Cited by 833Urban Green Space and HealthPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management

The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis

McMahan, Ethan A., Estes, David·2015·The Journal of Positive Psychology

Abstract

A growing body of empirical research suggests that brief contact with natural environments improves emotional well-being. The current study synthesizes this body of research using meta-analytic techniques and assesses the mean effect size of exposure to natural environments on both positive and negative affect. Thirty-two studies with a total of 2356 participants were included. Across these studies, exposure to natural environments was associated with a moderate increase in positive affect and a smaller, yet consistent, decrease in negative affect relative to comparison conditions. Significant heterogeneity was found for the effect of nature on positive affect, and type of emotion assessment, type of exposure to nature, location of study, and mean age of sample were found to moderate this effect. The implications of these findings for existing theory and research are discussed, with particular emphasis placed on potential avenues for fruitful future research examining the effects of nature on well-being.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17439760.2014.994224

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Affected populations may suffer from the repercussions that are tied to the decreased nature contact that is associated with WFS, through a deprivation of the opportunity to experience the anxiety and rumination reduction, social cohesion, and increases in positive affect that nature contact provides.

    “Additionally, affected populations may suffer from the repercussions that are tied to the decreased nature contact that is associated with WFS, through a deprivation of the opportunity to experience the anxiety and rumination reduction [26–28], social cohesion [29, 30], and increases in positive affect [31–33] that nature contact provides.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D.
Affiliations
  • Western Oregon University (US)
  • University of Wyoming (US)
Corresponding author
McMahan, Ethan A.
Venue
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Published
2015-01-13
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
507-519
ISSN
  • 1743-9760 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9779
OpenAlex
W1977048151
Cited by
833
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 113 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 118 · 2021: 109 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Journal of Positive Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Recreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Keywords
nature exposure, natural environment, positive affect, negative affect, emotional well-being, emotional recovery, effect size heterogeneity, moderators of effect size, emotion measurement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review