman, G. N., Hamilton, J. P., & Daily, G. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of The New York Academy of Sciences, 1249, 118-136.Buber, M. (1923/1958). I and Thou. New York, NY: Scribner.Burns, G. W. (1998). Nature-guided therapy: Brief integrative strategies for health and well-being. Philadelphia: Brunner/MazelBurns, G. W. (2005). Naturally happy, naturally healthy: The role of the natural environment in 103well-being. In F. A. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 405–431). New York: Oxford University Press.Burton, G. J., & Moorhead, I. R. (1987). Color and spatial structure in natural scenes. Applied Optics, 26, 157-170.Buss, D. M. (2000). The evolution of happiness. American Psychologist, 55, 15–23. Byrd, R. E. (1938/2003). Alone. Washington, DC: Island Press.Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Wilson, A., LoTempo, E., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2008). Exploring the Atheist personality: Well-being, awe, and magical thinking in Atheists, Buddhists, and Christians. Unpublished manuscript.Camus, A. (1955). The myth of Sisyphus and other essays. New York: NY: Random House.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.Capaldi, C. A., Passmore, H.-A., Ishii, R., Chistopolskaya, K. A., Vowinckel, J., Nikolaev, E. L., & Semikin, G. I. (2017). Engaging with natural beauty may be related to well-being because it connects people to nature: Evidence from three cultures. Ecopsychology, 9, 199-211.Capaldi, C. A., Passmore, H.-A., Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Dopko, R. L. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the well-being benefits of connecting with nature and its application as a positive psychology intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5, 1-16.Carney, R. M., Blumenthal, J. A., Freedland, K. E., Stein, P. K., Howells, W. B., Berkman, L. F., … Jaffe, A. S. (2005). Low heart rate variability and the effect of depression on post-myocardial infarction mortality. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 1486–1491.104Chawla, L. (2002). Spots of time: Manifold ways of being in nature in childhood. In P. H. Kahn Jr. & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 189–225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cheung, K. C., & Wells, N. M. (2004). The natural environment and human well-being: Insights from fractal composition analysis. HarFa – Harmonic and Fractal Image Analysis, e-journal, 76-82.ChristineCarter.com (2017). Happiness tip: Write down the good things. Retrieved from http://www.christinecarter.com/2014/09/happiness-tip-write-down-good-things/ .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., & Myers, G. (2015). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for Nature (2nd Edition). Mississauga, ON: Wiley.Cobb, C. (1977). The ecology of imagination in childhood. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Corral-Verdugo, V. (2012). The positive psychology of sustainability. Environment, Developmentand Sustainability, 14, 651-666.Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113e126.Davis, D. M., & Hayes, J. A. (2011). What are the benefits of mindfulness? A practice review of psychotherapy-related research. Psychotherapy, 48, 198-208.De Castella, K., Goldin, P., Jazaieri, H., Heimberg, R. G., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion beliefs and cognitive behavioural therapy for social anxiety disorder. Cognitive 105Behaviour Therapy, 44, 128–141.Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 1–11.DeCicco, T. L., & Stroink, M. L. (2007). A third model of self-construal: The metapersonal self. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 26, 82–104.Depue, R. A., & Morrone-Strupinsky, J. V. (2005). A neurobehavioral model of affiliative bonding. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 313–395.Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.Diener, E. (2009). Subjective well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), The science of well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (Vol. 37, pp. 11-58). New York, NY: Springer.Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.Diener, E., Saptya, J. J., & Suh, E. M. (1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 33–37.Diessner, R., Iyer, R., Smith, M., & Haidt, J. (2013). Who engages with moral beauty? Journal of Moral Education, 42, 136-163.Diessner, R., Pohling, R., Stacy, S., & Gűsewell, A. (2018). Trait appreciation of beauty: A story of love, transcendence, and inquiry. Review of General Psychology, 22, 377-397.Diessner, R., Woodward, D., Stacy, S., & Mobasher, S. (2015). Ten once-a-week brief beauty walks increase appreciation of natural beauty. Ecopsychology, 7, 126-133.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.Drew, W. (1999). Killing wilderness. In. B. Willers (Ed.), Unmanaged landscapes: Voices for 106untamed nature (pp. 73–80). Washington, DC: Island Press.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.Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2012). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389.Erickson, T. M., & Abelson, J. L. (2012). Even the downhearted may be uplifted: Moralelevation in the daily life of clinically depressed and anxious adults. Journal of Socialand Clinical Psychology, 31, 707-728.Erickson, T. M., McGuire, A. P., Scarsella, G. M., Crouch, T. A., Lewis, J. A., Eisenlohr, A. P., & Muresan, T. J. (2018). Viral videos and virtue: Moral elevation inductions shift affect andinterpersonal goals in daily life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 643-654.Field, D. J. (1987). Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response profiles ofcortical cells. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 4, 2379–2394.Field, A. P. (2005). Is the meta-analysis of correlation coefficients accurate when population correlations vary? Psychological Methods, 10, 444-467.Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: SAGE Publications.Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665-694.Fordyce, M. W. (1983). A program to increase happiness: Further studies. Journal of Counseling 107Psychology, 30, 483–498.Frankl, V. (1959). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Fredrickson, L. M., & Anderson, D. H. (1999). A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 21–39.Frein, S. T., & Ponsler, K. (2014). Increasing positive affect in college students. Applied Research Quality Life, 9, 1-13.Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233-239.Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: Human health and natural environment. American Journalof Preventive Medicine, 20 , 234–240.GGIA (2017). Greater Good in Action: Science-based Practices for a Meaningful Life – Three Good Things. Retrieved from http://ggia.berkeley.edu/practice/three-good-thingsGander, F, Proyer, R .T., Ruch, W., & Wyss, T. (2013). Strengths-based positive interventions: Further evidence for their potential in enhancing well-being and alleviating depression. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1241-1259.George, L. S., & Park. C. L. (2017). The Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale: A tripartite approach to measuring meaning in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 613-617.Gifford, J., & Gifford, R. (2000). FISH 3: A microworld for studying social dilemmas and resource management. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 417-422.108Gilbert, P. (2005). Compassion: Conceptualisations, research and use in psychotherapy. Oxford: Routledge.Gilbert, P. (2014). The origins and nature of compassion-focused therapy. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 6-41.Goldberg, J. (2015, May 29). Absence of a smoking gun doesn’t equate to innocence. Townhall Media. Retrieved from https://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2015/05/29/absence-of-a-smoking-gun-doesnt-equate-to-innocence-n2005192Gray, J. A. (1982). On mapping anxiety. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 506–534Grinde, B. (1996). The biology of visual aesthetics. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 19, 31-40.Grinde, B., & Patil, G. G. (2009). Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact health and well-being? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6, 2332-2343.Green M. R., & Olivia, A. (2009). The briefest of glances: The time course of natural scene understanding. Psychological Science, 20, 464-472.Guéguen, N., & Stefan, J. (2016). “Green Altruism”: Short immersion in natural green environments and helping behavior. Environment and Behavior, 48, 324–342.Gullone, E. (2000). The biophilia hypothesis and life in the 21st century: Increasing mental health or increasing pathology. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 293–321.Hägerhill, C. M., Laike, T., Küller, M., Marcheschi, E. Boydston, C., & Taylor, R. P. (2015). Human physiological benefits of viewing nature: EEG responses to exact and statistical fractal patterns. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 19, 1-12.109Hägerhäll, C. M., Purcell, T., & Taylor, R. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,247-255.Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention & Treatment, 3, 1-5.Hamann, G. A., & Ivtzan, I. (2016). 30 minutes in nature a day can increase mood, well-being, meaning in life and mindfulness: Effects of a pilot programme. Social Inquiry into Well-Being, 2, 34-46.Hammitt, W. E. (1982). Cognitive dimensions of wilderness solitude. Environment and Behavior,14, 478–493.Happiness India Project (2017). Three good things – A powerful happiness exercise. Retrieved from http://happyproject.in/three-good-things/ .Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123.Hauck, D. W. W., & Anderson, S. (1984). A new statistical procedure for testing equivalence in two-group comparative bioavailability trials. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 12, 83–91.Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2013). On knowing more than we can tell: Intuitive processes and the experience of meaning. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 471-482.Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2014). Life is pretty meaningful. American Psychologist, 69, 561-574.Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2019). Routines and meaning in life. Personality and Social 110Psychology Bulletin, 45, 688-699.Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R., & (2005). The short-form version of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology / the British Psychological Society, 44, 227-239.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 thestudy of positive mental health (pp. 234-537). 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.Howell, A. J., Passmore, H.-A., & Holder, M. D. (2016) Implicit theories of well-being predict well-being and the endorsement of therapeutic lifestyle changes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 2347-2363.Howell, A. J., & Woolgar, S. R. (2013). Essentialism and compassion: Predicting preference for noun labels applied to people with mental disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 87-91.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.111Huta, V., Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2006). Pursuing pleasure versus eudaimonia: Links with different aspects of well-being. Unpublished manuscript.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.Idealsafe (2004, July 9). Friday safety brief: Who is responsible for safety? Idealease. Retrieved from http://www3.idealease.com/safetycompliance/07_09_04.doc International Positive Psychology Association (2007). www,ippanetwork.org Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New York, NY: Basic Books.Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57-93.Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11 , 305–328.Joye, Y., & De Block, A. (2011). ‘Nature and I are two’. A critical analyses of the biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Values, 20, 189-215.Joye, Y., Pals, R., Steg, L., & Evans, B. L. (2013). New methods for assessing the fascinating nature of nature experiences. PLoS One, 8, e65332.Joye, Y., & van den Berg, A. (2011). Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry & UrbanGreening, 10, 261-268.Kahn, P. H. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental Review, 17, 1–61.Kalof, L. (2003). The human self and the animal other: Exploring borderland identities. In S. 112Clayton & 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 an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.Kaplan, S. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 491-508.Kaplan, R., & Basu, A. (2015). Fostering reasonableness: Supportive environments for bringing out our best. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Publishing.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (2005). Preference, restoration, and meaningful action in the context of nearby nature. In P. F. Barlett (Ed.), Urban place: Reconnecting with the natural world (pp. 271–298). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2003). Health, supportive environments, and the Reasonable Person Model. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1484-1489.Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2009). Creating a larger role for environmental psychology: The Reasonable Person Model as an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 329-339.Kappas, A. (2011). Emotion and regulation are one! Emotion Review, 3, 17-25.Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguishing between hedonics and eudaimonia. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 219–233.Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. 113Washington, DC: Island Press.Kellert, S. R. (2002). Values, ethics, and spiritual and scientific relations to nature. In S. R. Kellert & T. J. Farnham (Eds.), The good in humanity: Connecting science, religion, and spirituality with the natural world (pp. 49–64). Washington, DC: Island Press.Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 297–314.Keng, S.-L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of psychological studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1041-1056.Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Research, 43, 207-222.Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539 –548.Keyes, C. L. M., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 197–201.Killen, A., & Macaskill, A. (2015). Using a gratitude intervention to enhance well-being in older adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 947-964.Korpela, K., Borodulin, K., Neuvonen, M., Paronen, O., & Tyrväinen, L. (2014). Analyzing the mediators between nature-based outdoor recreation and emotional well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 1-7.Krentzman, A .R., Mannella, K. A., Hassett, A. L., Barnett, N. P., Cranford, J. A., Brower, K. J., 114… Meyer, P. S. (2015). Feasibility, acceptability, and impact of a web-based gratitude exercise among individuals in outpatient treatment for alcohol use disorder. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 477-488.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. E., 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.Kurtz. J. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Toward a durable happiness. Retrieved from http://sonjalyubomirsky.com/wp-content/themes/sonjalyubomirsky/papers/KL2008.pdfLakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 355-362.Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isager, P. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 259-269.Lambert, L., Passmore, H.-A,, & Holder, M. D. (2015). Foundational frameworks of positive psychology: Mapping well-being orientations. Canadian Psychology, 56, 311-321.Lange, F., Steinke, A., & Dewitte, S. (2018). The Pro-Environmental Behavior Task: A laboratory measure of actual pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 56, 46-54.Laughlin, W. S. (1968). Hunting: An integrating biobehavior system and its evoltionary importance. In R. B. Lee, & I. DeVore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 304–320). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.115Leary, 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: American Psychological Association.Lee, J., Park, B. J., Tyrväinen, L., Li, Q., Kagawa, T., Miyazaki, Y., & Tsunetsugu, Y. (2012). Nature therapy and preventive medicine. INTECH Open Access Publisher.Lee, J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Takayama, N., Park, B. J., Li, Q., Song, C., & Miyazaki, Y. (2014). Influence of forest therapy on cardiovascular relaxation in young adults. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 69, 104–110.Lifton, R. J. (1979). The broken connection: On death and the continuity of life. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Lopes, M. P., de Palma, P. J., Garcia, B. C., & Gomes, C. (2016). Training for happiness: the impacts on different positive exercises on hedonism and eudaemonia. SpringerPlus, 5. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2407-yLovibond, S. H. & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. (2nded.) Sydney: Psychology Foundation.Lyubomirksy, S., Sheldon. K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture ofsustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111-131.Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). The how of happiness. New York, NY: Penguin Books.MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global Environmental Change, 23, 992-1000.Magnusson, K. (2019). Equivalence, non-inferiority and superiority testing: A interactive visualization. Retrieved from https://rpsychologist.com/d3/equivalence/ 116Mao, G. X., Lan, X. G., Cao, Y. B., Chen, Z. M., He, Z. H., Lv, Y. D., … & Yan, J. (2012). Effects of short-term forest bathing on human health in a broad-leaved evergreen forest inZhejiang Province, China. Biomedical Environmental Science, 25, 317-324.Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 531-545.Martinez-Marti, M. L., Hernandez-Lloreda, M. J., & Avia, M. D. (2016). Appreciation of beauty and excellence: Relationship with personality, prosociality, and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 2613-2364.Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.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, 607–643.Mayers, A. (2013). Introduction to statistics and SPSS in psychology. Don Mills, ON: Pearson Education.Mazzucchelli, T. G., Kane, R. T., & Rees, C. S. (2010). Behavioral activation interventions for well-being: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 105–121.McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature. New York, NY: Random House.McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positiveand negative affect: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 507-519.Miquelon, P., & Vallerand, R. (2008). Goal motives, well-being, and physical health: An integrative model. Canadian Psychology, 49, 241–249.Mochon, D., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2008). Getting off the hedonic treadmill, one step at a time: The impact of regular religious practice and exercise on well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 632–642.117Mongrain, M., & Anselmo-Matthews, T. (2012). Do positive psychology exercises work? A replication of Seligman (2005). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 382-389.Muir, J. (1918). Steep trails. Boston, MA: Houghton Miflin.Munro, B. H. (2005). Statistical methods for healthcare research (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincot, Williams, & Wilkins.Myers, O. E., Jr. (2003). No longer the lonely species: A post-Mead perspective on animals and the self. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23, 46–68.Myers, O. E., Jr., & Russel, A. (2003). Human identity in relation to wild black bears: A natural–social ecology of subjective creatures. In. S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the nature environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 67–90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Nesse, R. M., & Wiliams, G. C. (1996). Evolution and healing: The new science of Darwinian medicine. London: PhoenixNg, W. (2015). Boosting well-being with positive psychology interventions: Moderating role of personality and other factors. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 45, 79-87.Nisbet, E. K. (2013). David Suzuki Foundation 30x30 Nature Challenge English survey. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/2013/07/23/30x30%20Nature%20Challenge-Final%20report.pdfNisbet, E. K. (2014). Canadians connect with nature and increase their well-being: Results of the 2014 David Suzuki Foundation 30x30 Nature Challenge. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/DSF%2030x30%20report.pdfNisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2011). Underestimating nearby nature: Affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological Science, 22, 1101-1106.118Norton, B. G. (1986). Sand dollar psychology. Washington Post Magazine, 1, 11–14.Note, N. (2009). Why it definitely matters how we encounter nature. Environmental Ethics, 31, 279–296.O’Brien, C. (2012). Sustainable happiness and well-being: Future directions for positive psychology. Psychology, 3, 1196-1201.Ohly, H., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., Bethel, A., Ukoumunne, O. C., Nikolau, V., & Garside, R. (2016). Attention Restoration Theory: A systematic review of the attention restoration potential of exposure to natural environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 19, 305-343.Orians, G. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-Rowsell & D. Lowenthal (Eds.) Landscape meanings and values (pp. 3-25). London: Allen and Unwin.Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K. & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy peoplebecome happier through kindness: a counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 361-375.Oveis, C., Horberg, E. J., & Keltner, D. (2010). Compassion, pride, and social intuitions of self-other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 618-630.Panksepp, J. (1998a). Affective neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.Panksepp, J. (1998b). Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Parks, A. C., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2013). Posive interventions: Past, present, and future. In T. B. Kashdan & J. Ciarrochi (Eds.), Mindfulness, acceptance, and positive psychology: Theseven foundations of well-being (pp. 140-165). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger 119Publications.Passmore, H.-A., & Holder, M. D. (2017). Noticing nature: Individual and social benefits of a two-week intervention. Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 537-546.Passmore, H.-A., & Howell, A. J. (2014a). Nature involvement increases hedonic and eudiamonic well-being: A two-week experimental study. Ecopsychology, 6, 148-154.Passmore, H.-A., & Howell, A. J. (2014b). Eco-Existential Positive Psychology: How experiences in nature can address our existential anxieties and contribute to well-being. The Humanistic Psychologist, 42, 370-388.Passmore, H.-A., Howell, A. J., & Holder, M. D. (2017). Positioning implicit theories of well-being within a positivity framework. Manuscript under review.Passmore, H.-A., Howell, A. J., Severson, M., Delmar, A., & Holder, M. D. (2017) Naturally compassionate. Manuscript in preparation.Passmore, H.-A., & Yang, Y. (2017). Noticing how nature makes you feel: A two-week randomized control study in China. Manuscript in preparation.Pfattheicher, S., Sassenrath, C., & Schindler, S. (2016). Feelings for the sufferings of others and the environment: Compassion fosters proenvironmental tendencies. Environment and Behavior, 48, 929-945.Pienaar, M. (2011). An eco-existential understanding of time and psychological defenses: Threatsto the environment and implications for psychotherapy. Ecopsychology, 3, 25–39.Pohling, R., Diessner, R. (2016). Moral elevation and moral beauty: A review of the empirical literature. Review of General Psychology, 20, 412-425.Pohling, R., Diessner, R., Stacy, S., Woodward, D., & Strobel, A. (2017). Reliability and validity of the Engagement with Beauty Scale-Revised. Manuscript in preparation.120Porges, S. W. (1995). Orienting in a defensive world: mammalian modifications of our evolutionary heritage: a polyvagal theory. Psychophysiology, 32, 301–318.Porges, S.W. (2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74, 116–143.Porges, S. W. (2009). The polyvagal theory: new insights into adaptive reactions of the autonomic nervous system. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 76(Suppl 2), S86.PositivePsychologists.com. (2017). Exercises in positive psychology – Randy Martin, PhD: Three good things. Retrieved from http://www.positivepsychologists.com/Positive_Psychology.htmlRedies, C. (2007). A universal model of aesthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuli. Spatial Vision, 21, 97-117.Reker, G. T. (1996). Manual: Sources of meaning profile-revised. Peterborough, Canada: StudentPsychologists Press.Resnick, S., Warmoth, A., & Serlin, I. A. (2001). The humanistic psychology and positive psychology connection: Implications for psychotherapy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 73-101.Richardson, M., Cormack, A., McRobert, L., & Underhill, R. (2016). 30 Days Wild: Development and evaluation of a large-scale nature engagement campaign to improve well-being. PLoSONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149777.Richardson, M., & Hallam, J. (2013). Exploring the psychological rewards of a familiar semi-rural landscape: Connecting to local nature through a mindful approach. The HumanisticPsychlogist, 41, 35-53.Richardson, M., Hallam, J., & Lumber, R. (2015). One thousand good things in nature: Aspectsof nearby nature associated with improved connection to nature. Environmental Values,12124, 603-619.Richardson, M., McEwan, K., Maratos, F., & Sheffield, D. (2016). Joy and calm: How anevolutionary functional model of affect regulation informs positive emotions in nature.Evolutionary Psychological Science. doi: 10.1007/s40806-016-0065-5.Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2015). Reflective self-attention: A more stable predictor of connection to nature than mindful attention, Ecopsychology, 7, 166-175.Ridder, B. (2005). Reorienting environmentalism to nature-inspired autonomy. Griffith Journal of the Environment, 1, 1–26.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.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.Saleem, M., Anderson, C. A., & Barlett, C. P. (2015). Assessing helping and hurting behaviors through the tangram help/hurt task. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41,1345-1362.Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2014). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franĕk, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 457–475.Schumi, J., & Wittes, J. T. (2011). Through the looking glass: Understanding non-inferiority. Trials, 12, 106.122Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.Searles, H. F. (1960). The nonhuman environment in normal development and schizophrenia. New York, NY: International Universities Press.Sebba, R. (1991). The landscapes of childhood: The reflection of childhood’s environment in adult memories and in children’s attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 23, 395–442.Sekizawa, Y., & Yoshitake, N. (2015). Does the three good things exercise really make people more positive and less depressed? A study in Japan. The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, Discussion Paper Series, 15-E001.Selhub, E. M., & Logan, A. C. (2014). Your brain on nature: The science of nature’s influence onyour health, happiness, and vitality. Mississauga, ON: Wiley.Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410-421.Senn, S. (2007). Statistical issues in drug development (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Sessions, G. (1992). Ecocentrism, wilderness, and global protection. In M. Oelschlaeger (Ed.), The wilderness condition: Essays on environment and civilization (pp. 90–130). Washington, DC: Island Press.Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546 –557.Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, and longitudinal well-123being: The Self-Concordance Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.Sheldon, K. M., Elliott, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim. Y., Wu, C., … Sun, Z. (2004). Self-concordance and subjective well-being in four cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 209-223.Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal-attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 152–165.Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531–543.Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress but not all progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319 –1331.Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 73-82.Shepard, P. (1982). Nature and madness. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Shephard, 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.Shneidman, E. B. (1995). The postself. In J. B. Williams & E. S. Shneidman (Eds.), Death: Current perspectives (pp. 454–460). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Siegel, J. T., & Thomson, A. L. (2017). Positive emotion infusions of elevation and gratitude: Increasing help-seeking intentions among people with heightened levels of depression 124symptomatology. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 509-524.Sigerist, H. E. (1941). Medicine and human welfare. New Haven: Yale University Press.Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with Positive Psychology Interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. 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.Söderlund, J., & Newman, P. (2015). Biophilic architecture: a review of the rationale and outcomes. AIMS Environmental Science, 2, 950-969.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.Song, C., Ikei, H., Kobayashi, M., Miura, T., Taue, M., Kagawa, T., … Miyazaki, Y. (2015). Effect of forest walking on autonomic nervous system activity in middle-aged hypertensive individuals: a pilot study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 2687–2699.Soule, M. E. (1993). Biophilia: Unanswered questions. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 441–455). Washington, DC: Island Press.Spehar, B., Clifford, C. W. G., Newell, B. R. & Taylor, R. P. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractals. Computers & Graphics, 27, 813-820.125Spehar, B., & Taylor, R. P. (2013). Fractals in art and nature: Why do we like them? Proc. SPIE 8651, Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XVIII, 865118.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.Stevens, J. (2007). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach, Third Edition. Oxford: Routledge.Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & Depooter, S. F. (2004). The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood space. Environment and Behavior, 36, 678-700.Taylor, K. (2007). Landscape and memory. UNESCO 3rd International Conference of the Alliance of World Heritage Cultural Landscapes on ‘‘Use and Management of Water in World Heritage Cultural Landscapes”. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/mow_3rd_international_conference_ken_taylor_en.pdfTaylor, R. P., Micolich, A. P., & Jonas, D. (1999). Fractal analysis of Pollock’s drop paintings. Nature, 399, 422.Taylor, R., Spehar, B., Hägerhäll, C., & Van Donkelaar, P. (2011). Perceptual and physiological responses to Jackson Pollock’s fractals. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 60.Terhaar, T. L. (2009). Evolutionary advantages of intense spiritual experiences in nature. Journalfor the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 3, 303–339.Thayer, J. F., Yamamoto, S. S., & Brosschot, J. F. (2010). The relationship of autonomic imbalance, heart rate variability and cardiovascular disease risk factors. International Journal of Cardiology, 141, 122–131Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form ofthe Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 12638, 227-242.Thomson, A. L., & Siegel, J. T. (2017). Elevation: A review of scholarship on a moral and other-praising emotion. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 628-638.Thomson, A. L., & Siegel, J. T. (2013). A moral act, elevation, and prosocial behavior: Moderators of morality. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 8, 50-64.Trew, J. L., & Alden, L. E. (2015). Kindness reduces avoidance goals in socially anxious individuals. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 892-907.Tsunetsugu, Y., Park, B. J., Ishii, H., Hirano, H., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2007). Physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the atmosphere of the forest) in an old-growth broadleaf forest in Yamagata Prefecture, Japan. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 26, 135–142.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, NY: Plenum Press.Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.Valtchanov, D., & Ellard, C. (2010). Physiological and affective responses to immersion in virtual reality: Effects of nature and urban settings. Journal of Cybertherapy and Rehabilitation, 3, 359–374.Van den Berg, A. E., Joye, Y., & Koole, S. L. (2016). Why viewing nature is more fascinating and restorative than viewing buildings: A closer look at perceived complexity. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 397-401.127Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-146.van Tilburg, W. A. P,, Sedikidest, C., Wildschutt, T., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2019). How nostalgia infuses life with meaning: From social connectedness to self-continuity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 521-532.Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: Research evidence, practical utility, and future steps. In C. L. M. Keyes (Ed.), Mental well-being: International contributions to the study of positive mental health (pp. 331–353). Dordecht, Netherlands: Springer.Verbeek, P., & de Waal, F. R. M. (2002). The primate relationship with nature: Biophilia as a general pattern. In P. H. Kahn, Jr. & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 1–28). MIT Press.Vernon, M. (2008). Wellbeing. Durham, UK: Acumen Publishing.Wade, J., & Jones, J. (2015). Foundations of positive psychology. Strengths-based clinical supervision: A positive psychology approach to clinical training (pp. 21-44). New York: Springer.Walker, E. & Nowacki, A. S. (2010). Understanding equivalence and noninferiority testing. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26, 192-196.Waterman, A. S. (2007). On the importance of distinguishing hedonia and eudaimonia when contemplating the hedonic treadmill. American Psychologist, 62, 612– 613.Waterman, A., Schwartz, S., Zamboanga, B. Y., Robert, R., Williams, M., Bede Agocha, V., . . . Donnelly, M. B. (2010). The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive 128Psychology, 5, 41– 61.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.Waytz, A., Hershfield, H. E., & Tamir, D. I. (2015). Mental simulation and meaning in life. Journal of Personalty and Social Psychology, 108, 336-355.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.Weiss, L. A., Westerhof, G. J., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2016). Can we increase psychological well-being? The effects of interventions on psychological well-being: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoSONE, 11, doi:e0158092. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158092Wellek, S. (2010). Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence and noninferiority (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.White, C. A., Uttl, B., & Holder, M. D. (2019). Meta-analyses of positive psychology interventions: The effects are much smaller than previously reported. PLoS ONE, 14, e0216588.White, M., 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.White, M. P., Pahl, S., Wheeler, B. W., Depedge, M. H., & Fleming, L. E. (2017). Natural environments and subjective well-being: Different types of exposure are associated with 129different aspects of well-being. Health & Place, 45, 77-84.Wilcox, R. R. (1987). New designs in analysis of variance. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 29–60.Williams, F. (2017). The nature fix: Why nature makes us happier, healthier, and more creative. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.World Health Organization (1948) Constitution. World Health Organization, GenevaWohlwill, J. F. (1983). The concept of nature: A psychologist's view. (pp. 5-37). In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment, New York: Plenum Press.Yang, Y., Yang, Z. Bao, T., Liu, Y., & Passmore, H.-A. (2016). Elicited awe decreases aggression.Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 10, 1-13.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. (2012). Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 46, 3-23.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, 61-72.130AppendicesAppendix A: Sample SONA Recruitment Ad: Improve Your Well-Being StudyAbstract: (In-person and online study). The purpose of this study is to further examine the potential of various well-being exercises and interventions on a variety of indicators of well-being. (4% credits) Ad: In this study we are studying positive mood, and the factors that sustain it. We will assess your moods at three time points to see how they fluctuate. We will also ask you to do something during this time that might affect your mood. This ‘something’ has already been shown to have significant positive effects on peoples’ lives, and we want to further examine its potential.This is a three-part study which will take a total of approximately 4 hours of your time overthe course of a 3-week period. This study provides for both your in-person and on-line SONA credit requirements. Part One consists of a 30-minute in-person session where you will answer some questionnaires regarding your emotions and attitudes. You will also be asked some demographic questions such as age, gender, and year of study. You will be randomly assigned to one of three well-being exercises which you will complete in Part Two; specific instructions will be provided at the in-person session. Part Two will take place over the course of a two-week period following the in-person session. During this period, you will spend 10 minutes per day onyour well-being exercise, which includes making a brief, online daily diary entry each night. At the end of the two-weeks, you will answer some questionnaires online which will take approximately 30 minutes. For the third and final week of the study there are no requirements tocomplete. Part Three will take place at the end of the third week. You will answer a final set of follow-up questions online which will take approximately 20 minutes.This study is worth 4% credit. Partial credits will be assigned as follows: .5% for completion of Part One, the initial in-person session; 2.5% for completion of the well-being exercises and brief daily diary entries over the course of two weeks; .5% for completion of the post-intervention questionnaires online at the end of the two weeks; and .5% for completion of the shorter follow-up questionnaires online at the end of the following week.To participate in this study and receive your full 4% credit, you will need to 1) sign up for one of the in-person time-slots available for this study, 2) attend this in-person group session where you will complete a questionnaire package, 3) spend 10 minutes per day for 2 weeks completing your well-being exercise, including making a brief daily diary entry online; 4) complete the post-intervention set of questionnaires online; 5) complete a shorter set of follow-up questionnaires online one week later.Eligibility for this study: Any University of British Columbia – Okanagan campus student who is 18 years or older and is enrolled in a psychology course that allows for credit for participation in research may participate in this study. You must have a working comprehension of English, the ability to input daily “reports” on the internet via a link provided, and daily access to email (to receive reminder emails and links) over the 3-week course of the study.Holli-Anne Passmore and Dr. Mark Holder are conducting this research. If you have anyquestions concerning this research, please contact:Holli-Anne Passmore (Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca).131Appendix B: Pre-Intervention Participant PackageB1: General Information Sheet and Consent Form: Improve Your Well-Being StudyPrincipal Investigator: Dr. Mark Holder, Psychology, University of British Columbia.Contact: Mark.Holder@ubc.caCo-Investigator: Holli-Anne Passmore, Graduate Student, Psychology, University of British Columbia. In partial fulfillment of Ph.D. in Psychological Science.Contact: Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.caStudy Team Members: Dr. Veronika Huta, Department of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario. Contact: Veronika.Huta@uottawa.ccaYing Yang, Director of Psychology Educational Center, Zhejiang Ocean University, Zhoushan, China. Contact: YangY@zjou.edu.cnStudy Procedure: This is a three-part study which will take a total of approximately 4 hours of your time over the course of a 3-week period. This study provides for both your in-person and on-line SONA credit requirements. Part One consists of a 30-minute in-person session where you will answer some questionnaires on your emotions and attitudes. You will also be asked some demographic questions such as age, gender, and year of study. You will be randomly assigned to one of three well-being exercises which you will complete in Part Two; specific instructions will be provided at the in-person session. Part Two will take place over the course ofa two-week period following the in-person session. During this period, you will spend 10 minutes per day on your well-being exercise, which includes making a brief, online daily diary entry each night. At the end of the two-weeks, you will answer some questionnaires online which will take approximately 30 minutes. For the third and final week of the study there are no requirements to complete. Part Three will take place at the end of the third week. You will answer a final set of follow-up questions online which will take approximately 20 minutes.During the initial in-person session, you will also be asked to provide your email contact information so that we can contact you during the course of the study with reminders and further instructions. You will receive a reminder email every second day during the course of the first two weeks of the study. At the end of the two weeks you will receive an email with a link to complete some online questionnaires. You will receive a final email one week later, at the end ofthe third week, with a link to complete the final follow-up questionnaires. (Please see the Confidentiality section below for information on how we will keep your email address confidential/secure.)You are free to withdraw from the study at any time and you are not required to provide a reason for your withdrawal. You are free to skip or not answer any of the questions without penalty, although this does weaken our data and the value of your participation.132Eligibility for this study: Any University of British Columbia – Okanagan campus student who is 18 years or older and enrolled in a psychology course that allows for credit for participation in research may participate in this study. You must have a working comprehension of English, the ability to input daily “reports” on the internet via a link provided, and daily access to email (to receive reminder emails and links) over the 3-week course of the study.Purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of various well-being exercises and interventions on a variety of indicators of well-being.Potential Risk: There are very few potential risks associated with participation in this study. Youwill evaluate your emotional states, both good and bad, as well as some characteristics of your behaviour. This, however, is no more serious than normal day-to-day evaluations.Potential Benefits: Results from this study will contribute to our understanding of the effectiveness of interventions to improve well-being. You may gain valuable insight into situations and activities that impact your well-being.Remuneration/Compensation: Each participant will be eligible for 4% credit for their participation assigned through the online SONA system. Participants can assign this credit to theparticipating class of their choice. Participation in the study meets the SONA requirements for both your in-person and online research participation credits. Partial credits will be assigned as follows: .5% for completion of Part One, the initial in-person session; 2.5% for completion of the well-being exercises and brief daily diary entries over the course of two weeks; .5% for completion of the post-intervention questionnaires online at the end of the two weeks; and .5% for completion of the shorter follow-up questionnaires online at the end of the following week.Confidenti ality: 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 included in your brief daily diary reports. Your responses will only be linked to a randomly-generated ID. This ID is only required so that your responses in Part One can be matched to your responses in Part Two and Part Three. No personally identifying information will be linked to your responses. We plan to submit the findings for publication, but no participant names will be used in any reports of the study. Results will only be reported for groups, with no possibility of individual participants being identified.Your email contact information will only be listed on a form you complete that has no personallyidentifying information on it. Your email contact information will be kept in a secure place, separate from your responses. Only group emails will be sent with participants’ email addresses hidden from view. Your email contact information will not be used for purposes other than related to this study. Information collected from you online will be submitted and stored on a website hosted on a UBC secure server and on UBC’s hosted version of Fluidsurvey. All data onthese websites are stored and backed up in Canada.133Follow-up: There will be no feedback to specific individuals who participated in the study. Overall group results for the study will be made publicly available via publication of the resulting study manuscript. A public presentations of the study’s results will also be made on campus; this presentation will be advertised in advance. Additionally, participants can contact the researchers and study team memebers (Holli-Anne Passmore, Dr. Mark Holder, Dr. Veronika Huta, and Ying Yang) for a summary of the results. Contact for information about the study: If you have any questions about this study, please contact Holli-Anne Passmore (Holl-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca), Dr. Veronika Huta (Veronika.Huta@uottawa.ca), Ying Yang (YangY@zjou.edu.cn), 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).You may wish to retain this document for your records.Please note: 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 and of your participation in our study. If you agree to participate, please sign the consent form and complete the email contact information, passcode form, and questionnaires.If you wish to participate in this study, please sign the consent on the next page.134IMPORTANTIn order to maintain the integrity of this study, it is important that do you notdiscuss the details of this study, or your participation in this study, with otherstudents. When the semester is over, or when the study is no longer running,feel free to discuss the study and your participation in it!Consent: Your participation in our study is completely voluntary and you may refuse to participate or you may 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 and of your participation in our study. If you agree to participate, please sign below, and print your first and last name AS IT APPEARS IN SONA. Signing this form indicates that you have read and understood the above information and have consented to participate in this study. Signing this form also indicates that you will not discuss this study with other students. If you do not wish to participate, please hand this package in to the researcher without signing.Date: _____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________First Name Last Name____________________________________SignatureThis form will be kept in a secure place, separate from your responses and any personally identifying information.HAND THIS FORM IN TO THE RESEARCHER.135B2: Email and Self-Selected Passcode Form: Improve Your Well-Being StudyPlease provide an email address that you check daily so that we can contact you with reminders and instructions for this study over the next three weeks. As explained in today’s session, in order to complete this study and receive your full 4% SONA credit, you will need the information and links that we will email to you.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 your complete instructions; nor you will receive the link to the final 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.As explained in today’s session, you will need both your assigned Participant ID (see below) anda passcode of your choosing in order to complete the online portions of this study and receive your full 4% SONA credit. This is a safety measure to ensure that we can anonymously match up your answers from today's questionnaires with your answers to the online questionnaires. Please choose a passcode that you will remember!________________________________________________________Please don’t choose your student ID, “passcode”, “password”, “psychology”, “SONA” etc.PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY.This form will be kept in a secure place, separate from any personally identifying information._______________________________________________________Randomly assigned Participant IDHAND THIS FORM IN TO THE RESEARCHER136B3: Take-Home CardFront Side:Improve Your Well-Being StudyParticipant ID: ___________________ Passcode: _____________________Link for Brief Daily Diary Entries: https://survey.ubc.ca/s/WBS-daily/ Dates you will receive emails with links:confirm email: __________________________Part 2 questionnaires: ________________ Part 3 questionnaires: ___________________________Researcher: Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.caBack Side: Noticing Nature (NN) conditionThree Good Things (3GT) conditionLife Details (active control) (LD) condtionImprove Your Well-Being Study: DAILY INSTRUCTIONS-NNMost of us do not pay attention to the nature we encounter in our everyday lives. Research suggests that paying attention to the nature you encounter in your daily life can increase your well-being. In order to help you build this skill, we ask you to be mindful of the natural elements and objects around you on a daily basis (e.g., trees, birds, clouds, moon, etc.) and to notice how these make you feel. Allow yourself to truly experience the nature around you. When you notice astrong emotion, note which object or scene evoked emotions and whatemotions you felt. The benefits of this work may not be immediate, but like exercising, the advantages can emerge over time with continued practice. Please log on to the study’s website each night for the next 2weeks and note which natural objects/scenes evoked emotionin you and describe the emotions you felt.Improve Your Well-Being Study: DAILY INSTRUCTIONS-3GTWe think too much about what goes wrong and not enough about what goes right in our lives. Of course, sometimes it makes sense for us to analyze bad events so that we can learn from them and avoid them in the future. However, people tend to spend more timethinking about what is bad in life than is helpful. Worse, this tendency to focus on bad events sets us up for anxiety and depression. One way to keep this from happening is to develop our ability to think about the good in life. Research suggests that this can increase your well-being. The benefits of this work may not be immediate, but like exercising, the advantages can emerge over time with continued practice.Please log on to the study’s website each night for the next2 weeks and list three good things that went well on thatday and why they happened.Improve Your Well-Being Study: DAILY INSTRUCTIONS-LDWe often go through our days on “automatic pilot”. Indeed, we often forget many of the details of our lives such as the tasks we engaged inand the people we interacted with. One way to keep this from happening is to note down the daily details of our lives. Research suggests that paying more attention to the ordinary details and tasks of your days that you wouldn’t ordinarily think about can increase yourwell-being. Examples of details might include particular classes or meetings you attended, interactions with other people, what programsyou watched (if any), other activities you engaged in, what food you ate, etc. The benefits of this work may not be immediate, but like exercising, the advantages can emerge over time with continued practice.Please log on to the study’s website each night for the next 2weeks and write about the specific details of your day.137B4: Take-Home (Duplicate) Instruction Sheet – Well-Being Exercise (Noticing Nature)Most of us do not pay attention to the nature we encounter in our everyday lives. Research suggests that paying attention to the nature you encounter in your daily life can increase your well-being. In order to help you build this skill we ask you to be mindful of the natural elements and objects around you on a daily basis (e.g., trees, birds, clouds, moon, etc.) and to notice how these make you feel. Allow yourself to truly experience the nature around you. When you notice a strong emotion, note which object or scene evoked emotions and what emotions you felt. Then, each nightPlease log on to the study’s website each night for the next 2 weeksand note which natural objects/scenes evoked emotion in you anddescribe the emotions you felt.https://survey.ubc.ca/WBS-daily-entriesThe benefits of this work may not be immediate, but like exercising, the advantages can emerge over time with continued practice.** You will need your Participant ID and your self-selected passcode to log in to the site.Randomly Assigned Participant ID: __________________________________Passcode: ____________________________138B4: Take-Home (Duplicate) Instruction Sheet – Well-Being Exercise (Three Good Things)We think too much about what goes wrong and not enough about what goes right in our lives. Of course, sometimes it makes sense for us to analyze bad events so that we can learn from them and avoid them in the future. However, people tend to spend more time thinking about what is bad in life than is helpful. Worse, this tendency to focus on bad events sets us up for anxiety and depression. One way to keep this from happening is to develop our ability to think about the good in life. Research suggests that this can increase your well-being. Please log on to the study’s website each night for the next 2 weeks andlist three good things that went well on that day and why they happened.https://survey.ubc.ca/WBS-daily-entriesThe benefits of this work may not be immediate, but like exercising, the advantages can emerge over time with continued practice.** You will need your Participant ID and your self-selected passcode to log in to the site.Randomly Assigned Participant ID: __________________________________Passcode: ____________________________139B4: Take-Home (Duplicate) Instruction Sheet – Well-Being Exercise (Life Details)We often go through our days on “automatic pilot”. Indeed, we often forget many of the details of our lives such as the tasks we engaged in and the people we interacted with. One way to keep this from happening is to note down the daily details of our lives. Research suggests thatpaying more attention to the ordinary details and tasks of your days that you wouldn’t ordinarily think about can increase your well-being. Examples of details might include particular classes ormeetings you attended, interactions with other people, what programs you watched (if any), otheractivities you engaged in, what food you ate, etc. Please log on to the study’s website each night for the next 2 weeks andwrite about the specific details of your day.https://survey.ubc.ca/s/WBS-daily/ The benefits of this work may not be immediate, but like exercising, the advantages can emerge over time with continued practice.** You will need your Participant ID and your self-selected passcode to log in to the site.Randomly Assigned Participant ID: __________________________________Passcode: ____________________________140B5. Pre-Intervention Measures to be Completed On-Site(Please see Appendix H for full measures.)Hedonic Well-Being: Positive and Negative Affect Scale Satisfaction with Life ScaleEudaimonic Well-Being: Meaning in Life Questionnaire Transcendent Connectedness – Selected items from the Metapersonal Self Scale Elevation – Elevating Experiences ScaleIll-Being: Depression, Anxiety, and Stress ScaleProsocial Tendencies: Compassion (embedded within the Positive and Negative Affect Scale noted above) Perspective Taking – Subscale from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index Empathic Concern – Subscale from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index Pro-Environmental BehaviourImplicit Theories of Well-BeingEngagement with BeautyTime in Nature/Shopping/GymDemographics141Appendix C: Script for Initial In-Person SessionHello! Thank you very much for your interest in our study. We know that there are otherstudies to choose, and we know that you are busy. We REALLY appreciate your conscientious participation. We can’t do our research without your help. What you do in these studies is valuable and important. Essentially, you know all the stuff you are learning in your psychology classes? Well all that knowledge is based on research – with participants like you. Our hope is that one day, the effort you put into this study, your responses, will be the basis for what is taughtto future psychology undergraduates. So this really is about more than you getting a pretty easy 4%, and me getting my Ph.D. This stuff, your actions and answers, really matter – and together we are part of something bigger. So THANK YOU.So let’s get rolling. If you could please not jump ahead but just follow along. I’m going to briefly go over the instructions and the package, answer any questions, and then hush up so you can complete the forms and answer the questionnaire package. You will have plenty of time.The first page is of course the study overview information sheet and consent form. We encourage you to actually read this! But given that so many don’t, I am just going to hit the highlights. In this study we are examining the potential of a few different well-being exercises on their effectiveness as measured with a variety of indices of well-being. We will assess your moods at three time points to see how they fluctuate. We will also ask you to do something during this time that might affect your mood. This ‘something’ has already been shown to have significant positive effects on peoples’ lives, and we want to further examine its potential.This study is 3 parts, worth 4%, and covers you for your in-person and online requirements. Part 1 is now! Then the next two weeks you will spend 10 minutes a day engagedin the well-being exercise you have been randomly assigned to. Each night you will log into the 142study’s website and provide brief details. This will not take very long. (I’ll get to the specifics ina minute.) You will receive reminder emails every second day. At the end of the two weeks, youwill receive an email with a link. You must click on the link within 24 hours and complete the post-intervention questionnaires – about the same length as today’s. Then the following week, there are no requirements – do whatever you like! At the end of that week – so three weeks fromtoday, you will receive another email with a link to a different part of the study’s website. Again,you must click on the link within 24 hours and complete the questionnaires which are briefer than the previous ones. And that’s it!I want to also draw your attention to the confidentiality section on page 2. Ethics makes us jump through a lot of hoops to ensure that your responses will be anonymous. I don’t want to know that you answered this way, and you answered that way. That’s just too weird and too invasive – totally aside from being unethical. So I have put many steps in place to ensure that your responses cannot be matched up to you as an individual, including some background codingon the websites. This is why you are assigned a participant ID.Ok – so flip to the next page – with the word IMPORTANT on top. It IS important that you NOT discuss this study with your friends here at UBC. Your instructions will likely be different than your friends. So it’s important for the integrity of the study you not discuss this until the end of the semester.So – if you want to participate – then NOT NOW – you can sign the consent form. Please write legibly. And remember, I have old eyes and I’m looking at a few hundred of these– so large and clear is appreciated. Plus this is how we check your credits!On the next page is an email and passcode form. It is IMPERATIVE that you CHECK your emails!! If you don’t get the emails – you can’t finish the study – I can’t assign you your 1434% credit! And I really want to do that! So NOT NOW in a minute, LEGIBLY write an email address you check every day. PLEASE write legibly. It really sucks when I can’t read your writing and you miss the emails.Below that – as a back up and to help preserve your anonymity – in addition to your randomly assigned Participant ID, we ask that you give us a passcode. Make it something you will remember – but don’t make it your name, for heaven’s sake do not make it your student ID, and don’t make it “sona”, “psychosona” “stupidsona” “psychology” etc. Yes, people do that – and I end up with several people with the same passcode – which defeats the purpose. Make it your pet goldfish’s name from when you were 6, or your mom’s name or something. Just make it unique to you and something you will remember! You will need your Particpant ID and your passcode to log into the study site each night, and to complete the online questionnaires in 2 weeks and then a week after that for the follow-up. We do this so we can match-up your responses across these time points and to today. The passcode acts as an extra backup. If you can’t remember your ID, I can look it up by your passcode. In over 1,000 students I’ve only had about 5 who forgot their passcode – so this system works and makes it so I can’t match your responses to you specifically.The next thing in your package I AM going to ask you to complete partly right now. KEEP THIS CARD. It has vital info you need for the entire study. You can fill in the passcode in a minute, but for now please take the RED pen. Where it says “confirm email” write down tomorrow’s date. _______. If you do NOT get an email from me by tomorrow morning, you need to email me! It means most likely that I couldn’t read your writing or I just made a typo – either way, you need to email me if you don’t get an email from me by tomorrow morning. Again, if you don’t get the emails, you can’t finish the study, you won’t get your 4% credit.144In the Part 2 line, write down the date 2 weeks from now ________. Check your junk mail first, but again, if you don’t get an email from me on that date you must email me. You need to also set aside half an hour on that day to do the questionnaires. To maintain the integrityof the study and so your efforts count, you have to complete this within 24 hours of the email. No email? Contact me that day! This email will have the link you need to complete the questionnaires.And finally, in Part 3 – write down the date 3 weeks from now ________. Same thing – set aside about 20 minutes (it’s shorter) to do the final follow-up questionnaires. The link will bein the email. If you don’t get the email that day – email me! No email – no link – no credits. And no data for me! So we all lose out.On this card is listed the link to go to each night for the next 2 weeks. This is a different link than the questionnaires – this link is just for your daily entries.Now, on the back of the card – AND I WILL GIVE YOU A MINUTE IN A MINUTE TOREAD THIS– are your specific instructions. When I hush up here in a minute, you need to VERY CAREFULLY read these instructions. If you have any questions, I will answer them then.Next is a duplicate instruction sheet – to make sure you have read the instructions. I suggest keeping both the card and the sheet as reminders/backup. On both the card and the sheet, you will write your passcode that you wrote on the form you will give us with your email.Then there is the questionnaire package to complete here just now.OK – are there any questions?You can now work your way through the package. Just put up your hand or come up if you have a question. Please READ your instructions and make sure you understand what we are 145asking you to do. And please READ the questions carefully and the scales when completing the questions.146Appendix D: EmailsD1: Confirmation Email:Improve Your Well-Being Study: email verification PLEASE READ Hello!Thank you for your participation in our study.Please click on the link below to verify that you received this email. You will be asked to enter the Participant ID that you were assigned and the Passcode you chose at the in-person session. These are on the Take-Home card and your Take-Home sheet.CLICK THIS LINK to proceed to the email verification: https://psychresearch.ok.ubc.ca/PPResearch/2017/WBS/initial_email-verification.htmIf you have any questions, please email me.Thank you and BE well!Holli-Anne Passmore, B.A., M.A.Ph.D. Graduate Student, Psychological ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaDepartment of PsychologyARTS 280H - 1147 Research RoadKelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca147D2: Reminder Email – Noticing Nature conditionREMINDER: Improve Your Well-Being Study daily assignment – Noticing NatureWe ask you to be mindful of the natural elements and objects around you on a daily basis (e.g., trees, birds, clouds, moon, etc.) and to notice how these make you feel. Allow yourself to truly experience the nature around you. When you notice a strong emotion, note which object or scene evoked emotions and what emotions you felt. Please remember to log on to the study’s website each night for the next 2 weeks and note which natural objects/scenes evoked emotion in you and describe the emotions you felt.https://survey.ubc.ca/s/WBS-daily/If you have any questions, please email the researcher at Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca .Thank you for your conscientious participation.If you have any questions, please email me.Thank you and BE well!Holli-Anne Passmore, B.A., M.A.Ph.D. Graduate Student, Psychological ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaDepartment of PsychologyARTS 280H - 1147 Research RoadKelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca148D2: Reminder Email – Three Good Things conditionREMINDER: Improve Your Well-Being Study daily assignment – Three Good ThingsPlease remember to log on to the study’s website each night for the next 2 weeks and list three good things that went well on that day and why they happened.https://survey.ubc.ca/s/WBS-daily/If you have any questions, please email the researcher at Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca .Thank you for your conscientious participation.If you have any questions, please email me.Thank you and BE well!Holli-Anne Passmore, B.A., M.A.Ph.D. Graduate Student, Psychological ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaDepartment of PsychologyARTS 280H - 1147 Research RoadKelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca149D2: Reminder Email – Life Details conditionREMINDER: Improve Your Well-Being Study daily assignment – Life DetailsPlease log on to the study’s website each night for the next 2 weeks and write about the specific details of your day.https://survey.ubc.ca/s/WBS-daily/If you have any questions, please email the researcher at Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca .Thank you for your conscientious participation.If you have any questions, please email me.Thank you and BE well!Holli-Anne Passmore, B.A., M.A.Ph.D. Graduate Student, Psychological ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaDepartment of PsychologyARTS 280H - 1147 Research RoadKelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca150D2: Post-Intervention EmailImprove Your Well-Being Study: Part Two email with link for the post-intervention questionnaireHello!Thank you for your continued conscientious participation in our study.Just a few short online questionnaires to complete and you will be finished Part Two.PLEASE COMPLETE THE ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRES WITHIN 24 HOURS OF RECEIVING THIS EMAIL.CLICK THIS LINK to complete Part Two for your full SONA credits: https://survey.ubc.ca/s/WBS-post/If you have any questions, please email me.Thank you and BE well!Holli-Anne Passmore, B.A., M.A.Ph.D. Graduate Student, Experimental PsychologyUniversity of British ColumbiaDepartment of PsychologyARTS 280H - 1147 Research RoadKelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca151D2: Follow-Up EmailImprove Your Well-Being Study: Part Three FINAL email with link for the follow-up questionnaireHello!Thank you for your continued conscientious participation in our study.Just a few short online questionnaires to complete and you will be finished the study! At the end of the questionnaire will be a link with instructions on how to submit your name so the researcher can assign you your full 4% SONA credits.PLEASE COMPLETE THE ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRES WITHIN 24 HOURS OF RECEIVING THIS EMAIL.Your SONA credits will be assigned within 48 hours of your completion of the survey.CLICK THIS LINK to complete the FINAL follow-up questionnaires for your full 4% SONA credits: https://survey.ubc.ca/s/WBS-follow-up/If you have any questions, please email me.Thank you and BE well!Holli-Anne Passmore, B.A., M.A.Ph.D. Graduate Student, Experimental PsychologyUniversity of British ColumbiaDepartment of PsychologyARTS 280H - 1147 Research RoadKelowna, BC Canada V1V 1V7Holli-Anne.Passmore@ubc.ca152Appendix E: Post-Intervention Measures and Questions to be Completed On-Line(Please see Appendix H for full measures.)Hedonic Well-Being: Positive and Negative Affect Scale Satisfaction with Life ScaleEudaimonic Well-Being: Meaning in Life Questionnaire Transcendent Connectedness – Selected items from the Metapersonal Self Scale Elevation– Elevating Experiences ScaleIll-Being: Depression, Anxiety, and Stress ScaleProsocial Tendencies:  Compassion (embedded within the Positive and Negative Affect Scale noted above) Perspective Taking – Subscale from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index Empathic Concern – Subscale from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index Pro-Social Behaviour – Tangram Help/HurtTask Pro-Environmental BehaviourSelf-Concordant MotivationTime in Nature/Shopping/Gym153Appendix F: Follow-Up Measures and Questions to be Completed On-Line(Please see Appendix H for full measures.)Hedonic Well-Being: Positive and Negative Affect Scale Satisfaction with Life ScaleEudaimonic Well-Being: Meaning in Life Questionnaire Transcendent Connectedness – Selected items from the Metapersonal Self Scale Elevation – Elevating Experiences ScaleTime in Nature/Shopping/GymSustained activity in well-being exercise – Yes/No, # Days154Appendix G: Debriefing SheetIn our previous studies (Passmore & Howell, 2014; Passmore & Holder, 2017; Passmore & Yang, 2017) we found that compared to participants in control conditions, being mindful of how nature made you feel (over a two-week period) resulted in higher levels of well-being, feelings of elevation, prosocial behaviour, and a general sense of connectedness to nature, other people, and to life itself. Indeed, a great number of research studies have found that exposure to nature is good for many aspects of both individual and social well-being. Yet, within Positive Psychology – a field of psychology that studies the science of well-being and how to enhance it –nature is under-utilized as a well-being or Positive Psychology intervention.The overarching goal of the current study is help establish “Noticing Nature” as a valid Positive Psychology Intervention (PPI). To that end, we assigned you and your fellow participants to one of three conditions: Noticing Nature PPI, Three Good Things PPI (the most commonly used and cited PPI currently), or an active control condition, Life Details. This will allow us to directly compare the efficacy of the Noticing Nature PPI to a previously established and commonly cited PPI – Three Good Things. We also used an active control condition (Life Details) which we do not expect to influence well-being. We hypothesized that compared to participants in the Three Good Things and the Life Details conditions, participants in the Noticing Nature condition will, at the end of the 2-week intervention period, report higher levels of well-being, pro-social tendencies and behaviour, and pro-environmental behaviour. We also hypothesized that participants in the Noticing Nature condition would engage in their assigned activity of their own accord during the one-week follow-up period for a greater number of days than participants in the other conditions engaged in their respective activity during this time when it was not a requirement of the study. We will 155also be conducting moderation analyses to examine the relationship and impact that your motivation to engage in your assigned activity and your beliefs about the changeability of well-being may have had on how long you engage in your well-being exercise the past week and the well-being benefits you receive from the study.You may be wondering why we didn’t describe all of this detail about our research at the outset of the study. The reason is that if you would have known the predictions before you carried out your two-week assignment, completed the daily-diary entries, and filled out the questionnaires, you might have felt some pressure to react in such a way that fulfills our expectations and supports our predictions, even if you wouldn’t normally act that way in a natural setting. The possibility that participants will react to researcher expectations is called demand awareness. This can be a problem in research because the results could reflect demand awareness rather than a true psychological phenomenon.By participating in our study, you have made a valuable contribution to the psychologicalstudy of well-being, and the scientific study of how connecting with nature affords us the opportunity to be more fully flourishing human beings— individually and collectively.For your benefit, we have provided the instructions for the Noticing Nature PPI. You may want to try this well-being exercise if you were assigned to one of the other conditions.Be mindful of the natural elements and objects around you on a daily basis (e.g., trees, birds, clouds, moon, etc.) and notice how these make you feel. Allow yourself to truly experience the nature around you. When you notice a strong emotion, note which object or scene evoked emotions and what emotions you felt.For further information on a previous version of this intervention:https://ggia.berkeley.edu/practice/noticing_nature156For information on other PPIs:http://ggia.berkeley.edu/If you wish to withdraw your data from this study, please indicate your randomly assigned unique participant ID and return this form to the researcher within 48 hours.I wish to withdraw my data from this study. My randomly assigned unique participant ID for thisstudy is: __________________________________.157Appendix H: All MeasuresPositive and Negative Affect Scale (with 3 compassion items embedded)This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item 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_______ sympathetic_______ irritable_______ alert_______ hostile_______ inspired_______ guilty_______ compassionate_______ determined_______ ashamed_______ attentive_______ upset_______ moved_______ active_______ distressed158Satisfaction with LifeBelow are five statements that you may agree or disagree with. Using the 1 - 7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that item. Please be open and honest in your responding. Base your answers on how you have generally felt the past two weeks.7 6 5 4 3 2 1StronglyAgree AgreeSlightlyAgreeNeither AgreeNor DisagreeSlightlyDisagree DisagreeStronglyDisagree________ In most ways my life is close to my ideal. ________ The conditions of my life are excellent.________ I am satisfied with my life.________ So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.________ If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.159Meaning in Life Questionnaire – Presence SubscalePlease take a moment to think about what makes your life and existence feel important and significant to you. Please respond to the following statements as truthfully and accurately as youcan, and also please remember that these are very subjective questions and that there are no right or wrong answers. Please respond how you have generally felt the past two weeks.1 2 3 4 5 6 7AbsolutelyuntrueMostlyuntrueSomewhatuntrueCan't saytrue or falseSomewhattrueMostlytrueAbsolutelytrue______ 1. I understand my life’s meaning.______ 2. My life has a clear sense of purpose.______ 3. I have a good sense of what makes my life meaningful.______4. I have discovered a satisfying life purpose.______5. My life has no clear purpose.160Transcendent ConnectednessListed 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. Please think about how you have generally felt the past two weeks.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.161ElevationPlease indicate how you typically felt, DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS.1 not at all 2 3 4 5 6 7 extremely___ 1) I got caught up in the wonderment of life.___ 2) I had moments when I realized how fortunate I am to be alive.___ 3) I reflected on how lucky I am to be alive.___ 4) I felt that it is a miracle to be alive.___ 5) I felt inspired.___ 6) I felt in awe.___ 7) I felt deeply appreciative.___ 8) I felt enriched.___ 09) I felt profoundly touched.___ 10) I felt morally elevated.___ 11) I felt spiritually uplifted.___ 12) I felt part of something greater than myself.___ 13) I felt emotionally moved.___ 14) I felt part of a greater whole.___ 15) I felt like I was in the presence of something grand.162Depression, Anxiety, and Stress ScalePlease read each statement and respond with 0, 1, 2 or 3 which indicates how much the statementapplied to you over the past two weeks. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any statement.The rating scale is as follows: 0 - Did not apply to me at all - NEVER1 - Applied to me to some degree, or some of the time - SOMETIMES2 - Applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of time - OFTEN 3 - Applied to me very much, or most of the time - ALMOST ALWAYS _____ 1. I found it hard to wind down._____ 2. I was aware of dryness of my mouth._____ 3. I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all._____ 4. I experienced breathing difficulty (e.g., excessively rapid breathing, breathlessness in the absence of physical exertion)._____ 5. I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things._____ 6. I tended to over-react to situations._____ 7. I experienced trembling (e.g., in the hands)._____ 8. I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy._____ 9. I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make a fool of myself._____ 10. I felt that I had nothing to look forward to._____ 11. I found myself getting agitated._____ 12. I found it difficult to relax._____ 13. I felt down-hearted and blue._____ 14. I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with what I was doing._____ 15. I felt I was close to panic._____ 16. I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything._____ 17. I felt I wasn’t worth much as a person._____ 18. I felt that I was rather touchy._____ 19. I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical exertion (e.g., sense of heart rate increase, heart missing a beat)._____ 20. I felt scared without any good reason._____ 21. I felt that life was meaningless.163Perspective Taking and Empathic ConcernThe following statements inquire about your thoughts and feelings in a variety of situations. For each item, indicate how well it describes you by choosing the appropriate number on the scale at the top of the page: 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4. When you have decided on your answer, fill in the letter next to the item number. READ EACH ITEM CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Answer as honestly as you can. Please answer in reference to how you have generally felt the past 2 weeks.0 1 2 3 4Does notdescribe me wellDescribes mevery well_____ 1. I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me._____ 2. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the "other guy's" point of view. _____ 3. Sometimes I don't feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems. _____ 4. I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision._____ 5. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them._____ 6. I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective._____ 7. Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal._____ 8. If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste much time listening to other people's arguments._____ 9. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don't feel very much pity for them._____ 10. I am often quite touched by things that I see happen._____ 11. I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both._____ 12. I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person._____ 13. When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his shoes" for a while._____ 14. Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.164Tangram Help/Hurt TaskYou are now going to assign 11 tangram puzzles to another participant (in a different study), that you have been randomly paired with, to solve in 10 minutes. Tangrams are seven different puzzle pieces that your partner will have to use to make the outlined shapes you choose from the chart on the next page. Some shapes may only require one or two pieces (rated as easy), whereas, others might use all seven (rated as hard).The other player will be eligible to win a $25 gift certificate if they complete 10 of the tangrams in 10 minutes that you assign to them. If they fail to solve the tangrams you assign to them within the time limit, they will not be able to win the gift certificate. Remember that the other participant does not know who you are (they are in another study), so feel free to assign them any tangrams you like.Please see the next page for your choices of puzzle pieces, and circle the 11 tangrams you wish to assign the other participant.165Click on the 11 puzzles you want to assign the participant you are paired with. EasyMediumHard166Please use the following scale to rate your motivations while you were assigning the Tangram puzzle pieces to your partner to complete.1 = strongly disagree 2 3 = neutral 4 5 = strongly agree_____ 1. I wanted to help the other person win the gift card._____ 2. I wanted to make it easier for the other participant to win the gift card._____ 3. I wanted to make it difficult for the other person to win the gift card._____ 4. I wanted to hurt the other person's chances of winning the gift card.167Pro-Environmental BehaviourUsing the scale below, please rate the following behaviours according to how often you engaged in them over the past two weeks.1 2 3 4 5Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often_____ 1. looked for ways to reuse things_____ 2. recycled newspapers_____ 3. recycled cans or bottles_____ 4. encouraged friends or family to recycle_____ 5. purchased products in reusable containers_____ 6. picked up litter that was not your own_____ 7. composted food scraps_____ 8. conserved gasoline by walking, bicycling, or taking public transit168Self-Concordant MotivationUsing the scale below, for each item please rate the extent that you may be willing to engage in your assigned well-being activity in the future in terms of the reason described by each item. Please REREAD YOUR ACTIVITY INSTRUCTIONS on the Take-Home card or sheet before answering these questions.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Not at allfor thisreasonCompletelyfor thisreason_____ 1. the activity feels natural_____ 2. not engaging in the activity would cause feelings of guilt and anxiety_____ 3. the activity will be enjoyable, interesting, and challenging_____ 4. the activity will be valuable regardless of how enjoyable it is_____ 5. situational pressures compel engagement in the activity169Implicit Theories of Well-BeingHere is a definition of well-being for you to keep in mind as you rate the following items:Well-being is the extent to which people feel good and function well in their lives.Please use the following scale to rate each item below:1 2 3 4 5stronglyagreemoderatelyagreeneither agreenor disagreemoderatelydisagreestronglydisagree_____ 1. I don't think I personally can do much to increase my well-being._____ 2. My well-being is something about me that I personally can't change very much._____ 3. To be honest, I don't think I can really change my well-being._____ 4. I can learn new ways of thinking and behaving, but I don't have the ability to change my basiclevel of well-being._____ 5. With enough time and effort I think I could significantly improve my well-being level._____ 6. I believe I can always substantially improve on my well-being._____ 7. Regardless of my current well-being level, I think I have the capacity to change it quite a bit._____ 8. I believe I have the ability to change my basic well-being level considerably over time.170Engagement with BeautyIn regard to all responses below: Keep in mind that we are only asking about your experience with perceiving and feeling something as beautiful. In general, we can like many things or see them as important without actually noticing their beauty. Therefore, in the following questions 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.Mark each statement below with a number between 1 and 7: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7veryunlike me unlike mea littleunlike meneutral a littlelike me like mevery 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 senseof 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.Statements 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 feeling a sense of awe or wonder or excitement or admiration or upliftment.____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.171Statements 9-14 below refer to experiences with humans, in which you perceive (or hear about) some person demonstrating an impressive act of charity or loyalty or kindness or compassion or forgiveness or sacrifice for others or sincere service to others. We refer to theseas acts of moral beauty.____9. I notice moral beauty in human beings.____10. When perceiving an act of moral beauty 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.____11. When perceiving an act of moral beauty I feel emotional, it “moves me,” such as feelinga sense of awe or wonder or excitement or admiration or upliftment.____12. When perceiving an act of moral beauty 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.____13. When perceiving an act of moral beauty I find that I desire to become a better person.____14. When perceiving an act of moral beauty I find that I desire to do good deeds and increase my service to others.Statements 15-18 below refer to experiences with ideas such philosophical ideas, political ideas, religious or spiritual ideas, scientific or mathematical ideas, etc.____15. I take notice of beautiful ideas.____16. When contemplating a beautiful idea 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.____17. When contemplating a beautiful idea I feel emotional, it “moves me,” such as feeling a sense of awe or wonder or excitement or admiration or upliftment.____18. When contemplating a beautiful idea 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.172DemographicsWhat is your age in years (how old are you)?: _______________________What is your sex? Male ____ Female ____ Other _____What year of university are you in? ______________Time Spent QuestionsPlease estimate how much time you spent in nature the past two weeks:_______ hours _______ minutesPlease estimate how much time you spent shopping the past two weeks:_______ hours _______ minutesPlease estimate how much time you spent at the gym the past two weeks:_______ hours _______ minutes(Note: This will be changed to “one week” for the follow-up question.)Follow-Up QuestionsOver the past week, did you continue with your assigned well-being exercise? ___ yes ___ noIf yes, how many days did you engage in the activity? _____ days173Table 1: Participant demographics and sample sizes by group and conditionAggregate: Gender, Age Participant NumbersGender % Participants Noticing Nature Three Good Things Life DetailsMales 39.90% UBC Total: 320 111 101 108Females 60.00% Ottawa Total: 198 66 66 66Other 00.10% China Total: 193 58 69 66Age: M = 20.79, SD = 7.17, range: 17-70 Online Total: 73 24 29 20Total: 784 Total: 259 Total: 265 Total: 260Group: Gender, Age Condition: Gender, AgeSample Males Females Age Sample Males Females AgeUBC 26.65% 73.35% M = 19.57, SD = 02.92, range: 17-45 Noticing Nature38.13% 61.48% M = 20.88, SD = 8.11, range: 17-70Ottawa 27.78% 72.22% M = 19.30, SD = 03.72, range: 17-43 Three GoodThings40.8% 59.62%% M = 20.86, SD = 7.07, range: 17-67China 60.62% 39.38% M = 18.36, SD = 00.69, range: 17-21 Life Details 41.15% 58.85% M = 20.63, SD = 6.25, range: 17-61Online 76.39% 22.22% M = 36.74, SD = 14.14, range: 18-70Group * Condition: GenderNoticing Nature Three Good Things Life DetailsGroup Males Females Group Males Females Group Males FemalesUBC 21.82% 78.18% UBC 24.75% 75.25 UBC 33.33% 66.67%Ottawa 30.30% 69.70% Ottawa 24.24% 75.76% Ottawa 28.79% 71.21%China 60.34% 39.66% China 63.77% 36.23% China 57.58% 42.42%Online 85.71% 14.29% Online 75.86% 24.14% Online 70.00% 30.00%174Table 2: Initial descriptive statistics for all variables (aggregate data): Pre-interventionMeasure N M SD skew kurtosis min. max. possible range alphaCo-variables: pre_Implicit Theories of Well-Being 760 32.41 5.88 -0.88 0.95 8.00 40.00 8.00 to 40.00 .90 pre_Engagement with Beauty 784 4.71 1.02 -0.37 0.13 1.00 7.00 1.00 to 7.00 .92Dependent Variables: pre_netPositive Affect 776 9.53 10.37 -0.41 0.32 -29.00 37.00 -40.00 to 40.00 .71 pre_Satisfaction with Life 762 21.99 6.09 -0.22 -0.57 5.00 35.00 5.00 to 35.00 .83 pre_Meaning in Life 784 22.60 6.51 -0.31 -0.39 5.00 35.00 5.00 to 35.00 .88 pre_Transcendent Connectedness 762 26.42 6.35 -0.39 0.36 6.00 42.00 6.00 to 42.00 .80 pre_Elevation 782 49.14 16.00 0.04 -0.52 13.00 91.00 13.00 to 91.00 .93 pre_Depression 762 5.55 4.56 1.18 0.91 0.00 21.00 0.00 to 21,00 .89 pre-Anxiety 760 5.72 4.01 0.98 0.74 0.00 21.00 0.00 to 21.00 .79 pre-Stress 762 7.91 4.18 0.49 -0.13 0.00 21.00 0.00 to 21.00 .81 pre_Compassion 781 8.40 2.46 0.04 -0.39 3.00 15.00 3.00 to 15.00 .55 pre_Perspective Taking & Empathic Concern 759 36.61 8.11 -0.20 0.10 7.00 56.00 0.00 to 56.00 .83 pre_Pro-environmental Behaviour 778 23.31 6.27 0.12 -0.41 8.00 40.00 8.00 to 40.00 .73175Table 3: Initial descriptive statistics for all variables (aggregate data): Post-interventionMeasure N M SD skew kurtosis min. max. possible range alphapost_netPositive Affect 730 11.39 10.50 -0.43 0.24 -26.00 40.00 -40.00 to 40.00 .75post_Satisfaction with Life 741 23.92 5.82 -0.39 -0.29 5.00 35.00 5.00 to 35.00 .87post_Meaning in Life 741 23.46 6.23 -0.36 -0.21 5.00 35.00 5.00 to 35.00 .90post_Transcendent Connectedness 738 28.02 6.28 -0.59 0.69 6.00 42.00 6.00 to 42.00 .85post_Elevation 731 53.46 16.08 -0.28 -0.24 13.00 91.00 13.00 to 91.00 .95post_Depression 736 4.81 4.19 1.19 1.19 0.00 20.00 0.00 to 21.00 .88post_Anxiety 734 4.66 3.80 1.04 0.99 0.00 20.00 0.00 to 21.00 .81post_Stress 733 6.61 3.98 0.54 0.19 0.00 20.00 0.00 to 21.00 .82post_Compassion 742 9.19 2.40 -0.03 -0.23 3.00 15.00 3.00 to 15.00 .63post_Perspective Taking & Empathic Concern 722 37.65 7.78 0.02 -0.06 10.00 56.00 0.00 to 56.00 .83post_Prosocial Behaviour 641 25.64 4.27 -0.18 -0.28 12.00 32.00 12.00 to 32.00 n/apost_Prosocial Motivation 740 15.04 3.54 -0.07 -0.99 4.00 20.00 4.00 to 20.00 .82post_Pro-Environmental Behaviour 727 24.41 6.26 0.02 -0.36 8.00 40.00 8.00 to 40.00 .77post_Self Concordant Motivation 740 1.44 2.26 0.32 0.27 -6.00 8.00 -8.00 to 8.00 .64176Table 4: Initial descriptive statistics for all variables (aggregate data): Follow-upMeasure N M SD skew kurtosis min. max. possible range alphafollow-up_netPositive Affect 670 10.28 10.97 -0.23 0.03 -30.00 39.00 -40.00 to 40.00 .79follow-up_Satisfaction with Life 679 24.37 6.00 -0.62 -0.15 5.00 35.00 5.00 to 35.00 .89follow-up_Meaning in Life 681 23.80 6.43 -0.45 0.14 5.00 35.00 5.00 to 35.00 .91follow-up_Transcendent Connectedness 674 27.69 6.90 -0.40 0.03 6.00 42.00 6.00 to 42.00 .89follow-up_Elevation 671 50.39 17.34 -0.01 -0.53 13.00 91.00 13.00 to 91.00 .96177Table 5: Correlations between variables (aggregate data): Pre-interventionVariable ITWB EWB netPA SWL MIL TRNS ELVN DEPR AXTY STRSS CMP PTECImplicit Theories of Well-Being -Engagement with Beauty .19*** -netPositive Affect .22*** .15*** -Satisfaction with Life .25*** .08* .48*** -Meaning in Life .26*** .25*** .43*** .49*** -Transcendent Connectedness .17*** .35*** .32*** .40*** .40*** -Elevation .19*** .48*** .48*** .39*** .48*** .48*** -Depression -.25*** -.07 -.60*** -.42*** -.42*** -.28*** -.37*** -Anxiety -.19*** .00 -.45*** -.23*** -.20*** -.11** -.14*** .57*** -Stress -.08* -.04 -.51*** -.18*** -.20*** -.15*** -.22*** .61*** .69*** -Compassion .17*** .31*** .16*** .28*** .25*** .27*** .41*** -.11** -.01 -.03 -Perspective Taking & Empathic Concern .23*** .34*** .08* .29*** .20*** .36*** .23*** .01 .05 .05 .46*** -Pro-Environmental Behaviour .11** .28*** .10** .25*** .15*** .26*** .19*** .03 .05 .04 .24*** .32***ITWB = Implicit Theories of Well-Being; EWB = Engagement with Beauty; netPA = netPositive Affect; SWL – Satisfaction with Life; MIL = Meaning in Life; TRNS = Transcendent Connectedness; ELVN = Elevation; DEPR = Depression; AXTY = Anxiety; STRSS = Stress; CMPS = Compassion; PTEC = PerspectiveTaking & Empathic Concern* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001178Table 6: Correlations between variables (aggregate data): Post-intervention with pre-covariatesVariable ITWB EWB netPA SWL MIL TRNS ELVN DEPR AXTY STRSS CMP PTEC PSB PSM PEBpre_ITWB -pre_EWB .19*** -netPositive Affect .24*** .19*** -Satisfaction with Life .23*** .09* .48*** -Meaning in Life .23*** .22*** .47*** .49*** -TRANSCO .19*** .35*** .34*** .43*** .43*** -Elevation .14*** .41*** .53*** .37*** .47*** .54*** -Depression -.24** -.08* -.59** -.46*** -.44*** -.30*** -.36*** -Anxiety -.21** .03 -.49*** -.31*** -.23*** -.13** -.12** .65*** -Stress -.11** -.03 -.52*** -.25*** -.22*** -.15*** -.21*** .66*** .70*** -Compassion .15*** .28*** .35*** .28*** .25*** .34*** .55*** -.19*** -.06 -.06 -PTEC .20*** .29*** .21*** .28*** .21*** .36*** .29*** -.11** -.05 -.04 .44*** -Prosocial Behaviour .01 .01 -.01 .07 .00 .02 -.03 .05 .03 .03 .13** .22*** -Prosocial Motivation .12** .03 -.00 .15*** .04 .08* -.05 .02 -.04 .05 .18*** .39*** .68*** -PEB .05 .25*** .13*** .21*** .15*** .25*** .27*** .00 .04 .04 .28*** .29*** .11** .19*** -SCM .18*** .16*** .28*** .24*** .25*** .19*** .21*** -.21*** -.21*** -.15*** .19*** .29*** .11** .19*** .14***ITWB = Implicit Theories of Well-Being; EWB = Engagement with Beauty; netPA = netPositive Affect; SWL = Satisfaction with Life; MIL = Meaning in Life;TRNS/TRANSCO = Transcendent Connectedness; ELVN = Elevation; DEPR = Depression; AXTY = Anxiety; STRSS = Stress; CMP = Compassion; PTEC = Perspective Taking & Empathic Concern; PSB = Pro-Environmental Behaviour; SCM = Self-Concordant Motivation* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001179Table 7: Correlations between variables (aggregate data): Follow-up with pre-covariatesVariable ITWB EWB netPA SWL MIL TRNSImplicit Theories of Well-Being -Engagement with Beauty .19*** -netPositive Affect .20*** .20*** -Satisfaction with Life .24*** .13** .50*** -Meaning in Life .20*** .21*** .47*** .54*** -Transcendent Connectedness .18*** .38*** .42*** .45*** .46*** -Elevation .10** .43*** .55*** .40*** .51*** .58***ITWB = Implicit Theories of Well-Being; EWB = Engagement with Beauty; netPA = netPositive Affect; SWL – Satisfaction with Life; MIL = Meaning in Life; TRNS = Transcendent Connectedness* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001180Table 8: Descriptive statistics for difference scores (aggregate data)Measure N M SD skew kurtosis min. max. possible rangePost minus Pre netPositive Affect 726 1.74 9.40 0.08 0.94 -32.00 34.00 -80.00 to 80.00 Satisfaction with Life 723 1.84 4.63 0.03 1.99 -17.00 23.00 -30.00 to 30.00 Meaning in Life 741 0.79 4.94 -0.39 2.31 -23.00 19.00 -30.00 to 30.00 Transcendent Connectedness 720 1.55 5.49 -0.29 1.57 -29.00 20.00 -36.00 to 36.00 Elevation 729 4.09 14.52 0.43 1.18 -51.00 68.00 -78.00 to 78.00 Depression 718 -0.71 3.62 -0.30 1.88 -15.00 12.00 -21.00 to 21.00 Anxiety 715 -0.99 3.34 -0.13 2.70 -17.00 12.00 -21.00 to 21.00 Stress 715 -1.19 3.57 -0.22 1.15 -14.00 13.00 -21.00 to 21.00 Compassion 742 0.26 0.83 0.08 0.20 -2.00 3.00 -12.00 to 12.00 Perspective Taking & Empathic Concern 704 1.50 5.30 -0.08 1.46 -22.00 24.00 -56.00 to 56.00 Pro-environmental Behaviour 723 1.13 4.93 0.60 1.70 -14.00 25.00 -32.00 to 32.00Follow-up minus Pre netPositive Affect 664 0.76 10.31 0.11 1.70 -36.00 49.00 -80.00 to 80.00 Satisfaction with Life 661 2.14 5.24 0.00 3.25 -29.00 22.00 -30.00 to 30.00 Meaning in Life 681 1.09 5.05 -0.12 2.21 -22.00 21.00 -30.00 to 30.00 Transcendent Connectedness 656 1.19 5.70 -0.06 1.31 -21.00 26.00 -36.00 to 36.00 Elevation 670 1.83 15.03 0.16 0.51 -41.00 54.00 -78.00 to 78.00181Table 9: Correlations between variables (aggregate data): Pre-covariates with pre-post difference scores.Variable ITWB EWB pp-netPA pp-SWL pp-MIL pp-TRNS pp-Elvtn pp-Dep pp-Anx pp-Stress pp-Comp pp-PTECITWB -EWB .19*** -pp-netPA .05 .06 -pp-SWL -.03 .02 .35*** -pp-MIL -.05 -.04 .29*** .31*** -pp-TRANSCO .01 -.02 .22*** .29*** .23*** -pp-Elevation -.05 -.06 .41*** .32*** .29*** .38*** -pp-Depression .02 -.03 -.40*** -.27*** -.20*** -.18*** -.21*** -pp-Anxiety -.03 .01 -.28*** -.17*** -.10* -.15*** -.13*** .54*** -pp-Stress -.05 .02 -.34*** -.16*** -.10* -.15*** -.11** .57*** .61*** -pp-Comp -.01 -.04 .18*** .22*** .16*** .11** .32*** -.07 -.04 -.01 -pp-PTEC -.03 -.08 .05 .16*** .10** .14*** .18*** .04 .02 .03 .28*** -pp-PEB -.07 -.04 .10** .10** .11** .10** .21*** .07 .02 .01 .12** .22***ITWB = Implicit Theories of Well-Being; EWB = Engagement with Beauty; pp = pre-post; netPA = netPositive Affect; SWL – Satisfaction with Life; MIL = Meaning in Life; TRNS = Transcendent Connectedness; Elvtn = Elevation; Dep = Depression; Anx= Anxiety; PTEC= Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern; Comp = Compassion; PEB = Pro-environmental Behaviour* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001182Table 10: Correlations between variables (aggregate data): Pre-covariates with pre-follow-up difference scores.Variable ITWB EWB pf-netPA pf-SWL pf-MIL pf-TRNSImplicit Theories of Well-Being -Engagement with Beauty .19*** -pf-netPositive Affect .01 .09* -pf-Satisfaction with Life -.00 .07 .41*** -pf-Meaning in Life -.04 -.01 .32*** .38*** -pf-Transcendent Connectedness -.19*** -.26*** -.09* .06 -.02 -pf-Elevation -.04 .03 .52*** .40*** .33*** .03ITWB = Implicit Theories of Well-Being; EWB = Engagement with Beauty; pf = pre-followup; netPA = netPositive Affect; SWL – Satisfaction with Life; MIL = Meaning in Life; TRNS = Transcendent Connectedness* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001183Table 11: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 1a—shift from pre- to post-intervention in net-positive affectSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 693) = 0.53 p = .467 .001Engagement with Beauty F(1,693) = 2.22 p = .137 .003group F(3, 693) = 2.23 p = .084 .010condition F(2, 693) = 4.03 p = .018 .011group*condition F(6, 693) = 1.25 p = .279 .011Means: difference scores net-positive affectGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 294 1.43 0.55 (0.35, 2.51)Ottawa 156 2.21 0.75 (0.74, 3.68)China 196 0.77 0.69 (-0.59, 2.13)Online 64 4.11 1.18 (1.79, 6.43)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 231 3.75 0.73 (2.32, 5.19)Three Good Things 240 1.71 0.67 (0.40, 3.03)Life Details control 236 0.92 0.73 (-0.51, 2.35)184Table 12: ANCOVA (condition) for Hypothesis 1a—shift from pre- to post-intervention in net-positive affectSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 702) = 1.13 p = .289 .002Engagement with Beauty F(1, 702) = 1.91 p = .168 .003condition F(2, 702) = 3.83 p = .022 .011Means: difference scores net-positive affectCondition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 231 2.70 0.61 (1.50, 3.91)Three Good Things 240 1.86 0.60 (0.67, 3.04)Life Details control 236 0.35 0.61 (-0.85, 1.54)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsComparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CINoticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .693, d = 0.09 (-0.09, 0.27) 0.85 (-1.21, 2.9)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .019, d = 0.25 (0.07, 0.44) 2.36 (0.29, 4.43)Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .217, d = 0.16 (-0.02, 0.34) 1.51 (-0.54, 3.56)185Table 13: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 1b—shift from pre- to post-intervention in satisfaction with lifeSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 707) = 0.03 p = .862 .000Engagement with Beauty F(1, 707) = 0.01 p = .915 .000group F(3, 707) = 3.88 p = .009 .016condition F(2, 707) = 5.37 p = .005 .015group*condition F(6, 707) = 1.82 p = .093 .015Means: difference scores satisfaction with lifeGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 298 1.53 0.27 (1.00, 2.05)Ottawa 160 1.37 0.36 (0.66, 2.09)China 193 2.86 0.34 (2.19, 3.53)Online 70 1.70 0.55 (0.61, 2.79)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 238 2.70 0.34 (2.03, 3.37)Three Good Things 244 1.17 0.33 (0.53, 1.81)Life Details control 239 1.72 0.35 (1.03, 2.42)186Table 14: ANCOVA (condition) for Hypothesis 1b—shift from pre- to post-intervention in satisfaction with lifeSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 716) = 0.88 p = .349 .001Engagement with Beauty F(1, 716) = 0.48 p = .491 .001condition F(2, 716) = 3.35 p = .036 .009Means: difference scores satisfaction with lifeCondition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 238 2.45 0.30 (1.87, 3.04)Three Good Things 244 1.39 0.30 (0.81, 1.98)Life Details control 239 1.69 0.30 (1.10, 2.28)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsComparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CINoticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .036, d = 0.23 (0.05, 0.41) 1.06 (0.05, 2.07)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .200, d = 0.17 (-0.02, 0.35) 0.76 (-0.25, 1.78)Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .861, d = -0.11 (0.29, 0.07) -0.30 (-1.30, 0.71)187Table 15: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 1c—shift from pre- to post-intervention in meaning in lifeSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 707) = 0.39 p = .534 .001Engagement with Beauty F(1, 707) = 2.12 p = .146 .003group F(3, 707) = 1.93 p = .123 .008condition F(2, 707) = 0.58 p = .558 .002group*condition F(6, 707) = 2.12 p = .049 .018Means: difference scores meaning in lifeGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 298 0.66 0.29 (0.10, 1.22)Ottawa 161 0.11 0.39 (-0.65, 0.87)China 193 1.38 0.36 (0.66, 2.09)Online 69 1.01 0.59 (0.16, 2.17)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 238 1.11 0.36 (0.39, 1.82)Three Good Things 243 0.60 0.35 (-0.09, 1.28)Life Details control 240 0.66 0.37 (-0.08, 1.40)188Table 16: Simple effects for Hypothesis 1c—shift from pre- to post-intervention in meaning in lifeGroup F Significance ηp2UBC F(2, 707) = 0.87 p = .422 .002Ottawa F(2, 707) = 1.75 p = .175 .005China F(2, 707) = 2.90 p = .056 .008Online F(2, 707) = 2.41 p = .091 .007Means: difference scores meaning in lifeNoticing Nature Three Good Things Life Details controlN M SE 95 % CI N M SE 95 % CI N M SE 95 % CIUBC 104 1.11 0.48 (0.17, 2.05) 94 0.65 0.50 (-0.34, 1.64) 100 0.21 0.49 (-0.75, 1.18)Ottawa 53 -0.57 0.67 (-.89, 0.76) 54 1.11 0.67 (-0.20, 2.41) 54 -0.20 0.66 (-1.50, 1.11)China 58 2.44 0.65 (1.18, 3.71) 69 1.35 0.60 (0.18, 2.52) 66 0.33 0.61 (-0.86, 1.52)Online 23 1.43 1.02 (-0.57, 3.43) 26 -0.72 0.96 (-2.60, 1.16) 20 2.31 1.10 (0.16, 4.46)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsGroup Comparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CIUBC Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .879, d = 0.10 (-0.18, 0.37) 0.46 (-1.20, 2.13)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .467, d = 0.18 (-0.09, 0.46) 0.90 (-0.74, 2.54)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .899, d = 0.09 (-0.19, 0.37) 0.44 (-1.24, 2.12)Ottawa Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .212, d = -0.34 (-0.72, 0.04) -1.67 (-3.93, 0.58)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .973, d = -0.08 (-0.45, 0.30) -0.37 (-2.60, 1.90)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .419, d = 0.27 (-0.11, 0.65) 1.31 (-0.95, 3.56)China Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .508, d = 0.22 (-0.13, 0.57) 1.09 (-0.99, 3.17)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .048, d = 0.43 (0.07, 0.79) 2.11 (0.01, 4.21)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .531, d = 0.21 (-0.13, 0.55) 1.02 (-0.99, 3.03)Online Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .327, d = 0.44 (-0.13, 1.01) 2.15 (-1.19, 5.49)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .912, d = -0.18 (-0.78, 0.42) -0.88 (-4.46, 2.70)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .108, d = -0.62 (-1.22, 0.02) -3.03 (-6.51, 0.45)189Table 17: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 1d—shift from pre- to post-intervention in transcendent connectednessSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 703) = 0.02 p = .876 .000Engagement with Beauty F(1, 703) = 0.26 p = .609 .000group F(3, 703) = 0.18 p = .912 .001condition F(2, 703) = 5.94 p = .003 .017group*condition F(6, 703) = 0.16 p = .987 .001Means: difference scores transcendent connectednessGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 295 1.70 0.32 (1.07, 2.33)Ottawa 158 1.45 0.44 (0.59, 2.31)China 193 1.52 0.41 (0.72, 2.31)Online 71 1.23 0.66 (-0.07, 2.52)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 236 2.52 0.41 (1.72, 3.32)Three Good Things 241 0.59 0.39 (-0.17, 1.35)Life Details control 240 1.31 0.42 (0.48, 1.13)190Table 18: ANCOVA (condition) for Hypothesis 1d—shift from pre- to post-intervention in transcendent connectednessSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 712) = 0.08 p = .787 .000Engagement with Beauty F(1, 712) = 0.37 p = .543 .00condition F(2, 712) = 8.41 p < .001 .023Means: difference scores transcendent connectednessCondition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 236 2.65 0.35 (1.95, 3.34)Three Good Things 241 0.62 0.35 (-0.07, 1.31)Life Details control 240 1.36 0.35 (0.67, 2.05)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsComparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CINoticing Nature – Three Good Things p < .001, d = 0.37 (0.19, 0.55) 2.02 (0.83, 3.22)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .031, d = 0.24 (0.06, 0.42) 1.28 (0.09, 2.48)Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .356, d = -0.14 (-0.32, 0.04) -0.74 (-1.93, 0.45)191Table 19: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 1e—shift from pre- to post-intervention in elevationSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 696) = 1.35 p = .245 .002Engagement with Beauty F(1, 696) = 3.05 p = .081 .004group F(3, 696) = 1.26 p = .288 .005condition F(2, 696) = 21.56 p < .001 .058group*condition F(6, 696) = 2.05 p = .058 .017Means: difference scores elevationGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 283 3.61 0.82 (1.99, 5.22)Ottawa 157 3.39 1.12 (1.20, 5.58)China 193 3.37 1.03 (1.35, 5.40)Online 67 6.98 1.72 (3.59, 10.36)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 238 9.92 1.04 (7.88, 11.95)Three Good Things 236 1.65 1.00 (-0.32, 3.62)Life Details control 236 1.44 1.10 (-0.72, 3.60)192Table 20: ANCOVA (condition) for Hypothesis 1e—shift from pre- to post-intervention in elevationSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 705) = 1.16 p = .21 .002Engagement with Beauty F(1, 705) = 2.12 p = .146 .003condition F(2, 705) = 26.83 p < .001 .071Means: difference scores elevationCondition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 238 9.24 0.90 (7.46, 11.01)Three Good Things 236 1.66 0.91 (-0.13, 3.44)Life Details control 236 0.66 0.91 (-1.12, 2.45)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsComparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CINoticing Nature – Three Good Things p < .001, d = 0.54 (0.36, 0.73) 7.58 (4.51, 10.65)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p < .001, d = 0.62 (0.43, 0.80) 8.57 (5.51, 11.64)Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .825, d = 0.07 (-0.11, 0.25) 0.99 (-2.08, 4.07)193Table 21: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 1f—shift from pre- to post-intervention in depressionSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1 701) = 2.39 p = .123 .003Engagement with Beauty F(1, 701) = 1.19 p = .279 .002group F(3, 701) = 5.02 p = .002 .021condition F(2, 701) = 1.45 p = .240 .004group*condition F(6, 701) = 0.75 p = .607 .006Means: difference scores depressionGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 294 -0.96 0.21 (-1.37, -0.54)Ottawa 159 -0.83 0.29 (-1.40, -0.27)China 193 0.14 0.27 (-0.39, 0.66)Online 69 -1.55 0.44 (-2.42, -0.69)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 235 -1.17 0.27 (-1.71, -0.63)Three Good Things 244 -0.56 0.25 (-1.06, -0.06)Life Details control 236 -0.68 0.28 (-1.22, -0.14)194Table 22: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 1g—shift from pre- to post-intervention in anxietySource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 698) = 0.02 p = .889 .000Engagement with Beauty F(1, 698) = 0.19 p = .661 .000group F(3, 698) = 5.23 p = .001 .022condition F(2, 698) = 2.26 p = .105 .006group*condition F(6, 698) = 1.36 p = .230 .012Means: difference scores anxietyGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 292 -1.43 0.20 (-1.81, -1.04)Ottawa 159 -1.32 0.26 (-1.84, -0.80)China 93 -0.29 0.25 (-0.77, 0.19)Online 68 -0.44 0.41 (-1.24, 0.36)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 234 -1.26 0.25 (-1.75, -0.77)Three Good Things 242 -0.86 0.23 (-1.32, -0.41)Life Details control 236 -0.49 0.26 (-1.00, 0.03)195Table 23: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 1h—shift from pre- to post-intervention in stressSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 698) = 1.41 p = .236 .002Engagement with Beauty F(1, 698) = 0.25 p = .620 .000group F(3, 698) = 0.48 p = .698 .002condition F(2, 698) = 3.62 p = .027 .010group*condition F(6, 698) = 0.42 p = .866 .004Means: difference scores stressGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 290 -1.19 0.21 (-1.61, -0.77)Ottawa 159 -1.34 0.29 (-1.91, -0.78)China 193 -0.95 0.27 (-1.47, -0.43)Online 70 -1.44 0.43 (-2.29, -0.59)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 235 -1.77 0.27 (-2.2-, -1.25)Three Good Things 240 -1.18 0.26 (-1.68, -0.67)Life Details control 237 -0.74 0.28 (-1.29, -0.20)196Table 24: ANCOVA (condition) for Hypothesis 1h—shift from pre- to post-intervention in stressSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 707) = 2.29 p = .131 .003Engagement with Beauty F(1, 707) = 0.59 p = .444 .001condition F(2, 707) = 3.42 p = .033 .010Means: difference scores stressCondition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 235 -1.64 0.23 (-2.10, -1.18)Three Good Things 240 -1.14 0.23 (-1.59, -0.68)Life Details control 237 -0.78 0.23 (-1.24, -0.33)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsComparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CINoticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .329, d = 0.14 (-0.32, 0.04) -0.50 (-1.29, 0.28)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .028, d = 0.24 (-0.42, -0.06) -0.85 (-1.64, -0.07)Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .632, d = 0.10 (-0.2, 0.08) -0.35 (-1.13, 0.43)197Table 25: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 2a—shift from pre- to post-intervention in compassionSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 705) = 0.60 p = .440 .001Engagement with Beauty F(1, 705) = 2.13 p = .145 .003group F(3, 705) = 6.19 p < .001 .026condition F(2, 705) = 3.96 p = .019 .011group*condition F(6, 705) = 3.08 p = .006 .026Means: difference scores compassionGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 299 0.22 0.05 (0.12, 0.31)Ottawa 160 0.18 0.07 (0.05, 0.30)China 193 0.47 0.06 (0.35, 0.59)Online 70 0.06 0.10 (-0.14, 0.25)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 239 0.36 0.06 (0.24, 0.48)Three Good Things 242 0.19 0.06 (0.08, 0.30)Life Details control 241 0.14 0.06 (0.01, 0.26)198Table 26: Simple effects for Hypothesis 2a—shift from pre- to post-intervention in compassionGroup F Significance ηp2UBC F(2, 705) = 3.83 p = .022 .011Ottawa F(2, 705) = 1.16 p = .313 .003China F(2, 705) = 9.18 p < .001 .025Online F(2, 705) = 1.68 p = .187 .005Means: difference scores compassionNoticing Nature Three Good Things Life Details controlN M SE 95 % CI N M SE 95 % CI N M SE 95 % CIUBC 102 1.21 0.24 (0.73, 1.58) 94 0.49 0.25 (-0.00, 0.99) 10 0.31 0.25 (-0.17, 0.79)Ottawa 54 0.13 0.33 (-0.53, 0.78) 52 0.83 0.34 (0.1, 1.49) 54 0.63 0.33 (-0.03, 1.28)China 58 2.32 0.32 (1.69, 2.95) 69 1.46 0.30 (0.88, 2.04) 66 0.45 0.30 (-0.25, 1.75)Online 23 0.75 0.51 (-0.25, 1.75) 27 -0.50 0.47 (-1.42, 0.42) 20 0.25 0.55 (-0.83, 1.32)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsGroup Comparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CIUBC Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .116, d = 0.29 (0.01, 0.58) 0.72 (-0.12, 1.55)`Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .026, d = 0.37 (0.09, 0.65) 0.90 (0.08, 1.72)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .936, d = 0.08 (-0.21, 0.36) 0.18 (-0.5, 1.02)Ottawa Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .363, d = -0.29 (-0.67, 0.10) -0.70 (-1.83, 0.43)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .644, d = -0.20 (-0.58, 0.18) -0.50 (-1.62. 0.63)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .963, d = 0.08 (-0.30, 0.46) 0.20 (-0.93, 1.34)China Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .134, d = 0.35 (-0.00, 0.70) 0.86 (-0.17, 1.90)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p < .001, d = 0.76 (0.40, 1.13) 1.87 (0.82, 2.92)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .049, d = 0.41 (0.07, 0.75) 1.01 (0.00, 2.01)Online Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .196, d = 0.52 (-0.05, 1.08) 1.25 (-0.40, 2.90)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .876, d = 0.21 (-0.40, 0.81) 0.50 (-1.28, 2.29)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .653, d = -0.31 (-0.89, 0.27) -0.75 (-2.47, 0.97)199Table 27: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 2b—shift from pre- to post-intervention in perspective taking and empathic concernSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1,688) = 2.30 p = .130 .003Engagement with Beauty F(1, 688) = 15.54 p < .001 .022group F(3, 688) = 23.99 p < .001 .095condition F(2, 688) = 0.88 p = .416 .003group*condition F(6, 688) = 1.23 p = .287 .011Means: difference scores perspective taking and empathic concernGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 287 0.24 0.30 (-0.36, 0.83)Ottawa 154 -0.27 0.41 (-1.08, 0.53)China 193 3.87 0.38 (3.13, 4.60)Online 68 0.63 0.65 (-0.60, 1.86)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 234 0.86 0.38 (0.11, 1.61)Three Good Things 237 0.95 0.36 (0.24, 1.66)Life Details control 231 1.54 0.40 (0.75, 1.33)200Table 28: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 2c—shift from pre- to post-intervention in pro-environmental behaviourSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 689) = 1.05 p = .305 .002Engagement with Beauty F(1, 689) = 1.27 p = .260 .002group F(3, 689) = 3.15 p = .025 .014condition F(2, 689) = 2.52 p = .081 .007group*condition F(6, 689) = 0.96 p = .455 .008Means: difference scores pro-environmental behaviourGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 288 0.57 0.29 (-0.01, 1.14)Ottawa 153 1.57 0.40 (0.79, 1.35)China 193 1.79 0.36 (1.08, 2.51)Online 69 0.47 0.60 (-0.70, 1.64)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 234 1.59 0.67 (0.87, 2.31)Three Good Things 236 1.28 0.35 (0.59, 1.97)Life Details control 233 0.44 0.38 (-0.32, 1.19)201Table 29: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 2d—post-intervention levels of prosocial behaviourSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 610) = 1.23 p = .269 .002Engagement with Beauty F(1, 610) = 1.05 p = .307 .002group F(3, 610) = 11.01 p < .001 .051condition F(2, 610) = 0.35 p = .702 .001group*condition F(6, 610) = 0.85 p = .532 .008Means: difference scores prosocial behaviourGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 249 26.26 0.27 (25.731, 26.783)Ottawa 129 25.74 0.37 (25.01, 2.46)China 188 24.21 0.32 (23.59, 24.83)Online 58 27.19 0.56 (26.10, 28.29)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 203 25.62 0.34 (24.96, 2.28)Three Good Things 214 25.92 0.32 (25.29, 26.54)Life Details control 207 26.01 0.36 (25.31, 26.71)202Table 30: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 2e—post-intervention levels of prosocial motivationSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 704) = 0.01 p = .940 .000Engagement with Beauty F(1, 704) = 7.67 p = .006 .011group F(3, 704) = 97.27 p < .001 .293condition F(2, 704) = 0.00 p = 1.000 .000group*condition F(6, 704) = 3.10 p = .005 .026Means: difference scores prosocial motivationGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 297 16.24 0.17 (15.90, 16.58)Ottawa 159 15.65 0.24 (15.18, 16.11)China 193 11.89 0.22 (11.46, 12.32)Online 69 17.24 0.36 (16.53, 17.94)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 238 15.26 0.22 (14.82, 15.69)Three Good Things 240 15.25 0.21 (14.84, 15.66)Life Details control 240 15.26 0.23 (14.81, 15.71)203Table 31: Simple effects for Hypothesis 2e—post-intervention levels of prosocial motivationGroup F Significance ηp2UBC F(2, 704) = 6.45 p = .002 .018Ottawa F(2, 704) = 0.86 p = .423 .002China F(2, 704) = 2.30 p = .101 .006Online F(2, 704) = 0.52 p = .595 .001Means: difference scores prosocial motivationNoticing Nature Three Good Things Life Details controlN M SE 95 % CI N M SE 95 % CI N M SE 95 % CIUBC 104 15.95 0.29 (15.38, 16.52) 92 17.11 0.31 (16.51, 17.72) 101 15.66 0.30 (15.08, 16.24)Ottawa 53 15.27 0.41 (14.47, 16.07) 52 15.66 0.41 (14.85, 16.46) 54 16.02 0.40 (15.23, 16.81)China 58 12.54 0.39 (11.77, 13.31) 69 11.46 0.36 (10.75, 12.16) 66 11.68 0.37 (10.97, 12.40)Online 23 17.27 0.62 (16.06, 18.48) 27 16.77 0.57 (15.66, 17.89) 19 17.66 0.68 (16.33, 18.99)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsGroup Comparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CIUBC Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .018, d = -0.30 (-0.54, -0.06) -1.17 (-2.18, -0.15)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .867, d = 0.10 (-0.18, 0.37) 0.29 (-0.70, 1.27)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .002, d = 0.37 (0.13, 0.62) 1.45 (0.43, 2.47)Ottawa Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .875, d = -0.13 (-0.51, 0.25) -0.39, (-1.77, 0.99) Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .468, d = -0.25 (x-0.63, 0.13) -0.75 (-2.12, 0.62)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .895, d = -0.12 (-0.50, 0.26) -0.36 (-1.74, 1.01)China Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .114, d = 0.36 (0.01, 0.72) 1.08 (-0.17, 2.34)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .290, d = 0.29 (-0.07, 0.64) 0.86 (-0.42, 2.13)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .958, d = -0.08 (-0.41, 0.26) -0.23 (-1.44, 0.99)Online Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .911, d = 0.17 (-0.39, 0.73) 0.50 (-1.51, 2.50)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .963, d = -0.13 (-0.74, 0.48) -0.39 (-2.59, 1.80)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .679, d = -0.30 (-0.89, 0.29) -0.89 (-3.0, 1.23)204Table 32: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 3—post-intervention levels of motivation to continue activitySource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 706) = 17.65 p < .001 .024Engagement with Beauty F(1, 706) = 13.75 p < .001 .019group F(3, 706) = 7.93 p < .001 .033condition F(2, 706) = 2.15 p = .117 .006group*condition F(6, 706) = 2.95 p = .008 .024Means: difference scores self-concordant motivationGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 298 1.33 0.13 (1.08, 1.57)Ottawa 160 1.29 0.17 (0.96, 1.62)China 196 1.22 0.16 (0.91, 1.53)Online 69 2.61 0.26 (2.10, 3.12)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 238 1.88 0.16 (1.57, 2.19)Three Good Things 243 1.46 0.15 (1.16, 1.76)Life Details control 239 1.50 0.17 (1.17, 1.82)205Table 33: Simple effects for Hypothesis 3—post-intervention levels of motivation to continue in activityGroup F Significance ηp2UBC F(2, 706) = 4.35 p = .013 .012Ottawa F(2, 706) = 1.29 p = .276 .004China F(2,706) = 0.46 p = .630 .001Online F(2,706) = 4.38 p = .013 .012Means: difference scores self-concordant motivationNoticing Nature Three Good Things Life Details controlN M SE 95 % CI N M SE 95 % CI N M SE 95 % CIUBC 104 1.54 0.21 (1.13, 1.95) 94 1.63 0.22 (1.19, 2.06) 100 0.81 0.22 (0.39, 1.23)Ottawa 53 1.22 0.30 (0.64, .180) 53 1.00 0.29 (0.42, 1.57) 54 1.65 0.29 (1.08, 2.22)China 58 1.17 0.28 (0.62, 1.73) 69 1.41 0.26 (0.55, 1.59) 66 1.07 0.27 (0.55, 1.59)Online 23 3.58 0.45 (2.71, 4.45) 27 1.80 0.41 (0.99, 1.60) 19 2.46 0.49 (1.49, 3.42)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsGroup Comparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CIUBC Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .988, d = -0.04 (-0.32, 0.24) -0.09 (-0.82, 0.64)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .045, d = 0.34 (0.06, 0.62) 0.73 (0.01, 1.44)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .024, d = 0.38 (0.10, 0.66) 0.82 (0.08, 1.55)Ottawa Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .932, d = 0.10 (-0.28, 0.49) 0.22 (-0.77, 1.21) Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .655, d = -0.20 (-0.58, 0.18) -0.43 (-1.42, 0.56)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .306, = -0.31 (-0.69, 0.08) -0.65 (-1.64, 0.34)China Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .897, d = -0.11 (-0.46, 0.24) -0.24 (-1.15, 0.67)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .989, d = 0.05 (-0.30 0.40) 0.11 (-0.81, 1.03)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .722, d = 0.16 (-0.18, 0.50) 0.35 (-0.53, 1.22)Online Noticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .010, d = 0.84 (0.26, 1.42) 1.78 (0.34, 3.23)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .245, d = 0.53 (-0.09, 1.14) 1.13 (-0.46, 2.71)PPI Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .664. d = -0.31 (-0.90, 0.28) -0.66 (-2.19, 0.88)206Table 34: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Hypothesis 4—number of days engaged in activity during follow-up weekSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1,746) = 0.32 p = .571 .000Engagement with Beauty F(1, 746) = 7.48 p = .006 .010group F(3, 746) = 11.09 p < .001 .043condition F(2, 746) = 11.16 p < .001 .029group*condition F(6, 746) = 2.04 p = .058 .016Means: difference scores # days engaged in activityGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 319 2.14 0.13 (1.89, 2.39)Ottawa 177 2.05 0.17 (1.71, 2.39)China 193 0.96 0.17 (0.63, 1.29)Online 71 1.63 0.27 (1.09, 2.16)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 251 2.33 0.17 (1.00, 2.66)Three Good Things 257 1.34 0.16 (1.03, 1.64)Life Details control 252 1.42 0.17 (1.08, 1.76)207Table 35: ANCOVA (condition) for Hypothesis 4—number of days engaged in activity during follow-up weekSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 755) = 0.47 p = .495 .001Engagement with Beauty F(1, 755) = 2.84 p = .092 .004condition F(2, 755) = 10.78 p < .001 .028Means: difference scores # days engaged in activityCondition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 251 2.33 0.15 (2.04, 2.61)Three Good Things 257 1.50 0.15 (1.22, 1.79)Life Details control 252 1.49 0.15 (1.21, 1.78)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsComparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CINoticing Nature – Three Good Things p < .001, d = 0.36 (0.18, 0.53) 0.83 (0.33, 1.32)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p < .001, d = 0.36 (0.19, 0.54) 0.84 (0.34, 1.33)Three Good Things – Life Details control p = 1.00, d = 0.01 (-0.17, 0.18) 0.01 (-0.48, 0.50)208Table 36: Contingency table (condition) for Hypothesis 4—likelihood to engage in activity during follow-up weekconditionContinued with activity Noticing Nature Three Good Things Life Details TotalYes Observed 145 100 96 341Expected 112.48 112.99 115.53% within with “Yes” 42.5% 29.3% 28.2%% within condition 65.6% 45.0% 42.3%% of total 21.6% 14.9% 14.3%No Observed 76 122 131 329Expected 108.52 109.01 111.47%% within with “Yes” 23.1% 37.1% 39.8%% within condition 34.4% 55.0% 57.7%% of total 11.3% 18.2% 19.6%Total Observed 221 222 227 670209Table 37: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Exploratory Analysis 1—time spent in nature during the intervention periodSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1,662) = 5.41 p = .020 .008Engagement with Beauty F(1, 662) = 2.58 p = .109 .004group F(3, 662) = 23.27 p < .001 .004condition F(2, 662) = 2.17 p = .115 .007group*condition F(6, 662) = 0.81 p = .563 .007Means: difference scores time spent in natureGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 289 6799 1.58 (3.89, 10.09)Ottawa 141 6.10 2.26 (1.67, 10.53)China 185 26.79 2.01 (22.85, 30.74)Online 61 8.46 3.44 (1.7, 15.22)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 232 15.22 2.04 (11.22, 19.23)Three Good Things 224 9.27 2.01 (5.32, 13.22)Life Details control 220 11.77 2.19 (7.48, 16.06)210Table 38: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Exploratory Analysis 2a—shift from post-intervention to follow-up in net-positive affectSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 630) = 0.00 p = .977 .000Engagement with Beauty F(1, 630) = 4.24 p = .040 .007group F(3, 630) = 2.19 p = .088 .010condition F(2, 630) = 3.03 p = .049 .010group*condition F(6,630) = 1.15 p = .333 .011Means: difference scores pre-follow net-positive affectGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 285 -0.11 0.61 (-1.30, 1.07)Ottawa 158 2.19 0.82 (0.59, 3.79)China 146 0.10 0.87 (-1.61, 1.81)Online 55 2.06 1.41 (-0.71, 4.84)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 215 2.70 0.84 (1.05, 4.35)Three Good Things 213 0.68 0.78 (-0.85, 2.21)Life Details control 216 -0.20 0.88 (-1.93, 1.54)211Table 39: ANCOVA (condition) for Exploratory Analysis 2a—shift from pre-intervention to follow-up in net-positive affectSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 639) = 0.00 p = .978 .000Engagement with Beauty F(1, 639) = 3.68 p = .055 .006condition F(2, 639) = 1.78 p = .169 .006Means: difference scores pre-follow net-positive affectCondition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 215 1.53 0.70 (0.16, 2.90)Three Good Things 213 0.73 0.70 (-0.65, 2.11)Life Details control 216 -0.33 0.70 (-1.69, 1.04)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsComparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CINoticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .803, d = 0.08 (-0.11, 0.27) 0.80 (-1.57, 3.17)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .170, d = 0.18 (0.01, 0.37) 1.86 (-0.50, 4.21)Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .636, d = 0.10 (-0.09, 0.29) 1.05 (-1.31, 3.42)212Table 40: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Exploratory Analysis 2b—shift from pre-intervention to follow-up in satisfaction with lifeSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 644) = 0.60 p = .437 .001Engagement with Beauty F(1, 644) = 1.40 p = .237 .002group F(3, 644) = 7.92 p < .001 .036condition F(2, 644) = 1.99 p = .137 .006group*condition F(6, 644) = 1.42 p = .203 .013Means: difference scores pre-follow satisfaction with lifeGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 292 1.54 0.30 (0.94, 2.13)Ottawa 158 1.80 0.42 (0.9, 2.61)China 146 4.03 0.44 (3.16, 4.89)Online 62 1.39 0.66 (0.09, 2.69)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 222 2.78 0.40 (1.99, 3.57)Three Good Things 216 2.18 0.39 (1.41, 2.95)Life Details control 220 1.62 0.42 (0.79, 2.44)213Table 41: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Exploratory Analysis 2c—shift from pre-intervention to follow-up in meaning inlifeSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 647) = 0.01 p = .944 .000Engagement with Beauty F(1, 647) = 1.75 p = .187 .003group F(3, 647) = 4.42 P = .004 .020condition F(2, 647) = 0.55 p = .580 .002group*condition F(6, 647) = 2.07 p = .055 .019Means: difference scores pre-follow meaning in lifeGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 294 0.49 0.30 (-0.09, 1.07)Ottawa 159 0.90 0.40 (0.12, 1.69)China 146 2.40 0.43 (1.55, 3.24)Online 62 1.15 0.65 (-0.12, 2.42)Condition N M S0.38E 95% CINoticing Nature 224 1.37 0.39 (0.61, 2.14)Three Good Things 215 0.90 0.38 (0.15, 1.66)Life Details control 222 1.43 0.41 (0.62, 2.23)214Table 42: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Exploratory Analysis 2d—shift from pre-intervention to follow-up in transcendent connectednessSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 639) = 0.50 p = .479 .001Engagement with Beauty F(1, 639) = 0.95 p = .331 .001group F(3, 639) = 3.36 P = .018 .016condition F(2, 639) = 2.40 p = .091 .007group*condition F(6, 639) = 0.23 p = .967 .002Means: difference scores pre-follow transcendent connectednessGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 287 0.69 0.34 (0.03, 1.36)Ottawa 158 1.57 0.45 (0.68, 2.46)China 14 2.17 0.48 (1.22, 3.12)Online 62 -0.12 0.73 (-1.55, 1.31)Condition N M S0.38E 95% CINoticing Nature 223 1.85 0.44 (0.98, 2.72)Three Good Things 213 0.90 0.43 (0.05, 1.74)Life Details control 217 0.49 0.47 (-0.43, 1.40)215Table 43: ANCOVA (group, condition, group*condition) for Exploratory Analysis 2e—shift from pre-intervention to follow-up in elevationSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 637) = 0.58 p = .446 .001Engagement with Beauty F(1, 637) = 0.46 p = .499 .001group F(3, 637) = 2.23 p = .084 .010condition F(2, 637) = 7.00 p = .001 .022group*condition F(6, 637) = 0.50 p = .806 .005Means: difference scores pre-follow elevationGroup N M SE 95% CIUBC 287 -0.06 0.88 (-1.79, 1.66)Ottawa 159 2.78 1.18 (0.47, 5.09)China 146 3.44 1.26 (0.97, 5.92)Online 59 1.35 1.96 (-2.50, 5.20)Condition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 218 5.42 1.17 (3.12, 7.72)Three Good Things 215 0.81 1.12 (-1.40, 3.01)Life Details control 218 -0.60 1.25 (-3.05, 1.86)216Table 44: ANCOVA (condition) for Exploratory Analysis 2e—shift from post-intervention to follow-up in elevationSource F Significance ηp2Implicit Theories of Well-Being F(1, 646) = 1.66 p = .198 .003Engagement with Beauty F(1, .646) = 0.84 p = .361 .001condition F(2, 646) = 7.49 p < .001 .023Means: difference scores pre-follow elevationCondition N M SE 95% CINoticing Nature 218 4.62 1.00 (2.66, 6.59)Three Good Things 215 0.67 1.01 (-1.31, 2.65)Life Details control 218 -0.64 1.00 (-2.60, 1.32)Post-hoc pairwise comparisonsComparison Significance, Effect Size, 95% CI Mean Difference, 95% CINoticing Nature – Three Good Things p = .017, d = 0.27 (0.08, 0.46) 3.95 (0.56, 7.35)Noticing Nature – Life Details control p = .001, d = 0.36 (0.17, 0.55) 5.26 (1.88, 8.65)Three Good Things – Life Details control p = .732, d = 0.09 (-0.10, 0.28) 1.31 (-2.08, 4.71)217Table 45: Summary of quantitative results Hypothesis 1: effects of condition on well-being and ill-beingPage Table Figure Hypothesis/ExploratoryDependent Variable significance, effect size, 95% confidence intervalsNoticing Nature – Three Good Things Noticing Nature – Life Details178, 179221, 23411, 12 1, 22 H1a pp: net-positive affect p = .693, d = 0.09 (-0.09, 0.27)non-inferior: p < .001, -Δd = 0.20p = .019, d = 0.25 (0.07, 0.44)180, 18122113, 14 2 H1b pp: satisfaction with life p = .036, d = 0.23 (0.05, 0.41) p = .200, d = 0.17 (-0.02, 0.35)182, 18322215, 16 3 H1c pp: meaning in life significant interaction group*conditionChina: p = .508, d = 0.22 (-0.13, 0.57) China: p = .048, d = 0.43 (0.07, 0.79)184, 18522217, 18 4 H1d pp: transcendent connectedness p < .001, d = 0.37 (0.19, 0.55) p = .031, d = 0.24 (0.06, 0.42)186, 18722319, 20 5 H1e pp: elevation p < .001, d = 0.54 (0.36, 0.73) p < .001, d = 0.62 (0.43, 0.80)18822321 6 H1f pp: depression effect of condition non-significant18922422 7 H1g pp: anxiety effect of condition non-significant190, 191224, 23523, 24 8, 23 H1h pp: stress p = .329, d = -0.14 (-0.32, 0.04)non-inferior: p < .001, -Δd = 0.20p = .028, d = -0.24 (-0.42, -0.06)pp = pre-intervention to post-intervention218Table 46: Summary of quantitative results Hypothesis 2: effects of condition on prosocialityPage Table Figure Hypothesis/ExploratoryDependent Variable significance, effect size, 95% confidence intervalsNoticing Nature – Three Good Things Noticing Nature – Life Details192, 19322525, 26 9 H2a pp: compassion significant interaction group*conditionUBC: p = .116, d = 0.29 (0.01, 0.58)China: p = .134, d = 0.35 (0.00, 0.70)UBC: p = .026, d = 0.37 (0.09, 0.65)China: p < .001, d = 0.76 (0.40, 1.13)19422527 10 H2b pp: persp. taking & empathic conc. effect of condition non-significant19522628 11 H2c pp: pro-environmental behaviour effect of condition non-significant19622629 12 H2d post: prosocial behaviour effect of condition non-significant197, 19822730, 31 13 H2e post: prosocial motivation significant interaction group*conditionUBC: p = .018, d = -0.30 (-0.54, -0.06) UBC: p = .867, d = 0.10 (-0.18, 0.37)pp = pre-intervention to post-intervention, persp. taking & empathic conc. =perspective taking & empathic concern219Table 47: Summary of quantitative results Hypothesis 3: effects of condition on self-concordant motivation to continue activityPage Table Figure Hypothesis/ExploratoryDependent Variable significance, effect size, 95% confidence intervalsNoticing Nature – Three Good Things Noticing Nature – Life Details199, 20022732, 33 14 H3 post: motivation to continue activity significant interaction group*conditionUBC: p = .988, d = -0.04 (-0.32, 0.24)Online: p = .010, d = 0.84 (0.26, 1.42)UBC: p = .045, d = 0.34 (0.0, 0.62)Online: p = .145, d = 0.53 (-0.09, 1.14)post = post-intervention220Table 48: Summary of quantitative results Hypothesis 4: effects of condition on days engaged in activity during during follow-upPage Table Figure Hypothesis/ExploratoryDependent Variable significance, effect size, 95% confidence intervalsNoticing Nature – Three Good Things Noticing Nature – Life Details200, 20122834, 35,3615 H4 f/u: # of days engaged in activity p < .001, d = 0.36 (0.18, 0.53) p < .001, d = 0.36 (0.1, 0.54)f/u = follow-up221Table 49: Summary of quantitative results exploratory analyses: effects of condition on time in nature and on well-being at follow-upPage Table Figure Hypothesis/ExploratoryDependent Variable significance, effect size, 95% confidence intervalsNoticing Nature – Three Good Things Noticing Nature – Life Details20422837 16 EA1 time in nature during intervention effect of condition non-significant250, 20622938, 39 17a, 17b EA2a pre-f/u: net-positive affect effect of condition non-significant20723040 18a, 18b EA2b pre-f/u: satisfaction with life effect of condition non-significant20823141 19a, 19b EA2c pre-f/u: meaning in life effect of condition non-significant20923242 20a, 20b EA2d pre-f/u: transcendent connectedness effect of condition non-significant210, 21123343, 44 21a, 21b EA2e pre-f/u: elevation p = .017, d = 0.27 (0.08, 0.46) p = .001, d = 0.36 (0.17, 0.55)pre-f/u: pre-intervention to follow-up222Table 50: Sample group statistics for hedonic and eudaimonic well-being used to conduct meta-analysesaspect of well-being sample NnatureMnatureSDnatureNcontrolMcontrolSDcontrolnet-positive affect NI-1 (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Canadian sample) 110 12.32 8.51 122 8.53 10.15 NI-II (Passmore & Yang, 2017; Chinese sample) 61 16.00 7.13 54 8.54 8.68 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – UBC) 103 10.13 10.90 102 8.57 10.48 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – Ottawa) 58 10.16 9.97 56 9.52 12.23 Ni-III (Current study; Chinese sample) 58 12.52 9.64 66 12.88 7.32 Ni-III (Current study; Online sample) 21 17.57 9.27 19 17.32 9.54satisfaction with life NI-II (Passmore & Yang, 2017; Chinese sample) 61 21.93 5.22 54 19.48 4.32 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – UBC) 103 24.74 5.77 102 24.55 6.09 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – Ottawa) 59 24.25 5.78 59 23.05 6.48 Ni-III (Current study; Chinese sample) 58 23.38 4.07 66 21.58 5.01 Ni-III (Current study; Online sample) 23 25.70 6.26 20 27.00 5.46meaning in life NI-1 (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Canadian sample) 116 48.00 14.77 130 46.26 15.98 NI-II (Passmore & Yang, 2017; Chinese sample) 61 24.08 4.68 54 22.07 5.05 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – UBC) 104 23.58 5.99 101 22.49 6.62 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – Ottawa) 58 22.71 6.97 60 22.55 7.25 Ni-III (Current study; Chinese sample) 58 24.16 4.92 66 23.08 5.15 Ni-III (Current study; Online sample) 24 24.96 6.22 20 27.05 4.99… table continued on next page223Table 50 continued: Sample group statistics for hedonic and eudaimonic well-being used to conduct meta-analysesaspect of well-being sample NnatureMnatureSDnatureNcontrolMcontrolSDcontroltranscendent connectedness NI-1 (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Canadian sample) 93 0.17 0.66 107 -0.12 0.68 NI-II (Passmore & Yang, 2017; Chinese sample) 61 26.67 5.02 54 24.35 5.74 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – UBC) 103 30.31 5.41 102 28.54 6.55 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – Ottawa) 58 27.95 6.18 59 27.02 7.18 Ni-III (Current study; Chinese sample) 58 28.10 4.45 66 26.5 4.64 Ni-III (Current study; Online sample) 24 28.33 9.51 20 29.5 5.92elevation NI-1 (Passmore & Holder, 2017; Canadian sample) 114 39.92 12.22 127 35.12 12.79 NI-II (Passmore & Yang, 2017; Chinese sample) 61 26.48 4.94 54 25.07 5.02 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – UBC) 104 57.40 14.93 101 48.35 16.11 Ni-III (Current study; Canadian sample – Ottawa) 59 53.07 15.70 57 48.67 20.22 Ni-III (Current study; Chinese sample) 58 61.60 11.45 66 57.00 9.61 Ni-III (Current study; Online sample) 24 55.79 20.39 18 58.06 17.02224Table 51: Summary of meta-analyses resultspage Figure aspect of well-being significance, effect size, 95% CI Rosenthal fail-safe n87 24a, 24b net-positive affect p = .035, d = 0.27 [0.02, 0.51] 2487 25a, 25b satisfaction with life p = .032, d = 0.21 [0.02, 0.40] 688 26a, 26b meaning in life p = .036, d = 0.14 [0.01, 0.28] 288 27a, 27b transcendent connectedness p < .001, d = 0.31 [0.17, 0.45] 2889 28a, 28b elevation p < .001, d = 0.38 [0.24, 0.52] 46225Table 52: Emotional themes emerging from qualitative data for Noticing Nature conditionPositive Emotional Themes Negative Emotional ThemesTheme # of Instances Theme # of InstancesPeaceful / Calm 815 Sad 236Happy 686 Annoyed / Irritated / Frustrated 92Awe 322 Lonely 57Joy 261 Nervous 52Rejuvenated 237 Tired 52Safe / Reassured / Comforted 206 Scared 37Connected 180 Shock 35Grateful 132 Angry 30Appreciative 109 Insignificant 13Nostalgic 107 Disasppointed 11Inspired 92 Confined 9Hopeful 84 Disgust 7Curious 76 Guilty 5Confident 72 Jealous 4Mindful 66Free 55Clear 54Kind 19Total Positive: 3573 Total Negative: 640226Figure 1: Hypothesis 1a—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for pre-post shifts in net-positive affectFigure 2: Hypothesis 1b—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for pre-post shifts in satisfaction with life227Figure 3: Hypothesis 1c—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions and group for pre-post shifts in meaning in lifeFigure 4: Hypothesis 1d—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for pre-post shifts in transcendent connectedness228Figure 5: Hypothesis 1e—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for pre-post shifts in elevationFigure 6: Hypothesis 1f—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for pre-post shifts in depression229Figure 7: Hypothesis 1g—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for pre-post shifts in anxietyFigure 8: Hypothesis 1h—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for pre-post shifts in stress230Figure 9: Hypothesis 2a—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions and groups forpre-post shifts in compassionFigure 10: Hypothesis 2b—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for pre-post shifts in perspective taking and empathic concern231Figure 11: Hypothesis 2c—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for pre-post shifts in pro-environmental behaviourFigure 12: Hypothesis 2d—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions at post-intervention in prosocial behaviour232Figure 13: Hypothesis 2e—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions and groups atpost-intervention in prosocial motivationFigure 14: Hypothesis 3—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions and groups at post-intervention in self-concordant motivation to continue with respective well-being activity233Figure 15: Hypothesis 4—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions at follow-up innumber of days engaged in well-being activity during follow-up weekFigure 16: Exploratory Analysis 1—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions for time spent in nature during intervention period234Figure 17: Exploratory Analysis 2a—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions in pre-followup shifts in net-positive affectpre post follow-up02468101214Noticing NatureThree Good ThingsLife Details / Controltime of measurementnet-positive affectFigure 18: Pre-post-followup means by group/condition for net-positive affect235Figure 19: Exploratory Analysis 2b—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions in pre-followup shifts in satisfaction with lifeFigure 20: Pre-post-followup means by group/condition for satisfaction with life.236pre post follow-up2020.52121.52222.52323.52424.525Noticing NatureThree Good ThingsLife Details / Controltime of measurementsatisfaction with lifeFigure 21: Exploratory Analysis 2c—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions in pre-followup shifts in meaning in lifeFigure 22: Pre-post-followup means by group/condition for meaning in life.237pre post follow-up21.52222.52323.524Noticing NatureThree Good ThingsLife Details / Controltime of measurementmeaning in lifeFigure 23: Exploratory Analysis 2d—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions in pre-followup shifts in transcendent connectednessFigure 24: Pre-post-followup means by group/condition for transcendent connectedness238pre post follow-up24.52525.52626.52727.52828.52929.5Noticing NatureThree Good ThingsLife Details / Controltime of measurementtranscendent connectednessFigure 25: Exploratory Analysis 2e—means and 95% confidence intervals across conditions in pre-followup shifts elevationFigure 26: Pre-post-followup means by group/condition for elevation239pre post follow-up424446485052545658Noticing NatureThree Good ThingsLife Details / Controltime of measurementelevationFigure 27: Non-inferiority test for difference between Noticing Nature and Three Good Things conditions in pre-post shift in net-positive affect240Figure 28: Non-inferiority test for difference between Noticing Nature and Three Good Things conditions in pre-post shift in stress.241Figure 29: Forest plot of meta-analysis for net-positive affect.Figure 30: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for net-positive affect.242Figure 31: Forest plot of meta-analysis for satisfaction with life.Figure 32: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for satisfaction with life.243Figure 33: Forest plot of meta-analysis for meaning in life.Figure 34: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for meaning in life.244Figure 35: Forest plot of meta-analysis for transcendent connectedness.Figure 36: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for transcendent connectedness.245Figure 37: Forest plot of meta-analysis for elevation.Figure 38: Funnel plot for meta-analysis for elevation.246Figure 39: Word cloud comparisons of emotional themes evoked by noticing nature across current and previous studies. Word size is proportionate to theme counts.247
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Comparing hedonic, eudaimonic, and social well-being benefits of engaging in noticing nature to benefits of engaging in a common positive psychology intervention
Text