We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance ( p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion ( p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.

Research suggests that contact with nature can be beneficial, for example leading to improvements in mood, cognition, and health. A distinct but related idea is the personality construct of subjective nature connectedness, a stable individual difference in cognitive, affective, and experiential connection with the natural environment. Subjective nature connectedness is a strong predictor of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors that may also be positively associated with subjective well-being. This meta-analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between nature connectedness and happiness. Based on 30 samples (n = 8523), a fixed-effect meta-analysis found a small but significant effect size (r = 0.19). Those who are more connected to nature tended to experience more positive affect, vitality, and life satisfaction compared to those less connected to nature. Publication status, year, average age, and percentage of females in the sample were not significant moderators. Vitality had the strongest relationship with nature connectedness (r = 0.24), followed by positive affect (r = 0.22) and life satisfaction (r = 0.17). In terms of specific nature connectedness measures, associations were the strongest between happiness and inclusion of nature in self (r = 0.27), compared to nature relatedness (r = 0.18) and connectedness to nature (r = 0.18). This research highlights the importance of considering personality when examining the psychological benefits of nature. The results suggest that closer human-nature relationships do not have to come at the expense of happiness. Rather, this meta-analysis shows that being connected to nature and feeling happy are, in fact, connected.

Disconnection from the natural world may be contributing to our planet's destruction. The authors propose a new construct, Nature Relatedness (NR), and a scale that assesses the affective, cognitive, and experiential aspects of individuals' connection to nature. In Study 1, the authors explored the internal structure of the NR item responses in a sample of 831 participants using factor analysis. They tested the construct validity of NR with respect to an assortment of environmental and personality measures. In Study 2, they employed experience sampling methodology examining if NR people spend more time outdoors, in nature. Across studies, NR correlated with environmental scales, behavior, and frequency of time in nature, supporting the reliability and validity of NR, as well as the contribution of NR (over and above other measures) to environmental concern and behavior. The potential of NR as a useful method for investigating human-nature relationships and the processes underlying environmental concern and behaviors are discussed.

The construct of (dis)connection with nature or “nature relatedness” has become increasingly useful in the study of environmental behavior as well as psychological health and well-being. Strong nature relatedness is associated with greater happiness and ecologically sustainable behavior. A number of scales reliably assess individual differences in nature relatedness, but some circumstances may necessitate a brief measure. We developed a short-form version of the nature relatedness scale (NR-6), comprised of 6 items from the “self” and “experience” dimensions, and tested the new scale's predictive ability across multiple samples and with longitudinal data in students, community members, and business people. The new NR-6 scale demonstrated good internal consistency, temporal stability, and predicted happiness, environmental concern, and nature contact. This new brief measure of connectedness may have advantages where time and space are limited and the research context requires an assessment of connectedness elements rather than environmental attitudes.

Nature relatedness, Happiness, Well-being, Positive affect, Vitality, Environmental attitudes, Environmental education,

Productivity, Positive affect, Negative affect, Job satisfaction, Life satisfaction, Quality of work life, Happiness, Emotions, Personality, Experience sampling,

No abstract

People enjoy acting extraverted, and this seems to apply equally across the dispositional introversion-extraversion dimension (Fleeson, Malanos, & Achille, 2002). It follows that dispositional introverts might improve their happiness by acting more extraverted, yet little research has examined potential costs of this strategy. In two studies, we assessed dispositions, randomly assigned participants to act introverted or extraverted, and examined costs-both emotional (concurrent negative affect) and cognitive (Stroop performance). Results replicated and extended past findings suggesting that acting extraverted produces hedonic benefits regardless of disposition. Positive affect increased and negative affect did not, even for participants acting out of character. In contrast, we found evidence that acting counterdispositionally could produce poor Stroop performance, but this effect was limited to dispositional extraverts who were assigned to act introverted. We suggest that the positive affect produced by introverts' extraverted behavior may buffer the potentially depleting effects of counterdispositional behavior, and we consider alternative explanations. We conclude that dispositional introverts may indeed benefit from acting extraverted more often and caution that dispositional extraverts may want to adopt introverted behavior strategically, as it could induce cognitive costs or self-regulatory depletion more generally.