The positive effect of nature connectedness on psychological wellbeing: the significance of trust as a mediator

31. Maddi, S. R. (2013). Hardiness: Turning stressful circumstances into resilient growth. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

32. Martens, D., Gutscher, H., & Bauer, N. (2011). Walking in “wild” and “tended” urban forests: The impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 36-44.

33. Martyn, P., & Brymer, E. (2016). The relationship between nature relatedness and anxiety. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(7), 1436-1445. doi:10.1177/1359105314555169 Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503-515.

34. 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(5), 607-643.

35. McCardle, P., McCline, S., Griffin, J. A., Esposito, L., & Freund, L.S. (Eds.). (2011). Animals in our lives: Human-animal interaction in family, community, and therapeutic settings. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Nimer, J., & Lundahl, B. (2007). Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-analysis. Anthrozoys, 20(3), 225-238. Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2013). The NR-6: a new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 813. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813 Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715-740.

36. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(2), 303-322. Ojala, M. (2005). Adolescents' worries about environmental risks: Subjective well-being, values, and existential dimensions. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(3), 331-347.

37. Ojala, M. (2012). How do children cope with global climate change? Coping strategies, engagement, and well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 225-233.

38. Ojala, M. (2017). Hope and anticipation in education for a sustainable future. Futures, 94, 76-84. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.10.004

39. Osin, E. N. (2007). Chuvstvo svjaznosni kak pokazatel psihologicheskogo zdorovja i ego diagnostika [Sense of coherence as psychological health indicator and its diagnostic]. Psichologicheskaja Diagnostika, 3, 22-40. (in Russian)

40. Osin, E. N., & Rasskazova, E. I. (2013). A short version of the Hardiness Test: Psychometric properties and organizational application. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 14. Psikhologiya, 2, 147-165. (in Russian)

41. Petzold, T. D. (2012). Urvertrauen, Misstrauen und Vertrauen [Basic trust, mistrust, and trust]. In Th. D. Petzold (Hrsg.), Vertrauensbuch zur Salutogenese (S. 12-25). Bad Gandersheim: Verlag Gesunde Entwicklung. (in German)

42. Ratcliffe, E., Gatersleben, B., & Sowden, P. T. (2013). Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 221-228.

43. Raudsepp, M. (2001).Values and environmentalism. TRAMES, 5(55/50)(3), 211-233.

44. Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

45. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.

46. Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudai- monia. Psychother Psychosom, 83, 10-28.

47. Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: the psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 62-78). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

48. Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 31-42.

49. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

50. Shevelenkova, T. D., & Fesenko, P. P. (2005). Psihologicheskoe blagopoluchie lichnosti (obzor osnovnyih kontseptsiy I metodika issledovaniy) [Psychological wellbeing of person]. Psihologicheskaya Diagnostika, 3, 95-123. (in Russian)

51. Skripkina, T. P. (2000). Psikhologiya doveriya [Psychology of trust]. Moscow: Academiya. (in Russian)

52. Steiger, J. H. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling (SEPATH). In Statistica 5 (Vol. III). Tulsa, OK: StatSoft Inc.

53. Stern, M. J., & Coleman, K. J. (2015). The multidimensionality of trust: Applications in collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 28(2), 117-132.

54. Summers, J. K., & Vivian, D. N. (2018). Ecotherapy - A forgotten ecosystem service: A review. Frontiers in Psychology. 9, 1389. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01389

55. Tam, K.-P. (2013, a). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64-78.

56. Tam, K.-P. (2013, b). Dispositional empathy with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 92-104.

57. 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(3), 201-230.

58. Von Lindern, E., Lymeus, F., & Hartig, T. (2017). The restorative environment: A complementary concept for salutogenesis studies. In M. B. Mittelmark, S. Sagy, M. Eriksson et al. (Eds.), The handbook of salutogenesis (pp. 181-195). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

59. Wells, N., & Evans, G. (2003). Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior, 35, 311-330.

60. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. The human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

61. Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 3-23.

62. Zelezny, L., Chua, P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating of gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443-457.

Abstract

Although the positive effect of nature connectedness (NC) on eudaimonic and hedonistic wellbeing is confirmed by numerous studies, the question of intrapersonal processes that determine such an impact remains open. Wilson's biophilia hypothesis points to the evolutionary background of NC, as this can be considered pre-trust as an evolutionarily formed trust to the ecological world, to life in its diverse manifestations (Petzold, 2012). It is suggested that pre-trust sets a vector of positive comprehension on what happens while NC actualizes pre-trust, thereby launching a `system of psychological wellbeing maintenance'. The hypothesis that trust is a mediator between NC and psychological well-being was tested in two studies. Multiple regression and mediation analysis, and structural equation modeling (SEM) were applied. Study 1 (the sample comprised 232 Ukrainian university students) confirmed the model of the NC influence on positive functioning (Ryff's Psychological well-being scale and Hardness test were applied) with trust as a mediator. Study 2 (the sample comprised 276 Ukrainian and Belarusian university students) showed that a latent variable manifested by trust and a sense of coherence index mediated the relationship between NC and subjective well-being. It is shown that trust in oneself is included in support of positive functioning, while subjective wellbeing is supported by experiencing the meaningfulness of life events. Limitations of the studies and their implications for conservation psychology are discussed.

Keywords: nature connectedness, trust, pre-trust, psychological wellbeing, subjective wellbeing, positive functioning, biophilia.

Хотя позитивные эффекты связанности с природой (СП) для психологического благополучия, рассматриваемого в эвдемонистическом и гедонистическом ракурсах, подтверждены многочисленными исследованиями, вопрос о внутриличностных процессах, объясняющих такое влияние, остается открытым. Гипотеза биофилии Уилсона указывает на эволюционную основу СП, в качестве которой может быть рассмотрено пра-доверие как эволюционно сформированное доверие к экологическому миру, к жизни в ее различных проявлениях (Petzold, 2012). Предполагается, что пра-доверие задает вектор позитивного осмысления происходящего, в то время как СП актуализирует доверие, создавая тем самым «систему поддержания психологического благополучия». Гипотеза, что доверие выступает медиатором между СП и психологическим благополучием, проверяется в двух исследованиях с применением множественного регрессионного анализа и моделирования структурными уравнениями (SEM). В исследовании 1 (выборку составили 232 украинских студента) подтверждается модель влияния СП на позитивное функционирование (операционализированное через Шкалу психологического благополучия Ryff и Тест жизнестойкости) с доверием как медиатором. Исследование 2 (выборка включала 276 украинских и белорусских студентов) показало, что латентная переменная, манифестированная показателями доверия и чувства связанности, опосредует отношения между СП и субъективным благополучием. Показано, что доверие к себе включается в поддержку позитивного функционирования, в то время как субъективное благополучие поддерживается переживанием осмысленности происходящего. Обсуждаются ограничения исследований, а также значение полученных результатов для психологии экосохранения.

Ключевые слова: связанность с природой, доверие, пра-доверие, психологическое благополучие, субъективное благополучие, позитивное функционирование, биофилия.

Размещено на Allbest.ru