| Literature DB >> 34832003 |
Migle Baceviciene1, Rasa Jankauskiene2, Viren Swami3,4.
Abstract
Research shows that nature exposure is directly and indirectly associated with more positive body image, which is an important facet of well-being more generally. In this study, we tested the mediating roles of physical activity in nature, perceived restoration in nature, autonomous motivation, and connectedness to nature in explaining the association between nature exposure and positive body image. An online sample of 924 Lithuanian adults (age M = 40.0 years, 73.6% women) completed a survey that included the Nature Exposure (NE) Scale, the Body Appreciation Scale-2, a measure of frequency of physical activity in nature (PAN), the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2, the Restoration Outcome Scale, and the Connectedness to Nature Scale. Path analysis was conducted to examine hypothesized direct and indirect effects. Results showed that both greater NE (B = 0.564, SE = 0.057, p < 0.001) and autonomy in exercise motivation (B = 0.039, SE = 0.006, p < 0.001) were associated with more frequent PAN. Direct effects from exercise autonomy to nature restorativeness (B = 0.017, SE = 0.006, p = 0.004) and body appreciation (B = 0.041, SE = 0.004, p < 0.001) were observed. Associations were also found between connectedness to nature and body appreciation (B = 0.166, SE = 0.040, p < 0.001), nature restorativeness and body appreciation (B = 0.075, SE = 0.019, p < 0.001), and frequency of PAN and body appreciation (B = 0.064, SE = 0.019, p < 0.001). PAN mediated the relationship between NE and body appreciation. The final model was invariant across place of residence (urban vs. rural) and gender. Including self-determined physical activity in nature may increase the effectiveness of intervention programs aimed at promoting more positive body image.Entities:
Keywords: body appreciation; connectedness to nature; nature exposure; physical activity in nature; restoration; self-determination
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34832003 PMCID: PMC8622969 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182212246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Hypothesized model of the associations between study variables. PAN = physical activity in nature.
Sample characteristics (n = 924).
| Characteristics |
| % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | men | 244 | 26.4 |
| women | 680 | 73.6 | |
| Age, years (m ± SD) 40.0 ± 12.4 | |||
| Education | secondary | 105 | 11.3 |
| in full time studies | 71 | 7.7 | |
| undergraduate degree | 385 | 41.7 | |
| postgraduate degree | 322 | 34.8 | |
| other | 41 | 4.5 | |
| Marital status | single | 170 | 18.4 |
| single but in a committed relationship | 159 | 17.2 | |
| married | 534 | 57.8 | |
| other | 61 | 6.6 | |
| Place of residence | capital city | 143 | 15.5 |
| capital suburb | 28 | 3.0 | |
| provincial city with more than 100,000 inhabitants | 318 | 34.4 | |
| provincial town with more than 10,000 inhabitants | 185 | 20.0 | |
| rural area | 250 | 27.1 | |
| Ethnicity | ethnic majority | 842 | 91.1 |
| ethnic minority | 27 | 2.9 | |
| not sure | 55 | 6.0 | |
| Financial security | less secure compared to others | 158 | 17.1 |
| same | 599 | 64.8 | |
| more secure compared to others | 167 | 18.1 | |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | underweight (<18.5 kg/m2) | 35 | 3.8 |
| normal weight (18.5–24.9 kg/m2) | 514 | 55.7 | |
| overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2) | 261 | 28.3 | |
| obesity (≥30.0 kg/m2) | 112 | 12.2 | |
m = mean, SD = standard deviation.
Comparison of the study variables (m ± SD) across urban vs. rural place of residence groups (n = 924).
| Variables | Urban | Rural |
| Cohen’s |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature exposure | 4.02 ± 0.72 | 4.28 ± 0.72 | −5.12 | −0.37 | <0.001 |
| Relative exercise autonomy | 9.25 ± 6.74 | 8.15 ± 7.30 | 2.16 | 0.16 | 0.031 |
| Frequency of PAN | 3.42 ± 1.30 | 3.72 ± 1.39 | −3.11 | −0.22 | 0.002 |
| Nature restorativeness | 5.40 ± 1.47 | 5.40 ± 1.57 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.99 |
| Connectedness to nature | 3.80 ± 0.71 | 3.84 ± 0.73 | −0.086 | −0.06 | 0.39 |
| Body appreciation | 3.75 ± 0.80 | 3.61 ± 0.92 | 2.18 | 0.17 | 0.03 |
PAN = physical activity in nature, m = mean, SD = standard deviation, CI = confidence interval, p = significance level.
Correlations between study variables (n = 924).
| Variables | NES | RAI | PAN | ROS | CNS | BAS-2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature Exposure Scale (NES) | 1 | |||||
| Exercise Autonomy Index (RAI) | 0.29 ** | 1 | ||||
| Frequency of Physical Activity in Nature (PAN) | 0.37 ** | 0.29 ** | 1 | |||
| Restoration Outcomes Scale (ROS) | 0.34 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.11 ** | 1 | ||
| Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) | 0.43 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.19 ** | 0.57 ** | 1 | |
| Body Appreciation Scale 2 (BAS-2) | 0.23 ** | 0.44 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.33 ** | 1 |
** p < 0.01.
Figure 2The final path model of the association between nature exposure and positive body image mediated by physical activity in nature (PAN), nature restorativeness and connectedness to nature with standardized estimates (n = 924). Note. All regression coefficients are significant (p < 0.01).
Summary of mediation analyses testing the indirect effect between study variables (n = 924).
| Paths | β (95% CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Nature exposure→connectedness to nature→nature restorativeness | 0.219 (0.181, 0.258) | 0.001 |
| RAI→nature restorativeness→body appreciation | 0.032 (0.015, 0.053) | 0.001 |
| Nature exposure→body appreciation (via PAN frequency, nature connectedness and nature restorativeness) | 0.137 (0.102, 0.171) | 0.001 |
| Connestedness to nature→nature restorativeness→body appreciation | 0.068 (0.033, 0.109) | 0.001 |
RAI = relative autonomy index, PAN = physical activity in nature, β = standardized effect coefficient, 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals for standardized effect, p = two-tailed significance.