摘要Abstract
Mindfulness is crucial for the human-nature relationship. It increases nature connectedness, well-being, and pro-environmental behaviour, especially when mindful awareness is experienced in nature. To investigate how mindful engagement in nature can strengthen human and planetary well-being, research needs to focus on this specific intersection, using appropriate tools. This paper presents the fully pre-registered development and validation of a new self-report survey scale that assesses nature-specific mindfulness. An item pool of 74 items was created through a systematic literature review and the first round of a mixed-method expert Delphi study. In rounds two and three of the Delphi study, the item pool was reduced to 47 items based on content validity. After two pre-tests, the 47 items were administered, reduced, and evaluated using data from two online surveys presented to the same sample one month apart (N t1 = 350, N t2 = 306). The resulting 15-item mindful engagement in nature scale (MEINS) showed high internal and test-retest reliability, as well as discriminant validity to nature connectedness and general mindfulness. The MEINS was correlated with nature connectedness, mindfulness, well-being, and time spent in nature. Three sub-facets emerged during development: “Mind & Body in Nature”, “Noticing Nature”, and “Interbeing with Nature”. High factor correlations and an EFA and CFA with data from a different sample (N = 447), however, suggest unidimensionality. Results and theoretical underpinnings support the MEINS as an appropriate tool to deepen scientific understanding of the interconnections between nature and mindfulness.
正念（mindfulness）对人类与自然的亲密关系至关重要。它能增进自然联结（nature connectedness）、幸福感（well-being）与亲环境行为（pro-environmental behaviour），尤其是在自然中体验到正念觉察（mindful awareness）时。为了探究自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）如何能够强化人类与地球的福祉（human and planetary well-being），研究需要借助适当的工具，聚焦于这一特定交叉点。本文呈现了一项完全预注册（pre-registered）的新自评调查量表（scale）的开发与验证，该量表评估自然特异性的正念。通过系统的文献综述以及混合方法专家德尔菲研究（Delphi study）的第一轮，创建了包含 74 个条目的条目池（item pool）。在德尔菲研究的第二轮和第三轮中，基于内容效度（content validity），条目池被缩减至 47 个条目。经过两次预测试，这 47 个条目被施测、缩减，并利用同一批样本在一个月间隔内完成的两轮在线调查数据进行了评估（N t1 = 350，N t2 = 306）。最终形成的 15 条目自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS）显示出较高的内部信度与重测信度（test-retest reliability），并且相对于自然联结与一般正念具有区分效度（discriminant validity）。MEINS 与自然联结、正念、幸福感以及在自然中花费的时间均相关。在开发过程中出现了三个子面向：自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature）、觉察自然（Noticing Nature）以及与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature）。然而，较高的因子相关，以及基于另一批样本（N = 447）所做的探索性因子分析（EFA）和验证性因子分析（CFA），提示其具有单维性（unidimensionality）。研究结果及其理论基础支持将 MEINS 视为一种恰当的工具，用以深化关于自然与正念之间相互联系的科学理解。
Strengthening the human-nature relationship has been suggested as a global key leverage for human and planetary well-being (e.g. Capaldi et al., 2014; Richardson, Dobson, et al., 2020). Research repeatedly demonstrates the benefits of physical and psychological nature connections for individual well-being and pro-environmental behaviours (Barragan-Jason et al., 2023). However, to fully tap into the benefits of nature, it seems to be important how people interact with nature and how they perceive it (Farris et al., 2024; Richardson et al., 2021; Rozario et al., 2024). Mindfulness may play a crucial role in this how and has become a focus in research on both pro-environmental behaviours and restorative nature experiences. In nature-specific applications, mindfulness holds potential to create more meaningful and beneficial nature interactions, even under constrained circumstances, such as a predominantly built environment (Macaulay et al., 2022). However, the paradigms used to capture or manipulate mindful engagement in nature in interventions and research differ immensely (Burger et al., 2024). This incongruence between approaches and some deviations from essential aspects of mindfulness have been criticised and interpreted as a lack of theoretical underpinning for the concept of mindful engagement in nature (Macaulay et al., 2022). Mindful engagement in nature needs to be conceptualised and investigated in line with mindfulness theory, while incorporating a clear nature-specificity. This paper reports the development and validation of the Mindful Engagement in Nature Scale (MEINS), an instrument that allows specific research on the pathways between nature, mindfulness, well-being, and pro-environmental behaviour, as well as in-depth evaluation of nature-based mindfulness programmes. Mindfulness as a concept in contemporary psychology was adapted by John Kabat-Zinn in the 1970s from Asian spiritual practices (mainly Buddhism). This adaptation has led to a more pragmatic and less spiritual construct than in its origins (Lee et al., 2021; Walsh, 2016). Kabat-Zinn (2003) defines mindfulness as awareness generated through purposeful and non-judgemental attention towards the experience in the present moment. While originally designed to improve the quality of life in chronic pain patients (Kabat-Zinn, 1982), mindfulness has also found its place in other contexts, including environmental psychology.
强化人类与自然的关系被认为是实现人类与地球的福祉（human and planetary well-being）的一项全球性关键杠杆（例如 Capaldi 等, 2014；Richardson、Dobson 等, 2020）。研究反复证明，身体与心理层面的自然联结有益于个体的幸福感（well-being）与亲环境行为（Barragan-Jason 等, 2023）。然而，要充分挖掘自然的益处，人们如何与自然互动以及如何感知自然似乎十分重要（Farris 等, 2024；Richardson 等, 2021；Rozario 等, 2024）。正念（mindfulness）可能在"如何"这一问题上发挥关键作用，并已成为亲环境行为与恢复性（restorative）自然体验两方面的研究焦点。在自然特异性的应用中，正念具有创造更有意义、更有益的自然互动的潜力，即便在受限的情境下也是如此，例如在以建成环境为主的环境中（Macaulay 等, 2022）。然而，在干预与研究中所采用的、用以捕捉或操纵自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）的范式差异极大（Burger 等, 2024）。这种方法间的不一致，以及对正念某些本质方面的偏离，已受到批评，并被解读为自然中的正念投入这一概念缺乏理论根基（Macaulay 等, 2022）。自然中的正念投入需要依据正念理论进行概念化与研究，同时纳入清晰的自然特异性。本文报告了自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS）的开发与验证，该工具能够对自然、正念、幸福感与亲环境行为之间的路径，以及基于自然的正念项目的深入评估，开展专门研究。作为当代心理学中的一个概念，正念由 John Kabat-Zinn（卡巴金）于 1970 年代从亚洲精神修行（主要是佛教（Buddhism））中借鉴而来。这一借鉴使其相比起源形成了更务实、更少灵性的构念（Lee 等, 2021；Walsh, 2016）。Kabat-Zinn（2003）将正念定义为：通过对当下体验抱持有目的、非评判的注意而产生的觉察。虽然其最初旨在改善慢性疼痛患者的生活质量（Kabat-Zinn, 1982），但正念也已在包括环境心理学在内的其他领域中占据一席之地。
This environmental psychology research has primarily followed two paths: first, examining the relationships between mindfulness and environmentally relevant concepts, such as nature connectedness and pro-environmental behaviours; second, investigating the effects of combining mindfulness training with nature (Djernis et al., 2019).
环境心理学研究主要遵循两条路径：其一，考察正念（mindfulness）与环境相关概念（如自然联结（nature connectedness）与亲环境行为（pro-environmental behaviours））之间的关系；其二，探究将正念训练与自然相结合所产生的效应（Djernis 等, 2019）。
Reviews and meta-analyses of these two research strands suggest a reciprocal relationship: On the one hand, mindfulness has positive relationships to and effects on constructs that directly or indirectly have a positive impact on nature. On the other hand, these nature-specific constructs, as well as the sheer presence of nature, positively influence mindfulness and the effectiveness of mindfulness trainings in improving well-being (Djernis et al., 2019). Such constructs include pro-environmental behaviours and nature connectedness (Geiger et al., 2019; Schutte & Malouff, 2018). The concept of nature connectedness captures the human-nature relationship and describes a person's cognitive and emotional closeness to nature (Nisbet & Zelenski, 2013; Schultz, 2002). This includes feelings of happiness when perceiving nature, but also the idea of being part of nature rather than apart from nature (e.g. Richardson et al., 2019; Schultz, 2002). Several meta-analyses and cross-cultural studies suggest that nature connectedness is a central predictor for well-being and pro-environmental behaviour (e.g. Barragan-Jason et al., 2023; Capaldi et al., 2014; Pritchard et al., 2020; Wu & Jones, 2022; Barbett et al., 2026 ).
对这两条研究脉络的综述与元分析提示了一种互惠关系：一方面，正念（mindfulness）与那些直接或间接对自然产生积极影响的构念之间具有正向关系并产生正向效应。另一方面，这些自然特异性的构念，以及自然本身的在场，都会正向影响正念以及正念训练在提升幸福感（well-being）方面的有效性（Djernis 等, 2019）。此类构念包括亲环境行为（pro-environmental behaviours）与自然联结（nature connectedness）（Geiger 等, 2019；Schutte & Malouff, 2018）。自然联结这一概念把握了人类与自然的关系，并描述了个人对自然在认知与情感上的亲近感（Nisbet & Zelenski, 2013；Schultz, 2002）。这不仅包含感知自然时的幸福感，也包含"成为自然的一部分而非与自然分离"的观念（例如 Richardson 等, 2019；Schultz, 2002）。若干元分析与跨文化研究表明，自然联结是幸福感与亲环境行为的一个核心预测变量（例如 Barragan-Jason 等, 2023；Capaldi 等, 2014；Pritchard 等, 2020；Wu & Jones, 2022；Barbett 等, 2026）。
Pro-environmental behaviour loosely describes a group of goal-directed behaviours with positive impact on the environment, with recent research shifting its focus increasingly towards high-impact behaviours (Brick et al., 2024).
亲环境行为（pro-environmental behaviour）宽泛地描述了一组对环境具有积极影响的、以目标为导向的行为，近期研究正日益将焦点转向高影响行为（Brick 等, 2024）。
Regarding the effects of combining mindfulness trainings with nature two main issues can be identified: a lack of methodological and theoretical congruence between research approaches and interventions, and difficulties with a conceptualisation of mindfulness as a general, overarching construct. The first issue, the lack of congruence, appears in research on mindfulness interventions in nature. Such interventions consist of a wide range of approaches, which can be categorized into four groups (Burger et al., 2024): (1) mindfulness trainings with no adaptation beyond the setting, (2) conventional trainings changed to specifically address nature, (3) other activities that have mindful components and (4) therapeutic programmes that include mindfulness. Macaulay and colleagues (2022) further criticise that many interventions that may seem to address mindfulness at face value diverge from essential characteristics of mindfulness. They are calling for a clearly defined, theoretically and practically based approach to mindful engagement in nature.
关于将正念训练与自然相结合的效果，可以识别出两个主要问题：研究方法与干预之间缺乏方法论与理论层面的一致性，以及难以将正念概念化为一个总的、统摄性的构念。第一个问题，即一致性的缺乏，出现在关于自然中正念干预的研究中。此类干预包含多种方法，可归为四类（Burger 等, 2024）：（1）除设置场景外未作改编的正念训练，（2）为专门回应自然而调整的传统训练，（3）包含正念成分的其他活动，以及（4）包含正念的治疗性项目。Macaulay 及其同事（2022）进一步批评道，许多乍看之下似乎涉及正念的干预，实则偏离了正念的本质特征。他们呼吁建立一种清晰界定、基于理论与实践的自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）路径。
The second issue, regarding conceptualisation, emerges from the chosen assessments of mindfulness in research on mindful engagement in nature. Often, mindfulness is assessed only as a general, overarching trait construct. This may result in an incomplete understanding of how mindfulness works in relation to nature and environmental variables (Thiermann & Sheate, 2021). For example, the relationship between mindfulness and nature connectedness likely does not apply to all aspects of mindfulness. Instead, recent research suggests, this relationship only exists for specific facets, mainly the practice of decentring (Macaulay et al., 2024; Sanyer et al., 2023). Decentring refers to a deidentification from one's current subjective experience. For example, rather than viewing one's thoughts as a perpetual truth, an individual practicing decentring would view them as temporary reactions (Baer, 2009). Decentring allows individuals to remove themselves from the immersion in their own experiences. By instead redirecting attention towards nature, as an external phenomenon, a deeper sense of connection to nature can be achieved (Sanyer et al., 2023).
第二个问题，关于概念化，源自在自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）研究中选取的正念评估方式。通常，正念仅被评估为一个总的、统摄性的特质构念。这可能导致人们对正念如何作用于自然与环境变量产生不完整的理解（Thiermann & Sheate, 2021）。例如，正念与自然联结（nature connectedness）之间的关系，很可能并不适用于正念的所有方面。相反，近期研究表明，这种关系仅存在于特定面向，主要是去中心化（decentring）的练习（Macaulay 等, 2024；Sanyer 等, 2023）。去中心化指的是对个体当前主观体验的去认同（deidentification）。例如，练习去中心化的个体不会将自己的想法视为恒久的真理，而是将其视为暂时的反应（Baer, 2009）。去中心化使个体得以从自身经验的沉浸中抽离出来。转而将注意导向作为外部现象的自然，则能够达成一种更深层的与自然相联结的感受（Sanyer 等, 2023）。
Addressing factors such as decentring in a more general way, however, may still not capture in-depth how people engage mindfully in nature and how this engagement relates to other relevant constructs and theories. Macaulay and colleagues (2022) have created a theoretical framework for mindful engagement in nature. They highlight the importance of (1) internal and external awareness towards experience in nature and natural stimuli, (2) decentring to identify more clearly with the natural environment, and (3) non-reactivity to one's experience in nature and the nature that is encountered. They propose that these aspects support pathways to nature connectedness, as found by Lumber et al. (2017), for example, by increasing contact through awareness.
然而，以更为一般的方式去处理去中心化等因素，仍可能无法深入把握人们如何在自然中正念地投入，以及这种投入如何与其他相关构念和理论相联系。Macaulay 及其同事（2022）已经为自然中的正念投入创建了一个理论框架。他们强调了以下方面的重要性：（1）对自然中体验及自然刺激的内外部觉察（awareness），（2）用以更清晰地认同自然环境的去中心化，以及（3）对自然中的体验以及所遭遇的自然的非反应性（non-reactivity）。他们提出，这些方面支持通向自然联结的路径，正如 Lumber 等（2017）所发现的那样——例如，通过觉察来增进接触。
Further, they propose that mindful engagement in nature can enhance restorative experiences in nature, according to the Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995). Here, mindful engagement in nature may support the perception of an environment as restorative through properties of the person-environment transaction, such as a perceptual sensitivity heightening a fascination quality (Hartig, 1993; Kaplan, 1995).
此外，他们提出，根据注意恢复理论（Attention Restoration Theory）（Kaplan, 1995），自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）能够增强自然中的恢复性（restorative）体验。在此，自然中的正念投入可以通过人—环境交互（person-environment transaction）的属性——例如一种能够强化迷恋（fascination）特质的感知敏感性——来支持将某环境感知为具有恢复性（Hartig, 1993；Kaplan, 1995）。
Based on this framework, we define mindful engagement in nature as a form of mindfulness that is specific to nature in its internal and external awareness, its decentring, and its non-reactivity. This nature specificity is key in conceptualising this construct as a relevant variable that can hold practical and theoretical value beyond general conceptualisations of mindfulness. For internal awareness (1a), this means to actively pay attention to one's internal states in nature, such as thoughts that arise from seeing a tree. For external awareness (1b), it means to guide one's senses towards nature, to attentively listen to the sounds of leaves rustling, to smell a flower. Decentring (2) can be applied to nature both in the first steps of classifying one's experiences in nature as reactions to nature but also in the further step, which touches on ideas of a cognitive understanding and experience of deep interconnectedness (Van Gordon et al., 2018). Thus, it can range from being able to discern that listening to a bird is evoking feelings of happiness instead of just immersing oneself in those feelings to a sense of being one with nature. Non-reactivity (3) could express itself in a nature-specific way, by nature helping people to let go of thoughts, but also in acceptance of nature being "as it is".
基于这一框架，我们将自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）定义为一种对自然具有特异性的正念（mindfulness）形式，体现在其内外部觉察、其去中心化以及其非反应性之中。这种自然特异性是将该构念概念化为一个具有实践与理论价值的相关变量的关键，其价值超越了一般性的正念概念化。就内部觉察（internal awareness，1a）而言，这意味着主动关注自己在自然中的内在状态，例如看到一棵树时所生起的念头。就外部觉察（external awareness，1b）而言，这意味着将感官导向自然，专注地聆听树叶沙沙作响的声音，去嗅一朵花。去中心化（decentring，2）既可应用于自然，既体现在将自己在自然中的体验归类为对自然的反应的最初步骤中，也体现在更进一步的步骤中——后者触及对深层互联性（interconnectedness）的认知理解与体验（Van Gordon 等, 2018）。因此，它既可表现为能够分辨"听鸟鸣唤起的是幸福感，而非仅仅沉浸于这些感受"，也可表现为一种与自然合一的感受。非反应性（non-reactivity，3）可以一种自然特异性的方式表现出来：自然帮助人们放下念头，同时也表现为接纳自然"如其本然（as it is）"。
There may be some overlap between certain aspects of nature-specific mindfulness and nature connectedness. Work that builds on existing mindfulness practice has highlighted a feeling of deep interconnection with nature, especially one that goes beyond mere interdependence or preference, as part of nature-related mindfulness practice (Macaulay et al., 2023; Van Gordon et al., 2018). However, mindful engagement has crucial differences in its conceptualisation, marking it as a separate variable. Mindful engagement in nature and nature connectedness differ in the following ways: While nature-specific internal and external awareness are crucial for fostering nature connectedness, by tapping into the five pathways (Lumber et al., 2017), they are conceptually distinct. Lumber et al. (2017) highlight the importance of contact, beauty, meaning, emotion, and compassion as key pathways to foster nature connectedness. While some pathways conceptually diverge from mindfulness, mindful engagement in nature holds the potential to foster each pathway (Macaulay et al., 2022). For example, external awareness in mindfulness aligns with the pathway of contact, defined as a sense-based engagement with nature (Lumber et al., 2017; Macaulay et al., 2022). And internal awareness may help people to become aware of the pathway of emotion, which is concerned with affective experiences as a result of nature contact (Lumber et al., 2017). Some emotions, such as happiness in nature, are also sometimes directly included in nature connectedness measurements (e.g. NCI, Richardson et al., 2019). But in the approach to these emotions lies an important difference between nature connectedness and mindful engagement in nature. Nature connectedness focuses on the experience of specific emotions, while for mindful engagement in nature it is not important which emotion is experienced, but rather that one pays attention to this emotion. The decentring component in mindful engagement in nature also moves the experience of emotions away from immersion. Instead, the experienced emotion is recognised as a temporary reaction to nature. An additional difference are positive attributions to nature or affinity towards nature, a crucial aspect of nature connectedness (e.g. "my ideal vacation spot", NR-6, Nisbet & Zelenski, 2013; "really amazing", NCI, Richardson et al., 2019). This is in direct opposition to the central concepts of non-reactivity and non-judgement in mindfulness (Macaulay et al., 2022).
自然特异性的正念（mindfulness）与自然联结（nature connectedness）的某些方面之间，可能存在着一些重叠。建立在既有正念练习之上的研究已经强调，与自然深层互联（interconnection）的感受——尤其是超越单纯的相互依存或偏好之上的那种感受——是自然相关正念练习的一部分（Macaulay 等, 2023；Van Gordon 等, 2018）。然而，正念投入（mindful engagement）在其概念化上存在关键差异，使其成为一个独立的变量。自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）与自然联结在以下方面有所不同：尽管自然特异性的内外部觉察对于借助五条路径（Lumber 等, 2017）来培养自然联结至关重要，但二者在概念上是截然不同的。Lumber 等（2017）强调了接触（contact）、美感（beauty）、意义（meaning）、情感（emotion）与怜悯（compassion）作为培养自然联结的关键路径的重要性。尽管某些路径在概念上偏离了正念，自然中的正念投入却具有培养每一条路径的潜力（Macaulay 等, 2022）。例如，正念中的外部觉察与接触路径相一致，后者被定义为一种基于感官的自然投入（Lumber 等, 2017；Macaulay 等, 2022）。而内部觉察可能帮助人们觉察到情感路径，该路径关乎由自然接触所引发的情感体验（Lumber 等, 2017）。某些情绪，例如自然中的幸福感，有时也被直接纳入自然联结的测量之中（例如 NCI，Richardson 等, 2019）。然而，在对待这些情绪的方式上，自然联结与自然中的正念投入之间存在着重要差异。自然联结聚焦于特定情绪的经验，而对于自然中的正念投入而言，体验到的是何种情绪并不重要，重要的是个体是否留意到了这一情绪。自然中的正念投入中的去中心化成分，还将情绪体验从沉浸中移开；相反，被体验到的情绪被识别为对自然的一种暂时反应。另一个差异在于对自然的积极归因或亲近感，这是自然联结的一个关键方面（例如"my ideal vacation spot"，NR-6，Nisbet & Zelenski, 2013；"really amazing"，NCI，Richardson 等, 2019）。这与正念中本是非反应性（non-reactivity）与非评判（non-judgement）的核心理念直接相悖（Macaulay 等, 2022）。
A clear conceptualisation of mindful engagement in nature is not only highly relevant in the development of theoretically congruent interventions, but also important for research investigating the interaction between nature and mindfulness and its role for human and planetary well-being. However, a measurement tool that addresses nature-specific mindfulness is still missing.
对自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）的清晰概念化，不仅在开发理论一致的干预措施方面高度相关，对于探究自然与正念（mindfulness）之间的互动及其对人类与地球的福祉（human and planetary well-being）的作用的研究也同样重要。然而，目前仍缺乏一种能够处理自然特异性正念的测量工具。
本研究1. The present research
This paper addresses this gap and introduces the newly developed self-report "Mindful Engagement in Nature Scale" (MEINS). The scale development included an item development phase consisting of deductive literature search and inductive expert surveys, followed by item evaluation through expert review and pilots for wording pre-tests (see Fig. 1 for the full development and validation process). Following this, the item pool was reduced and validated in three studies. Studies 1 and 2 investigated the same sample one month apart, while Study 3 employed a different sample. Study 1 presents the item reduction and an exploratory factor analysis, as well as internal reliability tests. Study 2 investigates test-retest reliability and the relationship of the MEINS with validation constructs. Study 3 presents both an exploratory and a confirmatory factor analysis, using a slightly adjusted Likert scale. For validation, concepts that are expected to be related to yet separate from mindful engagement in nature were included. General mindfulness, nature connectedness, and well-being measurements were included in Study 2. Perceived biodiversity, duration and environmental quality in the context of a walk were included in Study 3. All concepts are expected to be positively related to mindful engagement in nature. For nature connectedness and well-being this assumption is based on their positive relation to mindfulness, specifically in nature settings (Djernis et al., 2019; Schutte & Malouff, 2018). For mindfulness, this is based on mindful engagement in nature being derived from mindfulness. For the context-based variables, it is likely that people with higher mindful engagement in nature spend their time differently and experience nature and biodiversity more intensely (Macaulay et al., 2020). As described above, it is important, that a measurement tool for mindful engagement in nature shows conceptual distinctness from general mindfulness and nature connectedness. Therefore, divergent validity for these two concepts was investigated.
本文旨在填补这一空白，并介绍新近编制的自陈式"自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS）"（MEINS）。量表（scale）的编制包括一个条目（item）开发阶段，该阶段由演绎式文献检索与归纳式专家调查构成，随后通过专家评审（expert review）与用于措辞（wording）预测试（pre-test）的预测试（pilot study）进行条目（item）评估（完整的编制与验证流程见图 1）。在此之后，条目池（item pool）被缩减，并在三项研究中得到验证。研究 1 与研究 2 考察的是同一批样本（相隔一个月），而研究 3 采用了不同的样本。研究 1 呈现了条目（item）删减过程与一项探索性因子分析（EFA），以及内部信度（internal reliability）检验。研究 2 考察了重测信度（test-retest reliability），以及 MEINS 与验证构念之间的关系。研究 3 呈现了一项探索性因子分析（EFA）与一项验证性因子分析（CFA），并采用了略作调整的李克特（Likert）量表（scale）。在验证方面，研究纳入了那些预期与自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）相关却又彼此独立的概念。一般正念（mindfulness）、自然联结（nature connectedness）与幸福感（well-being）的测量被纳入研究 2。在散步情境下感知到的生物多样性、时长以及环境质量被纳入研究 3。所有概念均预期与自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）呈正相关。对于自然联结（nature connectedness）与幸福感（well-being），这一假设基于它们与正念（mindfulness）的正向关系，尤其是在自然情境中（Djernis et al., 2019; Schutte & Malouff, 2018）。就正念（mindfulness）而言，这一假设基于自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）源自正念（mindfulness）。就基于情境的变量而言，具有更高自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）的人很可能以不同的方式安排时间，并更强烈地体验自然与生物多样性（Macaulay et al., 2020）。如上所述，用于测量自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）的工具应当显示出与一般正念（mindfulness）和自然联结（nature connectedness）在概念上的区分性，这一点十分重要。因此，本研究对这两个概念进行了区分效度（discriminant validity / divergent validity）的检验。
All steps of the scale construction and validation were pre-registered, and ethical approval was granted by the FernUniversität in Hagen ethics committee prior to data collection. All points of data collection, including the expert review, included informed consent for participation, before the survey, and consent for use of data after participation and presentation of the debrief.
量表（scale）构建与验证的所有步骤均进行了预注册（pre-registered），并在数据收集之前获得了哈根 FernUniversität（费恩大学）伦理委员会的伦理批准。所有数据收集环节，包括专家评审（expert review），均在调查前包含了参与者的知情同意，并在参与者完成调查及获知研究说明（debrief）之后，包含了数据使用同意。
条目生成与专家评审2. Item generation and expert review
Item generation was conducted both deductively and inductively. A deductive literature search on the academic databases PsychINFO and PsychArticles for scientific literature, as well as Google for grey literature, was executed independently by two researchers using the Boolean term "(Mindful* OR Aware* OR Engage* OR Notice*) AND Nature*". The results of both researchers were compared, and any divergence was discussed before adoption into the item pool. The inductive phase was combined with a Subject Matter Expert Review for content validity through a mixed-methods Delphi study.
条目（item）的生成以演绎与归纳两种方式开展。由两名研究者独立使用布尔检索词"（Mindful* OR Aware* OR Engage* OR Notice*）AND Nature*"在学术数据库 PsychINFO 与 PsychArticles 上进行科学文献的演绎式文献检索，并在 Google 上进行灰色文献检索。在纳入条目池（item pool）之前，两名研究者的结果经过了比对，任何分歧均经讨论后才被采纳。归纳阶段与通过混合方法德尔菲研究（Delphi study）针对内容效度（content validity）所开展的专家评审（expert review）相结合。
Nine experts from research and practice responded to the first qualitative round. In this round, the respondents were asked to provide up to five items that they deemed important for the MEINS. All respondents had expertise in nature-related mindfulness through at least one, but in most cases two or more of the following backgrounds: psychological researcher with a nature and mindfulness focus, mindfulness practitioner and community organiser with an environmental focus, outdoor educator with a mindfulness focus, as well as further environment-related occupations. After the literature search, which included items from 32 papers, and expert Delphi round one, the item pool comprised a total of 73 items.
来自研究与实务领域的九名专家参与了第一轮质性调查。在这一轮中，受访者被要求提供最多五个他们认为对 MEINS 十分重要的条目（item）。所有受访者均通过以下背景中的至少一种（但在大多数情况下为两种或更多）具备与自然相关的正念（mindfulness）方面的专长：关注自然与正念（mindfulness）的心理学研究者、具有环境取向的正念（mindfulness）践行者与社群组织者、关注正念（mindfulness）的户外教育者，以及其他与环境相关的职业。在纳入了来自 32 篇论文的条目（item）的文献检索以及专家德尔菲（Delphi）第一轮之后，条目池（item pool）共包含 73 个条目（item）。
Two quantitative Delphi rounds followed, where eight experts indicated their assessment of each item's importance on a 5-Point Likert scale (1 = not at all important – 5 = very important). In the expert Delphi round two, the first quantitative round, all experts also had the option to comment on their decision for each item.
随后进行了两轮定量德尔菲（Delphi）调查，八名专家在 5 点李克特（Likert）量表（scale）上就每个条目（item）的重要性作出评估（1 = 一点也不重要 – 5 = 非常重要）。在专家德尔菲（Delphi）第二轮（即首轮定量调查）中，所有专家亦可就其对每个条目（item）所作出的决策进行评论。
Figure 1 图 1 Overview of the scale development process and involved data collections.量表编制流程与相关数据收集的概览
Consensus to retain an item in the pool was established when ≥ 70% chose a response above 3 while only ≤ 15% chose a response below 3 (Dragostinov et al., 2022; Fackrell et al., 2017; Williamson et al., 2012). Consensus to delete followed the reverse criteria. In round two, 41 of the 73 items did not reach consensus. Additionally, one new item was submitted via the comment section, leading to a total of 74 items in the initial item pool. The new item and the 41 items that had not reached consensus in round two were rated again in the expert Delphi round three. Rating followed the same procedure as round two, with the amendment of the display of expert rating and comments from round two for each applicable item. The same consensus criteria were applied after round three. Items that did not reach consensus were removed from the item pool. The final item pool after the expert review consisted of 47 items. Item generation and reduction can be traced in detail in Supplementary Material A.
当 ≥ 70% 的专家建议选择 3 以上的回应、且仅有 ≤ 15% 选择 3 以下的回应时，即确立将该条目（item）保留在条目池（item pool）中的共识（Dragostinov et al., 2022; Fackrell et al., 2017; Williamson et al., 2012）。删除的共识遵循相反的标准。在第二轮中，73 个条目（item）中有 41 个未达成共识。此外，通过评论区提交了一个新条目（item），使得初始条目池（item pool）中的条目（item）总数达到 74 个。该新条目（item）以及在第二轮中未达成共识的 41 个条目（item）在专家德尔菲（Delphi）第三轮中再次被评分。评分沿用与第二轮相同的程序（procedure），并增加了针对每个适用条目（item）所展示的第二轮专家评分与评论。第三轮之后应用了相同的共识标准。未达成共识的条目（item）被移出条目池（item pool）。专家评审（expert review）之后的最终条目池（item pool）由 47 个条目（item）组成。条目（item）的生成与删减情况可在补充材料 A（Supplementary Material A）中详细追溯。
预测试研究3. Pilot studies
To test the wording of the items, 125 participants responded to a pilot study. Following preregistered exclusion criteria, 24 participants were removed from the sample because they stated to regularly practice mindfulness or were native English speakers. Of the remaining sample, 47 participants had a self-assessed English reading level of B2, 54 participants had a level below B2. For gender, 20% of the respondents identified as men, 76% as women, 1% chose not to disclose their gender, 1% identified as agender, and 2% provided their own gender descriptors. They were between 19 and 72 years old, M = 29.32, SD = 11.08. Participants indicated on a 4-Point Likert scale for each item how easy it was for them to understand (1 = not understandable – 4 = very easy to understand). Further, for each item, there was the option to leave a comment on what makes an item unclear. In the analysis, all items with at least 1% of responses indicating a 1 on the Likert scale or at least 10% indicating a 2 on the Likert scale were reviewed and reworded where appropriate. Amongst the B2 level participants, no item fell into this criterion. However, due to the high number of people indicating their reading level below B2, those participants were considered as well, in addition to the preregistered procedure. In this group, 12 Items were below the threshold. These items, as well as four items showing the same wording as identified as difficult in the comments of the below threshold items, were reworded slightly to enhance the reading ease of the items (see Supplementary Material A).
为了测试条目（item）的措辞（wording），125 名参与者回应了一项预测试（pilot study）。根据预注册（pre-registered）的排除标准，24 名参与者被剔除出样本，原因是他们表示会定期练习正念（mindfulness）或是英语母语者。在剩余的样本中，47 名参与者的英语阅读水平自评达到 B2，54 名参与者的水平低于 B2。就性别而言，20% 的受访者认定为男性，76% 为女性，1% 选择不披露其性别，1% 认定为无性别（agender），2% 提供了自己的性别描述。他们的年龄在 19 至 72 岁之间，M = 29.32，SD = 11.08。参与者在 4 点李克特（Likert）量表（scale）上就每个条目（item）对他们而言的理解难易程度作出指示（1 = 无法理解 – 4 = 非常容易理解）。此外，对于每个条目（item），均可选择就使其不清楚之处留言评论。在分析中，所有至少有 1% 的回应表明在李克特（Likert）量表（scale）上选择 1、或至少有 10% 的回应表明选择 2 的条目（item）均被审查，并在适当处进行了重新措辞（reworded）。在 B2 水平的参与者中，没有条目（item）落入该标准。然而，由于有大量参与者表明其阅读水平低于 B2，除预注册（pre-registered）程序（procedure）外，这些参与者也被纳入考量。在该群体中，有 12 个条目（item）低于阈值。这些条目（item），以及四个在低于阈值的条目（item）评论中被指认为困难的、措辞（wording）相同的条目（item），均被轻微重新措辞（reworded），以提升条目（item）的阅读轻松度（见补充材料 A）。
Following this rewording, a second pilot study was conducted with only the newly worded items. Of the 28 respondents to the second pilot, three were removed for self-reported regular mindfulness practice. Of the remaining 25 participants, 76% identified as women, 20% as men, and 4% as non-binary. They were between 18 and 54 years old, M = 26.6, SD = 7.8. For English proficiency 28% had a self-assessed level of at least B2. No item fell into the previously outlined criteria for rewording, for either the whole group or the proficiency subgroups (at least B2, below B2). Thus, the 47 items were kept in the item pool for the scale development phase.
在此次重新措辞（reworded）之后，仅使用新措辞（wording）的条目（item）开展了第二次预测试（pilot study）。在第二次预测试（pilot study）的 28 名受访者中，3 名因自我报告定期练习正念（mindfulness）而被剔除。在剩余的 25 名参与者中，76% 认定为女性，20% 为男性，4% 为非二元性别（non-binary）。他们的年龄在 18 至 54 岁之间，M = 26.6，SD = 7.8。就英语熟练度而言，28% 的人自评水平至少达到 B2。无论是整体群体还是熟练度子群体（至少 B2、低于 B2），都没有条目（item）落入先前所述的重新措辞（reworded）标准。因此，这 47 个条目（item）被保留在条目池（item pool）中，进入量表（scale）的开发阶段。
研究 1——量表编制4. Study 1 – scale development
方法4.1. Methods
参与者4.1.1. Participants
Using the platform "Prolific", 351 participants were recruited for the first study and received monetary compensation for their responses. One participant was recorded by Prolific as a successful completion, but their data were not captured in the survey system, leading to an initial dataset with 350 participants.
本研究使用 "Prolific" 平台招募了 351 名参与者参与第一项研究，并因其作答获得了金钱报酬。Prolific 记录了一名参与者成功完成研究，但其数据未被调查系统捕获，因此初始数据集包含 350 名参与者。
Of these participants, 13 were removed to enhance data quality, based on lack of self-reported seriousness (n = 1), response times with a z-value outside ± 2.39 (n = 9), and straightlining outside of the midpoint on sections containing a reverse-coded item (n = 3).
为提高数据质量，剔除了其中 13 名参与者，依据为：缺乏自我报告的认真度（n = 1）、作答时间的 z 值超出 ± 2.39（n = 9），以及在含有反向编码条目的部分中出现偏离中点的直线作答（n = 3）。
Thus, 337 participants were included in the analysis. Of these participants, 50.15% identified as women, 48.07% as men, 1.19% as non-binary, and 0.59% chose not to disclose their gender.
因此，共有 337 名参与者被纳入分析。在这些参与者中，50.15% 认同为女性，48.07% 为男性，1.19% 为非二元性别者，0.59% 选择不披露其性别。
Participants were between 18 and 73 years old, M = 36.9, SD = 12.5. A total of 143 (42.43%) participants indicated that they practice mindfulness regularly, 121 (35.91%) that they practice mindfully rarely, 71 (21.07%) did not practice mindfulness, and 2 (0.59%) participants did not disclose their mindfulness practice.
参与者年龄在 18 至 73 岁之间，M = 36.9，SD = 12.5。共有 143 人（42.43%）表示经常进行正念（mindfulness）练习，121 人（35.91%）表示很少进行正念练习，71 人（21.07%）不进行正念练习，2 人（0.59%）未披露其正念练习情况。
The self-estimated average weekly nature contact was within 0 and 150 h, with M = 11.34 and SD = 18.45. Responses (n = 5) that were either missing or indicated a number of hours that was outside of the possible range were not included in the Mean and Standard Deviation.
参与者自我估计的每周自然接触时间在 0 至 150 小时之间，M = 11.34，SD = 18.45。缺失或所填小时数超出可能范围的作答（n = 5）未被纳入均值与标准差的计算。
Further demographic variables for all three studies are reported in Supplementary Material B.
全部三项研究的其他人口统计学变量详见补充材料 B。
材料与程序4.1.2. Materials & procedure
Data was collected in an online survey, Prolific IDs were captured both automatically and as a question to match data between studies 1 and 2.
数据通过一项在线调查收集，Prolific 的 ID 既被自动捕获，也作为一道题目被记录，以便在研究 1 与研究 2 之间匹配数据。
Participants were first asked about their gender, age, nature contact, and mindfulness practice. For gender, participants could indicate their identity as either men, women, non-binary, agender, or other, with the option to use a self-descriptor.
参与者首先被询问其性别、年龄、自然接触情况以及正念练习情况。就性别而言，参与者可将其身份标识为男性、女性、非二元性别者、无性别者或其他，并可使用自我描述选项。
There was also the option to not disclose one's gender. Nature contact was assessed as the average hours spent in nature per week using an open response format.
同时也提供了不披露性别的选项。自然接触以开放式作答形式评估，即每周在自然中停留的平均小时数。
No strict definition of nature was provided; instead, participants were asked to use the time that they felt counted as "in nature" based on their own definition of nature.
研究未提供对自然的严格定义；相反，研究者要求参与者基于自己对自然的定义，自行判断哪些时间应计入「身处自然之中」。
Following these questions, the 47 items, as worded after the second pilot, were provided in a random order. These items were phrased as statements in the first person, describing a range of possible states, behaviours, and attitudes in relation to nature. This included statements, such as "I allow my attention to be drawn to the sights, sounds, and smells of nature, one sense at a time." or "Being in nature helps me reflect on my life." The response format, a 5-Point Likert Scale ranging from 'never or very rarely true' to 'very often or always true', was based on the 15-item Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer et al., 2012).
在上述问题之后，以随机顺序呈现了经第二次预测试后措辞确定的 47 个条目。这些条目以第一人称陈述句的形式表述，描述了与自然相关的一系列可能状态、行为及态度。其中包括诸如「我让自己的注意力被自然的景象、声音与气味所吸引，一次一种感官」或「身处自然有助于我反思自己的人生」之类的陈述。作答采用 5 点李克特（Likert）量表，从「从不或极少为真」到「经常或总是为真」，其形式基于 15 条目五方面正念问卷（Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire；Baer 等，2012）。
分析4.1.3. Analysis
Analysis was conducted in R (R Core Team, 2024). The first step was an item reduction based on an item-total correlation threshold of r = 0.30 and investigation of inter-item correlations (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
分析在 R 中进行（R Core Team，2024）。第一步是基于条目-总分相关阈值 r = 0.30 进行条目缩减（item reduction），并考察条目间相关（Nunnally & Bernstein，1994）。
This was followed by an EFA, run using the psych package (Revelle, 2024). Item reduction here was done reiteratively, starting with items that showed factor loadings below 0.45 (Comrey & Lee, 2013), followed by items with cross-loadings exceeding 0.32 (Costello & Osborne, 2005).
随后进行了探索性因子分析（EFA），使用 psych 包运行（Revelle，2024）。此处的条目缩减以迭代方式进行：首先剔除因子载荷（factor loading）低于 0.45 的条目（Comrey & Lee，2013），继而剔除交叉载荷超过 0.32 的条目（Costello & Osborne，2005）。
Due to a high remaining item number and a very high Cronbach's Alpha, ⍺ = 0.96 (psych package; Revelle, 2024), suggesting redundancy, this procedure was repeated with the following thresholds: item-total correlations, r = 0.40, minimum factor loading = 0.50. Cronbach's Alpha remained very high, ⍺ = 0.96.
由于剩余条目数量较高且 Cronbach's α 系数极高（⍺ = 0.96，psych 包；Revelle，2024），提示存在冗余，遂以如下阈值重复该流程：条目-总分相关 r = 0.40，最小因子载荷 = 0.50。Cronbach's α 系数仍极高，⍺ = 0.96。
Finally, for each factor, only the five highest-scoring items on the expert rating were retained. For items with equal overall (expert round 2 & 3) approval, the item with higher approval in the final rating round was retained, resulting in a 15-item scale.
最后，针对每个因子，仅保留专家评分中得分最高的五个条目。对于整体认可度相同（专家第 2 轮与第 3 轮）的条目，保留在最终评分轮次中认可度更高的条目，由此得到一个 15 条目量表（scale）。
Factor labels were chosen inductively and back-checked with factor-labelling by a research assistant with no prior involvement or knowledge of the project and its theoretical background to avoid biases by the researchers due to their theoretical knowledge (see Supplement B).
因子标签以归纳方式选定，并由一名此前未参与本项目、亦不了解其理论背景的研究助理进行因子命名的交叉核对，以避免研究者因其理论知识而产生偏差（见补充材料 B）。
The internal reliability of this scale and the factors was calculated using Cronbach's Alpha. Response distribution was investigated using descriptive statistics (pastecs package; Grosjean & Ibanez, 2024).
该量表及各因子的内部信度（internal reliability）使用 Cronbach's α 系数计算。作答分布使用描述性统计进行检验（pastecs 包；Grosjean & Ibanez，2024）。
Finally, differences in scores depending on people's age, gender, time spent in nature per week, and mindfulness practice were investigated, using a correlation for age and time spent in nature, a t-test for gender, as due to low numbers in other categories, only differences between men and women were investigated, and an ANOVA for mindfulness practice. The full list of R packages and versions used in all three studies can be found in Supplementary Material B.
最后，考察了得分在年龄、性别、每周自然停留时间以及正念练习方面的差异：对年龄与每周自然停留时间采用相关分析，对性别采用 t 检验（由于其他类别人数较少，仅考察了男性与女性之间的差异），对正念练习采用方差分析（ANOVA）。三项研究中所用全部 R 包及其版本可在补充材料 B 中查得。
结果4.2. Results
Before the EFA, two items were removed based on low inter-item correlations. The resulting 45 items provided an item-participant ratio of 7.49, which is suitable for an EFA. All assumptions for an EFA were met, Bartlett's test for sphericity, χ 2 = 10525.49, p < .001, KMO = 0.97, inter-item correlations below r = 0.80. Parallel Analysis, Scree Plot, and Velicer MAP suggested a 3-Factor solution. Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation, due to expected factor correlation in latent constructs, for such a 3-Factor solution was calculated. Stepwise removal of items with low factor loadings across factors resulted in 35 items; stepwise removal based on cross-loadings resulted in 28 items. After application of stricter item-total and factor loading thresholds, as outlined in the analysis section, the scale contained 25 items. The final removal based on the expert ratings yielded 15 items. Stepwise item removal based on the above outlined strategy can be traced in Supplementary Material A.
在进行 EFA 之前，基于较低的条目间相关剔除 2 个条目。剩余的 45 个条目提供了 7.49 的条目-参与者比，适宜进行 EFA。EFA 的各项前提假设均满足：Bartlett 球形检验 χ 2 = 10525.49，p < .001，KMO = 0.97，条目间相关低于 r = 0.80。平行分析、碎石图与 Velicer MAP 均提示采用三因子（3-Factor）解。考虑到潜变量构念间预期存在因子相关，采用主轴因子法（Principal Axis Factoring）配合 Promax 旋转对该三因子解进行估算。逐步剔除跨因子因子载荷较低的条目后剩余 35 个条目；基于交叉载荷的逐步剔除后剩余 28 个条目。如分析部分所述，在应用更严格的条目-总分与因子载荷阈值后，量表包含 25 个条目。基于专家评分的最终剔除后得到 15 个条目。依据上述策略逐步剔除条目的过程可在补充材料 A 中追溯。
The remaining 15-item scale showed three factors: (1) Noticing Nature, (2) Mind & Body in Nature, and (3) Interbeing with Nature (see Table 1 for factor loadings). For each of these labels either the chosen factor label by the research assistant or their explanation for the choice was deemed close enough to keep the labels chosen by the authors. Internal reliability was very good, with Cronbach's α between 0.85 and 0.93 (for exact values see Table 2 under "Study 2").
剩余的 15 条目量表呈现出三个因子：（1）觉察自然（Noticing Nature），（2）自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature），以及（3）与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature）（因子载荷见表 1）。对于上述标签，无论是研究助理所选定的因子标签，还是其选择理由，都被认为足够贴近，从而保留作者所选的标签。内部信度非常好，Cronbach's α 系数介于 0.85 与 0.93 之间（确切数值见表 2 中「研究 2」部分）。
All factor correlations were high, indicating that future investigations into the scale may benefit from lower factor numbers: Noticing Nature x Mind & Body in Nature r = 0.70, Noticing Nature x Interbeing with Nature r = 0.70, Mind and Body in Nature x Interbeing with Nature r = 0.65.
所有因子相关均较高，表明未来对该量表的考察或可从更少的因子数中获益：觉察自然（Noticing Nature）× 自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature）r = 0.70，觉察自然（Noticing Nature）× 与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature）r = 0.70，自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature）× 与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature）r = 0.65。
Evaluation of the response distribution revealed that while skewness and kurtosis values were within an acceptable range, participants tended towards higher response categories, with the overall average score M = 3.94 being above the scale midpoint (for more information, see Supplementary Material B).
对作答分布的评估显示：尽管偏度与峰度值处于可接受范围内，但参与者倾向于选择更高的作答类别，总体平均得分 M = 3.94 高于量表的中点（更多信息见补充材料 B）。
For time spent in nature, r = 0.19, p < .001, and age, r = − 0.13, p = .014, there were significant but small correlations with the MEINS.
就自然停留时间（r = 0.19，p < .001）与年龄（r = − 0.13，p = .014）而言，二者与 MEINS（自然中的正念投入量表）均存在显著但较小的相关。
More time spent in nature was related to higher MEINS scores, while MEINS scores decreased with age. An ANOVA revealed significant differences in the MEINS score between the three levels of mindfulness practice assessed in the study, F(2, 332) = 80.24, p < .001. The effect size was very large, η 2 = 0.33. Post-hoc tests using Tukey multiple comparisons showed significant differences between each group, p < .001.
在自然中停留时间越长，MEINS 得分越高；而 MEINS 得分随年龄增长而下降。方差分析（ANOVA）显示，本研究考察的正念练习三个水平之间的 MEINS 得分存在显著差异，F(2, 332) = 80.24，p < .001。效应量非常大，η 2 = 0.33。采用 Tukey 多重比较的事后检验显示各组之间均存在显著差异，p < .001。
Participants practicing rarely (M = 3.82, SD = 0.54) scored on average 0.51 [0.31, 0.71] points higher than participants who did not practice mindfulness (M = 3.32, SD = 0.71) and participants who practiced regularly (M = 4.34, SD = 0.51) scored on average 0.51 [0.35, 0.68] points higher than those who practiced rarely.
很少练习正念的参与者（M = 3.82，SD = 0.54）平均比不练习正念的参与者（M = 3.32，SD = 0.71）高出 0.51 [0.31, 0.71] 分；而经常练习正念的参与者（M = 4.34，SD = 0.51）平均比很少练习者高出 0.51 [0.35, 0.68] 分。
An independent sample t-test showed a significant but small difference in MEINS scores between men (M = 3.84, SD = 0.73) and women (M = 4.03, SD = 0.64), t (318.29) = − 2.52, p = .012, d = − 0.28, with women scoring on average 0.19 [0.04, 0.34] points higher.
独立样本 t 检验显示，男性（M = 3.84，SD = 0.73）与女性（M = 4.03，SD = 0.64）的 MEINS 得分之间存在显著但较小的差异，t (318.29) = − 2.52，p = .012，d = − 0.28，女性平均高出 0.19 [0.04, 0.34] 分。
研究 2——量表验证5. Study 2 - scale validation
方法5.1. Methods
参与者5.1.1. Participants
On Prolific, all participants from Study 1 were contacted one month after the first data collection. Participants who completed Study 2 received reimbursement for their participation again. The time interval for test-retest data was chosen after weighing the following points: Effects of memory, desire for consistency, and rehearsal may appear in shorter time intervals. Real change should not occur very quickly but may happen over periods longer than 1-2 months due to seasonal changes. Attrition could rise over longer periods of time. A return rate of 87.43% was reached with a total of 306 participants. During the data cleaning process, a total of 22 participants were removed for the following reasons: lack of consent for data use (n = 6), self-reported non-serious participation (n = 1), outliers on duration time using a z-value threshold of ± 2.39 (n = 14), and straightlining outside of the midpoint on sections containing a reverse coded item (n = 1). The resulting sample included 284 participants, two of these could not be matched to the cleaned data from Study 1, therefore, their demographic data are not known. The demographic distribution of this sample was comparable to the first data collection: Of the remaining 282 participants, 49.8% identified as men, 48.8% identified as women, and 1.41% identified as non-binary. Participants were between 18 and 72 years old, M = 36.87,
在 Prolific 平台上，研究 1 的所有参与者于首次数据收集后一个月收到联系。完成研究 2 的参与者再次获得参与报酬。重测数据的时间间隔是在权衡以下几点后确定的：记忆效应、一致性需求以及练习效应可能在较短的时间间隔中出现。真实的变化不应发生得过快，但可能因季节变化而在超过 1—2 个月的时段内发生。被试流失（attrition）可能随时间延长而上升。在总计 306 名参与者中，回收率达到 87.43%。在数据清理过程中，共有 22 名参与者因以下原因被移除：未同意数据使用（n = 6）、自我报告未认真参与（n = 1）、基于 ± 2.39 的 z 值阈值在作答时长上的离群值（n = 14），以及在包含反向计分条目的部分中处于中点之外的直线作答（n = 1）。最终样本包含 284 名参与者，其中两人无法与研究 1 的清理数据匹配，因此其人口学数据未知。该样本的人口学分布与首次数据收集相当：在剩余的 282 名参与者中，49.8% 自认为男性，48.8% 自认为女性，1.41% 自认为非二元性别。参与者年龄在 18 至 72 岁之间，M = 36.87，
Table 1 表 1 Pattern Matrix of Rotated Factor Loadings for the 15-Item Scale (Promax Rotation, Loadings ≥ 0.45). SS loadings of Factors are Shown in Parentheses.15 题量表的旋转因子载荷模式矩阵（Promax 旋转，载荷 ≥ 0.45）。因子的 SS 载荷（平方和）列于括号内。
| Item条目 |
Noticing Nature (2.84)觉察自然（Noticing Nature）（2.84） |
Mind & Body in Nature (2.69)自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature）（2.69） |
Interbeing with Nature (3.27)与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature）（3.27） |
| I pay attention to sounds in nature like birds chirping, leaves rustling, or water flowing.我会留意自然界中的声音，比如鸟儿鸣啭、树叶沙沙作响，或流水潺潺。 |
0.72 |
— |
— |
| I pay attention to the natural smells and aromas of things, like wildflowers, or freshly mowed grass.我会留意事物散发的自然气味与芬芳，比如野花，或刚割过的青草。 |
0.88 |
— |
— |
| When I visit the same place at different times, I notice how nature changes, for example how plants grow or change with the seasons.当我在不同时间造访同一地点时，我会注意到自然的变化，例如植物如何生长或随季节而改变。 |
0.64 |
— |
— |
| I notice the natural environments in my everyday life.我会留意日常生活中的自然环境。 |
0.55 |
— |
— |
| I notice the nature around me with curiosity.我怀着好奇心去留意周遭的自然。 |
0.60 |
— |
— |
| I allow my attention to be drawn to the sights, sounds, and smells of nature, one sense at a time.我让自己的注意力被自然的景象、声音与气味所吸引，一次专注于一种感官。 |
— |
0.53 |
— |
| When I am walking in nature, I pay attention to the sensations of my body moving, for example the lightness of my steps on a soft forest ground.当我在自然中行走时，我会留意身体移动的感觉，例如在柔软的林地上脚步的轻盈。 |
— |
0.76 |
— |
| I notice how sounds and smells in nature affect my thoughts, bodily sensations, and emotions.我会留意自然中的声音与气味如何影响我的思绪、身体感受与情绪。 |
— |
0.56 |
— |
| When I notice beauty in nature, I feel changes in my body, such as an expansion in my chest, a faster heartbeat, or other bodily responses.当我在自然中感受到美时，我会察觉身体的变化，例如胸口的舒展、心跳的加快，或其他身体反应。 |
— |
0.83 |
— |
| When I lose myself in thought, I can use the nature around me to pull me back into the present moment.当我陷入思绪中时，我可以借助周遭的自然将我拉回当下。 |
— |
0.55 |
— |
| When I am in nature, I am aware of the interdependence between me and all natural things.当身处自然之中时，我意识到自己与所有自然事物之间的相互依存。 |
— |
— |
0.67 |
| I often feel a respect and gratitude for the living things around me, like animals and plants.我常常对周遭的生灵——比如动物和植物——怀有尊重与感恩。 |
— |
— |
0.73 |
| When in nature, I feel like I am part of something bigger.身处自然时，我感觉到自己是某种更宏大事物的一部分。 |
— |
— |
0.73 |
| When I am in nature, I feel a sense of deep connection between myself and all living things around me.当身处自然之中时，我感受到自己与周遭所有生灵之间深切的连接。 |
— |
— |
0.79 |
| When I am in a natural space, I am aware that I am sharing the surroundings, the air, and the ground with natural life, like the trees around me.当我身处自然空间时，我意识到自己正与周遭自然生命——比如身边的树木——共享环境、空气与土地。 |
— |
— |
0.68 |
表 1 原文抽取文本（原始顺序，供核对）
Table 1
Pattern Matrix of Rotated Factor Loadings for the 15-Item Scale (Promax
Rotation, Loadings ≥ 0.45). SS loadings of Factors are Shown in Parentheses.
Item
Noticing
Nature
(2.84)
Mind &
Body in
Nature
(2.69)
Interbeing
with Nature
(3.27)
I pay attention to sounds in
nature like birds chirping,
leaves rustling, or water
flowing.
0.72
I pay attention to the natural
smells and aromas of things,
like wildflowers, or freshly
mowed grass.
0.88
When I visit the same place at
different times, I notice how
nature changes, for example
how plants grow or change
with the seasons.
0.64
I notice the natural environments
in my everyday life.
0.55
I notice the nature around me
with curiosity.
0.60
I allow my attention to be drawn
to the sights, sounds, and
smells of nature, one sense at a
time.
0.53
When I am walking in nature, I
pay attention to the sensations
of my body moving, for
example the lightness of my
steps on a soft forest ground.
0.76
I notice how sounds and smells in
nature affect my thoughts,
bodily sensations, and
emotions.
0.56
When I notice beauty in nature, I
feel changes in my body, such
as an expansion in my chest, a
faster heartbeat, or other
bodily responses.
0.83
When I lose myself in thought, I
can use the nature around me
to pull me back into the present
moment.
0.55
When I am in nature, I am aware
of the interdependence
between me and all natural
things.
0.67
I often feel a respect and
gratitude for the living things
around me, like animals and
plants.
0.73
When in nature, I feel like I am
part of something bigger.
0.73
When I am in nature, I feel a
sense of deep connection
between myself and all living
things around me.
0.79
When I am in a natural space, I
am aware that I am sharing the
surroundings, the air, and the
ground with natural life, like
the trees around me.
0.68
SD = 12.22. For mindfulness, 117 (41.49%) indicated a regular practice, 97 (34.40%) a rare practice, and 67 (23.76%) no practice; one participant did not disclose their practice.
SD = 12.22。就正念（mindfulness）而言，117 人（41.49%）表示有规律的练习，97 人（34.40%）表示偶尔练习，67 人（23.76%）表示不练习；一名参与者未披露其练习情况。
材料与程序5.1.2. Materials & procedure
Data were collected in an online survey, Prolific IDs were captured both automatically and as a question to match data between studies 1 and 2. Participants were not asked any demographic questions, as those were part of Study 1. Participants received the measurement scales in a random order to avoid order effects. The following constructs were measured:
数据通过在线问卷调查收集，Prolific ID 既自动捕获，也作为一道题目收集，以便在研究 1 与研究 2 之间匹配数据。参与者未被询问任何人口学问题，因为这些已包含在研究 1 中。参与者以随机顺序接受各测量量表，以避免顺序效应。测量了以下构念：
Mindful Engagement in Nature was measured with the 15-item MEINS resulting from study 1, again with a 5-Point Likert scale ranging from 1 = "Never or very rarely true" to 5 = "Very often or always true". The scale score is calculated as the mean of the items.
自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）以研究 1 得出的 15 题 MEINS（自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS））进行测量，同样采用 5 点李克特（Likert）量表，范围从 1 =「几乎或极少符合」到 5 =「非常频繁或总是符合」。量表（scale）得分计算为各条目（item）的均值。
Well-Being was measured using the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5; World Health Organization, 2024) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985). The WHO-5 consists of five statements relating to the participants' well-being in the past two weeks, such as "I have felt cheerful and in good spirits", which are rated on a 6-Point Likert scale ranging from 1 = "All of the time" to 6 = "At no time". The scale score is calculated as the sum of the items. The SWLS consists of five items rated on a 7-Point Likert scale of agreement, ranging from 1 = "Strongly disagree" to 7 = "Strongly agree". Items are phrased as statements, for example, "I am satisfied with my life". The scale score is the sum of all item scores.
幸福感（well-being）使用世界卫生组织五项幸福感指数（WHO-5 Well-Being Index；World Health Organization, 2024）与生活满意度量表（SWLS；Diener et al., 1985）进行测量。WHO-5 由五条关于参与者过去两周幸福感（well-being）的陈述组成，例如「我感到愉快、精神饱满」，在 6 点李克特（Likert）量表上评定，从 1 =「始终如此」到 6 =「从未如此」。量表得分取各条目之和。SWLS 由五条在 7 点李克特同意度量表上评定的条目组成，从 1 =「强烈不同意」到 7 =「强烈同意」。条目以陈述句表述，例如「我对自己的生活感到满意」。量表得分为所有条目得分之和。
Nature Connectedness was assessed using the Nature Connection Index (NCI; Richardson et al., 2019) and the Inclusion of Nature in Self scale (INS; Schultz, 2002). The NCI consists of six items about the participants' personal relationship to nature, including "I always find beauty in nature", which are rated on a 7-Point Likert scale from 1 = "Strongly disagree" to 7 = "Strongly agree". Scale scores are calculated as the item sum after items are recoded individually according to the scale development paper (Richardson et al., 2019). The INS is a 1-item graphic scale consisting of seven images presenting two circles each, in various stages of distance and overlap, one circle named "self", the other "nature". Participants are asked to choose the image that best represents their relationship to nature.
自然联结（nature connectedness）使用自然联结指数（NCI；Richardson et al., 2019）与自然纳入自我（INS；Schultz, 2002）量表（Inclusion of Nature in Self scale）进行评估。NCI 由六条关于参与者与自然之个人关系的条目组成，包括「我总能在自然中发现美」，在 7 点李克特（Likert）量表上从 1 =「强烈不同意」到 7 =「强烈同意」评定。量表得分按照量表编制论文（Richardson et al., 2019）对各条目分别重新编码后计算为条目之和。INS 是一个单条目图形量表，由七幅图像组成，每幅呈现两个圆圈，处于不同的距离与重叠阶段，一个圆圈名为「自我」，另一个名为「自然」。参与者被要求选择最能代表其与自然关系的图像。
Mindfulness was assessed with a 15-item version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-15; Baer et al., 2012). This questionnaire includes five subscales, observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judgement, and non-reactivity. Items are statements like "When I take a shower or a bath, I stay alert to the sensations of water on my body." These are rated on a 5-Point Likert scale from 1 = "Never or very rarely true" to 5 = "Very often or always true". Seven of these items are reverse-coded. The score of this scale is the mean of the fifteen items after recoding.
正念（mindfulness）使用五因素正念问卷 15 题版（FFMQ-15；Baer et al., 2012）进行评估。该问卷包含五个子量表：观察、描述、以觉察行事、不评判与不反应。条目为陈述句，例如「当我洗澡或泡澡时，我会保持警觉，留意水流过身体时的感觉」。这些在 5 点李克特（Likert）量表上从 1 =「几乎或极少符合」到 5 =「非常频繁或总是符合」评定。其中七条为反向计分。该量表得分在重新编码后取十五条目的均值。
分析5.1.3. Analysis
Data from Studies 1 and 2 were used to investigate the reliability and validity of the MEINS. Analyses were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2024). Reliability was assessed for the complete scale as well as the three factors using the psych package (Revelle, 2024). For reliability-related analyses, the complete clean dataset from Study 1 was used for tests concerning only the initial measurement time (N = 337). For tests only concerning the second measurement time, the complete clean dataset from Study 2 was used (N = 284). For tests concerning both measurements, a joint sample of both clean datasets was used (N = 274). Internal reliability across measurement time was assessed using a standardised Cronbach's Alpha for each time point, with interpretation based on George and Mallery (2003). Test-retest reliability was assessed using a two-way random model, absolute agreement, single-measure intraclass correlations between the measurement times. These correlations were interpreted using guidelines by Koo and Li (2016). For test-retest stability of the scale's dimensions, the 3-factor structure at the second measurement time was tested with a CFA (lavaan package; Rosseel, 2012), using Maximum Likelihood estimation and fixed variances of latent factors. Guidelines by Hu and Bentler (1999) were used for the interpretation of the results.
研究 1 与研究 2 的数据被用于考察 MEINS 的信度与效度。分析在 R（R Core Team, 2024）中进行。使用 psych 包（Revelle, 2024）对完整量表及三个因子进行信度评估。对于仅涉及初始测量时间的检验，使用研究 1 的完整清理数据集（N = 337）；对于仅涉及第二次测量时间的检验，使用研究 2 的完整清理数据集（N = 284）；对于涉及两次测量的检验，使用两个清理数据集的联合样本（N = 274）。跨测量时间的内部信度（internal reliability）通过每个时间点的标准化 Cronbach's α 系数（Cronbach's Alpha）进行评估，并依据 George and Mallery（2003）进行解释。重测信度（test-retest reliability）使用双向随机模型、绝对一致性、测量时间之间的单测量组内相关（intraclass correlations）进行评估，并依据 Koo and Li（2016）的准则进行解释。为考察量表各维度的重测稳定性，对第二次测量时间的 3 因子结构使用验证性因子分析（CFA；lavaan 包；Rosseel, 2012）进行检验，采用最大似然估计（Maximum Likelihood estimation）并对潜变量的方差进行固定。结果解释依据 Hu and Bentler（1999）的准则。
For validity, MEINS was correlated with the other measures, theorised to be related to Mindful Engagement in Nature, using Pearson correlations. Discriminant validity, i.e. the empirical distinctness of scales as evidence for distinct constructs (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022), was investigated with a CFA based measure, the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Additionally, to follow empirically derived guidelines on discriminant validity investigation, confidence intervals of factor correlations were investigated and interpreted using a cut-off and a classification approach (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). Predictive validity for well-being was investigated using hierarchical regressions. The first model included nature connectedness, both NCI and INS due to their low inter-correlation, and mindfulness (FFMQ) for the WHO-5 (1a) and the SWLS (1b). The second model (2a & b) added the MEINS as a predictor.
就效度而言，MEINS 与使用 Pearson 相关、理论上与自然中的正念投入（Mindful Engagement in Nature）相关的其他测量进行相关分析。区分效度（discriminant validity），即量表作为不同构念之经验区分性的证据（Rönkkö & Cho, 2022），通过基于 CFA 的 Fornell-Larcker 准则（Fornell & Larcker, 1981）进行考察。此外，为遵循经验推导的区分效度考察准则，对因子相关的置信区间进行考察，并使用截断值与分类方法（Rönkkö & Cho, 2022）进行解释。对幸福感（well-being）的预测效度使用层级回归（hierarchical regressions）进行考察。第一个模型（WHO-5 的 1a 与 SWLS 的 1b）纳入自然联结（nature connectedness）、因相互关联较低而同时纳入的 NCI 与 INS，以及正念（mindfulness，FFMQ）。第二个模型（2a 与 b）将 MEINS 作为预测变量加入。
结果5.2. Results
The scale and its factors showed high Cronbach's Alpha in both the initial and the retest dataset, as well as high intraclass correlations between the two data sets, indicating very good internal and good test-retest reliability (Table 2).
该量表及其各因子在初始数据集与重测数据集中均表现出较高的 Cronbach's α 系数，且两个数据集之间具有较高组内相关（intraclass correlations），表明内部信度非常好、重测信度良好（表 2）。
A priori power analysis to confirm the 3-Factor structure as found in the previous EFA revealed a minimum sample size of 70, this was exceeded in the current sample (semPower package; Moshagen & Bader, 2024). The CFA showed acceptable model-fit, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.064, p (H0: RMSEA ≥. 08) = 0.017, p (H0: RMSEA ≤ 0.05) = 0.034. Modification indices suggested a covariance between the items "I pay attention to sounds in nature like birds chirping, leaves rustling, or water flowing." and "I pay attention to the natural smells and aromas of things, like wildflowers, or freshly mowed grass.", mi = 13.37, as well as between the items "I allow my attention to be drawn to the sights, sounds, and smells of nature, one sense at a time." and "When in nature, I feel like I am part of something bigger.", mi = 10.80. Including this in the model yielded an excellent model fit, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.03, RMSEA = 0.057, p (H0: RMSEA ≥ 0.08) = 0.001, p (H0: RMSEA ≤ 0.05) = 0.183.
为确认先前 EFA 所得 3 因子结构而进行的先验功效分析（a priori power analysis）显示最小样本量为 70，当前样本已超过该值（semPower 包；Moshagen & Bader, 2024）。CFA 显示出可接受的模型拟合：CFI = 0.96，TLI = 0.96，SRMR = 0.04，RMSEA = 0.064，p（H0: RMSEA ≥. 08）= 0.017，p（H0: RMSEA ≤ 0.05）= 0.034。修正指数（Modification indices）提示条目「我会留意自然界中的声音，比如鸟儿鸣啭、树叶沙沙作响，或流水潺潺。」与「我会留意事物散发的自然气味与芬芳，比如野花，或刚割过的青草。」之间存在协方差，mi = 13.37；以及条目「我让自己的注意力被自然的景象、声音与气味所吸引，一次专注于一种感官。」与「身处自然时，我感觉到自己是某种更宏大事物的一部分。」之间存在协方差，mi = 10.80。将此纳入模型后得到了优秀的模型拟合：CFI = 0.97，TLI = 0.97，SRMR = 0.03，RMSEA = 0.057，p（H0: RMSEA ≥ 0.08）= 0.001，p（H0: RMSEA ≤ 0.05）= 0.183。
The relationship between MEINS and related constructs was examined to determine validity (Table 3). All measures correlated significantly and positively with MEINS, with effect sizes ranging from small to large. The Fornell-Larcker criterion compares the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of a variable in a CFA with the squared Pearson's r of this variable and the variable of interest. AVEs larger than the squared correlation for each variable supported the discriminative validity of the MEINS scale to all included related measures. Additionally, the upper limits of all factor correlations between the MEINS and the related constructs were all below 0.8, indicating discriminant validity with a "no problem" classification according to Rönkkö and Cho (2022).
为确定效度，考察了 MEINS 与相关构念之间的关系（表 3）。所有测量均与 MEINS 呈显著且正向的相关，效应量从小到大型不等。Fornell-Larcker 准则将 CFA 中某变量的平均方差抽取量（AVE；Average Variance Extracted）与该变量和关注变量之间的 Pearson's r 平方进行比较。对于每个变量，AVE 均大于其平方相关，支持了 MEINS 量表对所有纳入的相关测量具有区分效度（discriminative validity）。此外，MEINS 与相关构念之间所有因子相关的上限均低于 0.8，根据 Rönkkö and Cho（2022）的分类，表明具有「无问题（no problem）」级别的区分效度。
Hierarchical regressions (Table 4) showed that, for the WHO-5, MEINS did not improve the predictive model significantly, F = 0.90, p = .344, and did not have a significant regression coefficient. However,
层级回归（Hierarchical regressions，表 4）显示，对于 WHO-5，MEINS 未能显著改善预测模型，F = 0.90，p = .344，且不具有显著的回归系数。然而，
Table 2 表 2 Cronbach's alpha at time 1 and time 2 and intraclass correlations (ICC) for the MEINS scale and factors.MEINS 量表及各因子在时间点 1 与时间 2 的 Cronbach's ⍺ 系数与组内相关系数（ICC）。
| Scale量表 |
Cronbach's ⍺ T1Cronbach's ⍺ 系数（T1） |
Cronbach's ⍺ T2Cronbach's ⍺ 系数（T2） |
ICC组内相关系数（ICC） |
| MEINS totalMEINS 总分 |
0.93 [0.92, 0.94] |
0.95 [0.94, 0.95] |
0.85 [0.81, 0.88] |
| Noticing Nature觉察自然（Noticing Nature） |
0.85 [0.82, 0.87] |
0.87 [0.84, 0.89] |
0.78 [0.73, 0.83] |
| Mind & Body in Nature自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature） |
0.86 [0.83, 0.88] |
0.89 [0.86, 0.91] |
0.79 [0.74, 0.83] |
| Interbeing with Nature与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature） |
0.89 [0.87, 0.91] |
0.90 [0.88, 0.91] |
0.78 [0.73, 0.82] |
Note. All reported upper and lower limits adhere to a 95% Confidence Interval.
注。所有报告的上下限均遵循 95% 置信区间。
表 2 原文抽取文本（原始顺序，供核对）
Table 2
Cronbach's alpha at time 1 and time 2 and intraclass correlations (ICC) for the
MEINS scale and factors.
Scale
Cronbach's ⍺ T1
Cronbach's ⍺ T2
ICC
MEINS total
0.93 [0.92,
0.94]
0.95 [0.94,
0.95]
0.85 [0.81,
0.88]
Noticing Nature
0.85 [0.82,
0.87]
0.87 [0.84,
0.89]
0.78 [0.73,
0.83]
Mind & Body in
Nature
0.86 [0.83,
0.88]
0.89 [0.86,
0.91]
0.79 [0.74,
0.83]
Interbeing with
Nature
0.89 [0.87,
0.91]
0.90 [0.88,
0.91]
0.78 [0.73,
0.82]
Note. All reported upper and lower limits adhere to a 95% Confidence Interval.
for the SWLS, MEINS significantly improved the predictive model, F = 7.84, p = .006, and had a significant regression coefficient, while neither measure of nature connectedness had a significant regression coefficient. These results were consistent when controlling for age and weekly nature contact, measured in Study 1, which did not show any significant path contribution to either model.
对于 SWLS，MEINS 显著改善了预测模型，F = 7.84，p = .006，且具有显著的回归系数；而两种自然联结（nature connectedness）测量的回归系数均不显著。在控制研究 1 中测量的年龄与每周自然接触后，这些结果保持一致，二者对任一模型均未显示出显著路径贡献。
研究 3——7 点李克特版本的因子分析6. Study 3 – factor analysis of 7-Point likert version
方法6.1. Methods
参与者6.1.1. Participants
Using Prolific, 447 Participants, who had not participated in the previous data collection, were recruited and reimbursed for their participation. During data collection, participants who failed two instructional attention checks could not complete participation. Participants who did not consent to the use of their data (n = 1), admitted to not having participated seriously (n = 5), or had passed one of the attention checks but failed the other (n = 10) were removed from the dataset. Of the resulting 431 participants, 55.22% identified as women, 43.85% as men, 0.70% as non-binary, and one participant did not disclose their gender. Participants were between 18 and 75 years old, M = 34.05, SD = 12.39. Regarding their mindfulness practice, 260 (60.32%) identified as regular practitioners, 135 (31.32%) practiced, but rarely, 34 participants (7.89%) did not practice mindfulness, and two participants did not disclose their practice.
本研究通过 Prolific 平台招募了 447 名未参与先前数据采集的参与者，并为其参与支付报酬。在数据采集过程中，未能通过两项指导性注意力检查的参与者无法完成参与。未同意使用其数据（n = 1）、承认未认真参与（n = 5），或通过了其中一项注意力检查但另一项未通过（n = 10）的参与者被从数据集中剔除。在最终得到的 431 名参与者中，55.22% 自认为女性，43.85% 为男性，0.70% 为非二元性别，另有 1 名参与者未透露其性别。参与者年龄在 18 至 75 岁之间，M = 34.05，SD = 12.39。关于其正念（mindfulness）练习情况，260 人（60.32%）自认为规律练习者，135 人（31.32%）有练习但很少，34 人（7.89%）不进行正念练习，另有 2 人未透露其练习情况。
材料与程序6.1.2. Materials & procedure
These data were collected as part of a larger online survey measuring a variety of constructs. The following measures are relevant for this paper:
本研究数据作为一项更大的在线调查的一部分采集，该调查测量了多种构念。下文列出的测量工具与本文相关：
Mindful Engagement in Nature was measured using the 15-item MEINS developed in this paper. In contrast to the previously described studies, the items were rated on a 7-Point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = "Never" to 7 = "Always". This was done to assess whether the larger response scale may help to avoid the previously observed skew (Leung, 2011). Scale scores were calculated as item score means.
自然中的正念投入（Mindful Engagement in Nature）通过本文编制的 15 题自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS）进行测量。与前述研究不同，各条目采用 7 点李克特（Likert）量表评定，范围从 1 = "Never" 到 7 = "Always"。此举旨在评估更大的反应量表是否有助于避免先前观察到的偏态（Leung，2011）。量表得分以条目得分的均值计算。
The walking-context specific variables were measured in relation to a walk that participants had taken on their own accord within the past seven days before data collection. To avoid memory bias, the Event Reconstruction Method was used (Grube et al., 2008). Participants received short diary prompts with confidential free-text fields, in which they could note various memories of their walk, which were displayed to them while they responded to the questionnaire scales.
与步行情境相关的特定变量是围绕参与者在数据采集前七天内自行进行的一次步行来测量的。为避免记忆偏差，采用了事件重构法（Event Reconstruction Method，Grube 等，2008）。参与者收到简短的日记提示及保密的自由文本输入框，在其中可以记录其步行的各种记忆，这些记忆会在其填写问卷量表时显示给他们。
Perceived Biodiversity was measured using both quantity estimates and subjective experience. Estimates were entered as numbers in a free-text field by participants for counted Plant Species and Animal Species. Instructions were: "How many different animals did you notice (see, hear, or smell) during your walk? You do not need to name the species, just type in an estimated number of how many different animals you noticed." For plants, the same wording was used, changing "animals" to "plants". Subjective Biodiversity Experience was measured using the Biodiversity Experience Index (BEI; Rozario et al., 2024). Participants were asked to rate how the terms "Plant Richness", "Animal Richness", "Wild" and "Varied" applied to the environments encountered on their walk. This was done on a 5-Point Likert scale from 1 = "A little" to 5 = "Much". Scores were calculated as the means of the four items.
感知生物多样性（perceived biodiversity）通过数量估计与主观体验两种方式测量。参与者在自由文本输入框中以数字形式填入所计数的植物物种数与动物物种数。指导语为："你在步行过程中注意到（看到、听到或闻到）了多少种不同的动物？你无需说出物种名称，只需输入你所注意到的不同动物的估计数量。"对于植物，使用了相同的措辞，仅将 "animals" 改为 "plants"。主观生物多样性体验通过生物多样性体验指数（Biodiversity Experience Index，BEI；Rozario 等，2024）测量。参与者被要求对 "Plant Richness"、"Animal Richness"、"Wild" 和 "Varied" 等术语在多大程度上适用于其步行中所遇环境进行评定。该评定采用 5 点李克特（Likert）量表，从 1 = "A little" 到 5 = "Much"。得分计算为四个条目的均值。
Environmental Characteristics were assessed via the 10-item
环境特征是通过这 10 个条目（10-item）进行评估的（本句于下表之后续完）。
Table 3 表 3 Means, standard deviations, average variance extracted, squared latent correlations, and intercorrelations.均值、标准差、平均方差抽取量、潜变量相关平方与互相关。
| Construct构念 | M均值 | SD标准差 | AVE平均方差抽取量 | Squared r(MEINS, •)潜变量相关平方（MEINS, •） | UL CFA上限 CFA | 11 | 22 | 33 | 44 | 55 |
|---|
| 1. MEINS1. 自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS） | 3.83 | 0.78 | 0.54 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2. NCI2. 自然联结指数（NCI） | 53.15 | 36.55 | 0.92 | 0.17 | 0.53 | 0.41 | — | — | — | — |
| 3. INS3. 自然纳入自我（INS） | 4.59 | 1.42 | — | — | 0.74 | 0.62 | 0.18 | — | — | — |
| 4. WHO-54. WHO-5 幸福感指数 | 15.46 | 6.66 | 0.69 | 0.12 | 0.47 | 0.27 | 0.40 | 0.22 | — | — |
| 5. SWLS5. 生活满意度量表（SWLS） | 20.83 | 6.60 | 0.74 | 0.25 | 0.61 | 0.47 | 0.20 | 0.31 | 0.45 | — |
| 6. FFMQ-156. 五因素正念问卷 15 题版（FFMQ-15） | 3.52 | 0.56 | 0.25 | 0.07 | 0.40 | 0.52 | 0.18 | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.47 |
Note. Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale (INS) is modeled as a single-indicator latent construct. Because its measurement error cannot be separately estimated in this specification, an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value is not provided. Here, discriminant validity can only be assessed through the upper limit of the factor correlation (UL CFA).
注。自然纳入自我量表（Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale，INS）被建模为单指标潜变量构念。由于其测量误差在此设定下无法单独估计，故未提供平均方差抽取量（AVE）值。在此，区分效度仅能通过因子相关的上限（UL CFA）进行评估。
表 3 原文抽取文本（原始顺序，供核对）
Table 3
Means, standard deviations, average variance extracted, squared latent correlations, and intercorrelations.
Construct
M
SD
AVE
Squared r(MEINS, •)
UL
CFA
1
2
3
4
5
1. MEINS
3.83
0.78
0.54
2. NCI
53.15
36.55
0.92
0.17
0.53
0.41
3. INS
4.59
1.42
—
—
0.74
0.62
0.18
4. WHO-5
15.46
6.66
0.69
0.12
0.47
0.27
0.40
0.22
5. SWLS
20.83
6.60
0.74
0.25
0.61
0.47
0.20
0.31
0.45
6. FFMQ-15
3.52
0.56
0.25
0.07
0.40
0.52
0.18
0.39
0.33
0.47
Note. Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale (INS) is modeled as a single-indicator latent construct. Because its measurement error cannot be separately estimated in this specification, an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value is not provided. Here, discriminant validity can only be assessed through the upper limit of the factor correlation (UL CFA).
Table 4 表 4 Hierarchical Regressions for WHO-5 and SWLS, using robust standard errors and bootstrapped Confidence Intervals.针对 WHO-5 幸福感指数与生活满意度量表（SWLS）的层级回归（hierarchical regression），采用稳健标准误（robust standard errors）与自助法置信区间（bootstrapped confidence intervals）。
| Variables变量 | WHO-5WHO-5 幸福感指数 | SWLS生活满意度量表（SWLS） |
|---|
| ββ | 95% CI (B)95% 置信区间（B） | pp 值 | R 2R² | ββ | 95% CI (B)95% 置信区间（B） | pp 值 | R 2R² |
|---|
| Model 1模型 1 | — | — | — | 0.26 | — | — | — | 0.25 |
| Constant常数项 | — | [-6.17, 3.43] | 0.553 | — | — | [-3.90, 6.10] | 0.730 | — |
| NCI自然联结指数（NCI） | 0.26 | [0.02, 0.07] | 0.002 | — | 0.08 | [-0.01, 0.04] | 0.257 | — |
| INS自然纳入自我（INS） | 0.11 | [-0.19, 1.07] | 0.152 | — | 0.16 | [0.06, 1.43] | 0.042 | — |
| FFMQ五因素正念问卷 15 题版（FFMQ-15） | 0.32 | [1.99, 4.90] | <0.001 | — | 0.39 | [2.83, 6.04] | <0.001 | — |
| Model 2模型 2 | — | — | — | 0.26 | — | — | — | 0.27 |
| Constant常数项 | — | [-5.71, 4.51] | 0.766 | — | — | [-6.08, 4.15] | 0.656 | — |
| NCI自然联结指数（NCI） | 0.28 | [0.02, 0.08] | 0.002 | — | 0.01 | [-0.02, 0.03] | 0.816 | — |
| INS自然纳入自我（INS） | 0.16 | [-0.8, 1.46] | 0.101 | — | 0.03 | [-0.66, 0.94] | 0.766 | — |
| FFMQ五因素正念问卷 15 题版（FFMQ-15） | 0.34 | [2.26, 5.19] | <0.001 | — | 0.33 | [2.09, 5.35] | <0.001 | — |
| MEINS自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS） | − 0.09 | [-2.49, 0.75] | 0.411 | — | 0.25 | [0.60, 3.63] | 0.009 | — |
| Model 2 with controls含控制变量的模型 2 | — | — | — | 0.27 | — | — | — | 0.28 |
| Constant常数项 | — | [-4.62, 6.44] | 0.841 | — | — | [-7.61, 4.50] | 0.596 | — |
| NCI自然联结指数（NCI） | 0.29 | [0.02, 0.08] | 0.002 | — | 0.01 | [-0.02, 0.03] | 0.869 | — |
| INS自然纳入自我（INS） | 0.18 | [0.04, 1.52] | 0.045 | — | 0.04 | [-0.67, 0.98] | 0.674 | — |
| FFMQ五因素正念问卷 15 题版（FFMQ-15） | 0.34 | [2.26, 5.18] | <0.001 | — | 0.33 | [2.09, 5.37] | <0.001 | — |
| MEINS自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS） | − 0.13 | [-2.83, 0.40] | 0.217 | — | 0.24 | [0.39, 3.62] | 0.017 | — |
| Age年龄 | − 0.06 | [-0.09, 0.03] | 0.390 | — | 0.03 | [-0.06, 0.08] | 0.693 | — |
| Contact接触频率 | 0.09 | [-0.06, 0.08] | 0.265 | — | 0.05 | [-0.03, 0.05] | 0.295 | — |
表 4 原文抽取文本（原始顺序，供核对）
Table 4
Hierarchical Regressions for WHO-5 and SWLS, using robust standard errors and bootstrapped Confidence Intervals.
Variables
WHO-5
SWLS
β
95% CI (B)
p
R 2
β
95% CI (B)
p
R 2
Model 1
0.26
0.25
Constant
[-6.17, 3.43]
0.553
[-3.90, 6.10]
0.730
NCI
0.26
[0.02, 0.07]
0.002
0.08
[-0.01, 0.04]
0.257
INS
0.11
[-0.19, 1.07]
0.152
0.16
[0.06, 1.43]
0.042
FFMQ
0.32
[1.99, 4.90]
<0.001
0.39
[2.83, 6.04]
<0.001
Model 2
0.26
0.27
Constant
[-5.71, 4.51]
0.766
[-6.08, 4.15]
0.656
NCI
0.28
[0.02, 0.08]
0.002
0.01
[-0.02, 0.03]
0.816
INS
0.16
[-0.8, 1.46]
0.101
0.03
[-0.66, 0.94]
0.766
FFMQ
0.34
[2.26, 5.19]
<0.001
0.33
[2.09, 5.35]
<0.001
MEINS
− 0.09
[-2.49, 0.75]
0.411
0.25
[0.60, 3.63]
0.009
Model 2 with controls
0.27
0.28
Constant
[-4.62, 6.44]
0.841
[-7.61, 4.50]
0.596
NCI
0.29
[0.02, 0.08]
0.002
0.01
[-0.02, 0.03]
0.869
INS
0.18
[0.04, 1.52]
0.045
0.04
[-0.67, 0.98]
0.674
FFMQ
0.34
[2.26, 5.18]
<0.001
0.33
[2.09, 5.37]
<0.001
MEINS
− 0.13
[-2.83, 0.40]
0.217
0.24
[0.39, 3.62]
0.017
Age
− 0.06
[-0.09, 0.03]
0.390
0.03
[-0.06, 0.08]
0.693
Contact
0.09
[-0.06, 0.08]
0.265
0.05
[-0.03, 0.05]
0.295
Environmental Characteristics Questionnaire (ECQ; Macaulay et al., 2022). The ten questions assess, for example, how much grass coverage an environment has, with three question-specific response options that are ranked by restorativeness. The first option is always indicative of an environment that would typically be classified as less restorative (e.g., "Little to no grass") and the third option is indicative of a highly restorative environment (e.g., "Mostly grass"). The overall score was calculated as the mean of all questions.
环境特征问卷（Environmental Characteristics Questionnaire，ECQ；Macaulay 等，2022）。这十个问题评估，例如，某一环境具有多少草地覆盖，设有三个针对问题的反应选项，并按修复性（restorativeness）排序。第一个选项始终指示一个通常被归类为修复性较低的环境（例如 "Little to no grass"），而第三个选项指示一个高度修复性的环境（例如 "Mostly grass"）。总体得分计算为所有问题的均值。
Walk duration was assessed in a single question (as used in Korpela et al., 2008), with the response options "less than 15 min", "15-30 min", "0.5-1 h", "1-1.5 h", "1.5 -2 h", and "over 2h". Responses were numbered from 1 to 6 and treated as ordinary due to the difference in estimate sizes in responses 1 and 6.
步行时长通过单一问题评估（采用 Korpela 等，2008 的用法），反应选项为 "less than 15 min"、"15-30 min"、"0.5-1 h"、"1-1.5 h"、"1.5 -2 h" 以及 "over 2h"。回答从 1 到 6 编号，并作为 ordinary（顺序）变量处理，这是由于第 1 和第 6 个反应在估计量级上存在差异。
Demographic Variables were measured at the end of the survey, using the same questions as Study 1.
人口统计学变量在调查结束时测量，使用与研究 1 相同的问题。
分析6.1.3. Analysis
Diverging from the preregistration, data from Study 3 were used for both an EFA and a CFA rather than only a CFA. This change was based on high factor correlations in Study 1, as well as the newly employed 7-Point Likert scale. To achieve equivalent subsets regarding dispersion matrices of the data for each of these analyses, the SOLOMON splitting method was used (Lorenzo-Seva, 2022). The EFA was run using the psych package (Revelle, 2024). The resulting model was assessed via CFA using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012), using Maximum Likelihood estimation and fixed variances of latent factors. Guidelines by Hu and Bentler (1999) were used in the interpretation of the results. Reliability and response distribution of the 7-Point Likert scale version were investigated using Cronbach's Alpha (psych package; Revelle, 2024) and descriptive statistics (pastecs package; Grosjean & Ibanez, 2024). To assess validity, monotonic correlations between the MEINS, biodiversity experience (BEI), perceived quantity of plant species, perceived quantity of animal species, environmental characteristics (ECQ), and walking duration were calculated.
与预注册方案不同，研究 3 的数据既用于探索性因子分析（exploratory factor analysis，EFA），也用于验证性因子分析（confirmatory factor analysis，CFA），而非仅用于 CFA。这一变更是基于研究 1 中较高的因子相关，以及新采用的 7 点李克特（Likert）量表。为使各分析所获数据的离散矩阵具有等价的子集，采用了 SOLOMON 分割法（SOLOMON splitting method；Lorenzo-Seva，2022）。EFA 使用 psych 包（Revelle，2024）运行。所得模型通过 lavaan 包（Rosseel，2012）进行 CFA 评估，采用最大似然（Maximum Likelihood）估计和潜变量的固定方差。结果解释采用了 Hu 和 Bentler（1999）的准则。7 点李克特量表版本的信度与反应分布，使用 Cronbach's α 系数（psych 包；Revelle，2024）与描述性统计（pastecs 包；Grosjean & Ibanez，2024）进行了考察。为评估效度，计算了自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS）、生物多样性体验（BEI）、感知植物物种数量、感知动物物种数量、环境特征（ECQ）与步行时长之间的单调相关。
结果6.2. Results
The subsample for the EFA consisted of 215 participants, providing an item-participant ratio of 14.33, which is suitable for an EFA. All assumptions for an EFA were met, Bartlett's test for sphericity, χ2 = 1775.23, p < .001, KMO = 0.95, inter-item correlations below r = 0.8. Principal Axis factoring with Promax rotation for three factors provided a similar pattern as observed in Study 1, with two items falling into different factors than originally (see Table 5). Therefore, factor names were retained. However, low factor loadings and high factor correlations indicated that a 3-factor solution may not be ideal. The correlations were as follows: Noticing Nature x Mind & Body in Nature r = 0.71, Noticing Nature x Interbeing with Nature r = 0.79, Mind and Body in Nature x Interbeing with Nature r = 0.78. Parallel Analysis, Scree Plot, and Velicer MAP suggested a 1-Factor solution (see Table 5). For CFA, the subsample consisted of 216 participants, meeting the required sample size of 69 observations calculated through a priori power analysis for a 1-Factor solution. CFA for the 1-Factor solution did show some issues with the model fit, CFI = 0.94, which is below the good-fit threshold of 0.95 suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.08, p (H0: RMSEA ≥. 08) = 0.449, p (H0: RMSEA ≤ 0.05) = 0.001, RMSEA is above the suggested good-fit threshold of 0.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For comparison, the 3-Factor solution from the EFA subsample was also applied to the CFA subsample. This yielded better model-fit indices according to guidelines, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.07, p (H0: RMSEA ≥. 08) = 0.138, p (H0: RMSEA ≤ 0.05) = 0.013. While the 3-Factor structure showed better fit-indices than the 1-Factor structure, a Vuong test for non-nested likelihood ratio showed that this difference was not tied to a significantly better fit, z = − 1.41, p = .080.
EFA 的子样本（subsample）由 215 名参与者组成，条目—参与者比率为 14.33，适合进行 EFA。EFA 的所有假设均满足：Bartlett 球形检验 χ2 = 1775.23，p < .001，KMO = 0.95，条目间相关低于 r = 0.8。对三个因子采用主轴因子分解（Principal Axis factoring）与 Promax 旋转，得到与研究 1 中观察到的相似模式，有两条目落入与原先不同的因子（见表 5）。因此，因子名称予以保留。然而，较低的因子载荷与较高的因子相关表明，三因子解可能并不理想。各相关如下：觉察自然（Noticing Nature）× 自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature）r = 0.71，觉察自然（Noticing Nature）× 与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature）r = 0.79，自然中的身心（Mind and Body in Nature）× 与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature）r = 0.78。平行分析（Parallel Analysis）、碎石图（Scree Plot）与 Velicer MAP 均提示为单因子解（见 Table 5）。对于 CFA，子样本由 216 名参与者组成，达到了通过先验功效分析为单因子解计算所得的 69 个观测的样本量要求。单因子解的 CFA 确实显示出一些模型拟合（model fit）问题：CFI = 0.94，低于 Hu 和 Bentler（1999）所建议的 0.95 优拟合阈值；TLI = 0.93，SRMR = 0.05，RMSEA = 0.08，p（H0：RMSEA ≥ .08）= 0.449，p（H0：RMSEA ≤ 0.05）= 0.001，RMSEA 高于所建议的 0.06 优拟合阈值（Hu & Bentler，1999）。作为比较，也将 EFA 子样本所得的三因子解应用于 CFA 子样本。依据准则，这得到了更好的模型拟合指数（fit indices）：CFI = 0.95，TLI = 0.94，SRMR = 0.04，RMSEA = 0.07，p（H0：RMSEA ≥ .08）= 0.138，p（H0：RMSEA ≤ 0.05）= 0.013。尽管三因子结构显示出优于单因子结构的拟合指数，但针对非嵌套似然比（non-nested likelihood ratio）的 Vuong 检验表明，这一差异并未关联到显著更好的拟合，z = − 1.41，p = .080。
Internal reliability values, as well as relevant values regarding distribution and normality are displayed in Table 6. Internal reliability of the overall scale and the factors ranged from good to very good reliability. Average score on the MEINS was above the Likert-scale midpoint (4), the same was true for the factors. Despite this distribution, skewness and kurtosis were within the acceptable range (For more information, see Supplementary Material B).
内部信度值，以及有关分布与正态性的相关数值，见表 6。整体量表及各因子的内部信度（internal reliability）介于良好到非常好之间。MEINS 的平均得分高于李克特（Likert）量表的中点（4），各因子也是如此。尽管存在此种分布，偏度（skewness）与峰度（kurtosis）仍在可接受的范围之内（更多信息，见补充材料 B）。
Table 5 表 5 Factors and loadings for the EFA 3-Factor solution and 1-Factor Solution. SS loadings of Factors are Shown in Parentheses. Only loadings above .35 are shown.EFA 三因子解与单因子解的因子及其载荷。因子的 SS 载荷显示于括号内。仅显示高于 .35 的载荷。
| Item条目 |
Noticing Nature (3.23)觉察自然（Noticing Nature） |
Mind & Body in Nature (2.73)自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature） |
Interbeing (2.31)与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature） |
MEINS (7.45)自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS） |
| I pay attention to sounds in nature like birds chirping, leaves rustling, or water flowing.我留意自然中的声音，如鸟鸣、树叶沙沙作响，或流水之声。 |
0.770.77 |
—— |
—— |
0.740.74 |
| I pay attention to the natural smells and aromas of things, like wildflowers, or freshly mowed grass.我留意事物自然的气味与芳香，如野花，或刚割过的青草。 |
0.690.69 |
—— |
—— |
0.700.70 |
| When I visit the same place at different times, I notice how nature changes, for example how plants grow or change with the seasons.当我在不同时间造访同一地点时，我注意到自然如何变化，例如植物如何生长或随季节改变。 |
0.580.58 |
—— |
—— |
0.620.62 |
| I notice the natural environments in my everyday life.我留意日常生活中的自然环境。 |
0.740.74 |
—— |
—— |
0.680.68 |
| I notice the nature around me with curiosity.我带着好奇留意周围的自然。 |
0.380.38 |
—— |
—— |
0.690.69 |
| I allow my attention to be drawn to the sights, sounds, and smells of nature, one sense at a time.我让自己的注意力被自然的景象、声音与气味所吸引，一次一种感官。 |
—— |
0.360.36 |
—— |
0.820.82 |
| When I am walking in nature, I pay attention to the sensations of my body moving, for example the lightness of my steps on a soft forest ground.当我在自然中行走时，我留意身体移动的感觉，例如在柔软的森林地面上我脚步的轻快。 |
—— |
0.650.65 |
—— |
0.710.71 |
| I notice how sounds and smells in nature affect my thoughts, bodily sensations, and emotions.我注意到自然中的声音和气味如何影响我的想法、身体感觉与情绪。 |
—— |
0.810.81 |
—— |
0.610.61 |
| When I notice beauty in nature, I feel changes in my body, such as an expansion in my chest, a faster heartbeat, or other bodily responses.当我在自然中注意到美时，我感受到身体的变化，例如胸口的舒展、心跳加快，或其他身体反应。 |
—— |
0.500.50 |
—— |
0.530.53 |
| When I lose myself in thought, I can use the nature around me to pull me back into the present moment.当我在思绪中迷失自我时，我可以利用周围的自然将我拉回当下时刻。 |
—— |
—— |
0.630.63 |
0.680.68 |
| When I am in nature, I am aware of the interdependence between me and all natural things.当我在自然中时，我觉察到我与所有自然事物之间的相互依存（interdependence）。 |
—— |
—— |
0.480.48 |
0.790.79 |
| I often feel a respect and gratitude for the living things around me, like animals and plants.我常常对身边的生物感到尊重与感激，比如动物和植物。 |
—— |
—— |
0.740.74 |
0.700.70 |
| When in nature, I feel like I am part of something bigger.当处于自然中时，我感觉自己像是某个更宏大事物的一部分。 |
—— |
—— |
0.520.52 |
0.720.72 |
| When I am in nature, I feel a sense of deep connection between myself and all living things around me.当我在自然中时，我感受到自身与周围所有生命之间深切的联结。 |
—— |
—— |
0.590.59 |
0.820.82 |
| When I am in a natural space, I am aware that I am sharing the surroundings, the air, and the ground with natural life, like the trees around me.当我在自然空间中时，我觉察到我与周围的自然生命共享这周遭环境、空气与土地，比如身边的树木。 |
0.430.43 |
—— |
—— |
0.690.69 |
Note. Items are presented in the same order as in Study 1 to highlight the initial factor structure.
注。条目按与研究 1 相同的顺序呈现，以突出初始的因子结构。
表 5 原文抽取文本（原始顺序，供核对）
Table 5
Factors and loadings for the EFA 3-Factor solution and 1-Factor Solution. SS
loadings of Factors are Shown in Parentheses. Only loadings above .35 are
shown.
Item
3-Factors
1-Factor
Noticing
Nature
(3.23)
Mind &
Body in
Nature
(2.73)
Interbeing
(2.31)
MEINS
(7.45)
I pay attention to sounds in
nature like birds
chirping, leaves rustling,
or water flowing.
0.77
0.74
I pay attention to the
natural smells and
aromas of things, like
wildflowers, or freshly
mowed grass.
0.69
0.70
When I visit the same place
at different times, I
notice how nature
changes, for example
how plants grow or
change with the seasons.
0.58
0.62
I notice the natural
environments in my
everyday life.
0.74
0.68
I notice the nature around
me with curiosity.
0.38
0.69
I allow my attention to be
drawn to the sights,
sounds, and smells of
nature, one sense at a
time.
0.36
0.82
When I am walking in
nature, I pay attention to
the sensations of my
body moving, for
example the lightness of
my steps on a soft forest
ground.
0.65
0.71
I notice how sounds and
smells in nature affect
my thoughts, bodily
sensations, and
emotions.
0.81
0.61
When I notice beauty in
nature, I feel changes in
my body, such as an
expansion in my chest, a
faster heartbeat, or other
bodily responses.
0.50
0.53
When I lose myself in
thought, I can use the
nature around me to pull
me back into the present
moment.
0.63
0.68
When I am in nature, I am
aware of the
interdependence
between me and all
natural things.
0.48
0.79
I often feel a respect and
gratitude for the living
things around me, like
animals and plants.
0.74
0.70
When in nature, I feel like I
am part of something
bigger.
0.52
0.72
When I am in nature, I feel
a sense of deep
connection between
myself and all living
things around me.
0.59
0.82
When I am in a natural
space, I am aware that I
am sharing the
0.43
0.69
(continued on next page)
Table 5 (continued )
Item
3-Factors
1-Factor
Noticing
Nature
(3.23)
Mind &
Body in
Nature
(2.73)
Interbeing
(2.31)
MEINS
(7.45)
surroundings, the air,
and the ground with
natural life, like the trees
around me.
Note. Items are presented in the same order as in Study 1 to highlight the initial
factor structure.
Correlation analyses showed that the MEINS correlated significantly and positively with the environmental characteristics of the environment chosen for the walk and the duration of the walk. For perceived biodiversity, there was a significant, moderate, positive correlation between the MEINS and the BEI but no correlation between the MEINS and quantity of either plant or animal species (see Table 7).
相关分析表明，MEINS 与所选步行环境的环境特征以及步行时长呈显著正相关。在感知生物多样性（perceived biodiversity）方面，MEINS 与生物多样性体验指数（BEI）之间存在显著、中等程度的正相关，但 MEINS 与植物或动物物种的数量均无相关（见表 7）。
讨论7. Discussion
This paper set out to develop and validate a measurement scale for mindful engagement in nature. Items were generated deductively and inductively and evaluated through expert review for content validity. Items were reduced based on data from a general population sample. A 15-item Mindful Engagement in Nature Scale (MEINS) with three factors resulted. The first factor, Mind & Body in Nature, includes items assessing how nature can act as an anchor to bring attention to the state of the mind and the body. The second factor, Noticing Nature, focuses on how a participant pays attention to the nature around them and takes this nature in through various senses. The third factor, Interbeing with Nature, refers to a person's perception of interbeing with nature, ranging from a feeling of connectedness to an understanding of interdependence and reciprocity. The scale and its factors show high internal and test-retest reliability. MEINS is correlated in varying strengths with measures of well-being, mindfulness, and nature connectedness, but at the same time demonstrates discriminant validity to all those measures. Further support for discriminant validity comes from the lack of a correlation between mindful engagement in nature and perceived quantity of species for both plants and animals. Other variables specific to the experience of a walk were positively related to the MEINS. Results from hierarchical regression analyses suggest that the MEINS may not add significant explanatory weight to nature connectedness and mindfulness for the WHO-5, but provides additional explanation when predicting life satisfaction in addition to mindfulness. For life satisfaction, the addition of the MEINS further meant that nature connectedness measured with the INS did not remain a significant predictor.
本文旨在编制并验证一个用于测量自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）的量表。条目通过演绎与归纳方式生成，并经专家评审以评估其内容效度。条目基于一般人群样本的数据进行了删减。最终形成了一个包含 15 个条目、具有三个因子的自然中的正念投入量表（MEINS）。第一个因子，自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature），包含的条目评估自然如何充当一种锚定（anchor），将注意力带向身心状态。第二个因子，觉察自然（Noticing Nature），关注参与者如何留意周围的自然并经由各种感官将其纳入。第三个因子，与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature），指个体对与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature）的感知，范围从联结感，到对相互依存（interdependence）与互惠（reciprocity）的理解。该量表及其各因子显示出较高的内部信度（internal reliability）与重测信度（test-retest reliability）。MEINS 与幸福感（well-being）、正念（mindfulness）和自然联结（nature connectedness）的测量呈不同强度的相关，但同时对所有这些测量均表现出区分效度（discriminant validity）。区分效度的进一步支持来自：自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）与植物和动物的感知物种数量之间均缺乏相关。与步行体验相关的其他变量与 MEINS 呈正相关。分层回归分析的结果表明，在预测 WHO-5 时，MEINS 可能并未为自然联结（nature connectedness）和正念（mindfulness）增加显著的解释力，但在正念之外预测生活满意度时提供了额外的解释。就生活满意度而言，加入 MEINS 还意味着，使用 INS 测量的自然联结（nature connectedness）不再是一个显著的预测变量。
MEINS 的因子结构7.1. Factor structure of the MEINS
The 3-Factor structure of the MEINS emerging from the exploratory factor analysis during the item reduction phase may not be the psychometrically most fitting structure. Investigations of the 7-Point Likert versions showed some evidence in the EFA that a 1-Factor solution may be preferred, however, in a CFA, the comparison was inconclusive. Nevertheless, to explore various aspects of mindfulness that the MEINS touches on, the 3-Factor structure may provide a suitable starting point. The 3-Factor structure also aligns with guidelines for contemplative nature engagement, developed in a trans-disciplinary project with experts from research and various practice traditions (Macaulay et al., 2023). Here, the three key factors in a formal nature-based meditation are inviting attention to the surrounding nature and internal phenomena, such as body and breath, as well as evoking a connection to the rest of nature. These three guidelines each align with one of the factors of the MEINS, which appear in both practice and theory. For example, theoretical work on mindfulness in nature has criticised inconsistencies in the inclusion of internally and externally directed awareness as demonstrating a lack of theoretical underpinning in many interventions (Macaulay et al., 2022). Further, research on the pathways from mindfulness to nature connectedness attends to these three factors by proposing that decentring attention towards internal states allows immersive attention towards nature, thus enhancing an understanding of one's own being "part of" nature (Sanyer et al., 2023).
在条目删减阶段通过探索性因子分析（EFA）得出的 MEINS 三因子结构，在心理测量学上未必是最契合的结构。对 7 点李克特（Likert）版本的研究在 EFA 中显示出一些证据，表明可能更倾向于单因子（1-Factor）解，然而在验证性因子分析（CFA）中，比较结果并不明确。尽管如此，为了探究 MEINS 所触及的正念（mindfulness）的各个面向，三因子结构或可提供一个合适的起点。三因子结构也与沉思式自然投入（contemplative nature engagement）的指南相一致，这些指南是在一个跨学科项目中、由来自研究界和各种实践传统的专家共同制定的（Macaulay et al., 2023）。在此，正式的自然本位冥想中的三个关键因素是：邀请注意力指向周围的自然与内部现象（如身体与呼吸），以及唤起与自然界其余部分的联结。这三条指南分别与 MEINS 的一个因子相对应，这些因子在实践与理论中均有体现。例如，关于自然中正念的理论研究批评道，将内部与外部导向的觉察纳入时存在不一致，这反映出许多干预缺乏理论根基（Macaulay et al., 2022）。此外，关于从正念到自然联结（nature connectedness）路径的研究关注这三个因素，提出：对内部状态的去中心化（decentring）注意，能够促成对自然的沉浸式注意，从而增进对个体自身"属于（part of）"自然的理解（Sanyer et al., 2023）。
The first factor, Mind & Body in Nature, captures the first step in this pathway. Items refer to awareness of internal states of the body and the mind, such as the breath, emotions, and thoughts. This awareness is an integral part of mindful engagement in nature (Macaulay et al., 2022). This observation of inner states is in explicit relation to nature in the MEINS. Explicit inclusion of nature in the internally focused items fits within the current framework on mindfulness in nature that uses the Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995). Nature is thought to hold its restorative potential in part through providing relatively little attentional strain from external stimuli. Thus, a focus on one's internal states may be easier to maintain. It allows an open monitoring of these states, where attention is allowed to rest on what it is drawn to and is steered by openness and curiosity, thus demanding low attentional effort (e.g. Lymeus et al., 2018). This may explain why even conventional mindfulness practices show better well-being outcomes in natural settings, without adaptation beyond the setting (Choe et al., 2020). However, research on the interactions between mindfulness and nature has demonstrated that not just the mere observation of these states, but rather the decentring from these states is important for a deeper connection with nature (Macaulay et al., 2024; Sanyer et al., 2023). A specificity to nature in regarding one's own internal states may foster decentring by framing thoughts, emotions, and bodily sensations as related to one's experience in nature. This is captured in the items, for example, through the item "I notice how the sounds and smells in nature affect my thoughts, bodily sensations, and emotions", or through specific wording such as "my steps on the soft forest ground". Additionally, in some items, nature is framed as an anchor to the present moment, which can support decentring by avoiding being "sucked into" one's inner states (sample item: "When I lose myself in thought, I can use the nature around me to pull me back into the present moment."). Items that more explicitly captured decentring were in the initial item pool but were removed during the item reduction in Study 1, indicating that the items that primarily assess internal attention and only implicitly touch on decentring show more coherence with other mindful engagement in nature items.
第一个因子，自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature），把握了这条路径中的第一步。各条目涉及对身心内部状态的觉察，例如呼吸、情绪与想法。这种觉察是自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）不可或缺的组成部分（Macaulay et al., 2022）。MEINS 中对内部状态的观察与自然有着明确的关联。在自然中的正念（mindfulness in nature）当前框架中，将自然明确纳入内部聚焦的条目是契合的，该框架运用了注意恢复理论（Attention Restoration Theory）（Kaplan, 1995）。自然被认为其恢复潜能在部分上源自外部刺激所带来的注意张力相对较小。因此，对个体内部状态的聚焦可能更容易维持。它允许对这些状态进行开放的监测，注意力得以停留于其所被吸引之物，并受开放与好奇所引导，因而所需注意努力较低（例如 Lymeus et al., 2018）。这或许可以解释，为何即便是常规的正念练习，在自然环境中也能表现出更好的幸福感（well-being）结果，而无需超出环境本身的调整（Choe et al., 2020）。然而，关于正念与自然之间相互作用的研究表明，对于与自然建立更深层的联结而言，重要的不只是对这些状态的单纯观察，而是对这些状态的去中心化（decentring）（Macaulay et al., 2024; Sanyer et al., 2023）。在看待自身内部状态时对自然的特定指向，可将想法、情绪和身体感觉框定为与个体在自然中的体验相关，从而促成去中心化（decentring）。这体现在条目中，例如通过条目"我注意到自然中的声音和气味如何影响我的想法、身体感觉与情绪"，或通过如"我在柔软的森林地面上的脚步"这样特定的措辞。此外，在一些条目中，自然被框定为锚定（anchor）于当下时刻，这可以通过避免被"sucked into（卷入）"自身内部状态来支持去中心化（decentring）（例如条目："当我在思绪中迷失自我时，我可以利用周围的自然将我拉回当下时刻。"）。那些更明确捕捉去中心化（decentring）的条目曾出现在初始条目池中，但在研究 1 的条目删减阶段被移除，这表明，主要评估内部注意、仅含蓄触及去中心化（decentring）的条目，与其他自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）条目之间表现出更高的一致性。
Table 6 表 6 Descriptive statistics (7-Point Likert) for MEINS total and factors based on Study 3 EFA基于研究 3 EFA 的 MEINS 总分及各因子的描述性统计（7 点李克特）
| Scale量表 |
Cronbach's ⍺Cronbach's ⍺ 系数 |
M均值（M） |
SD标准差（SD） |
Score Range得分范围 |
Skewness偏度 |
Kurtosis峰度 |
| MEINS totalMEINS 总分 |
0.94 [0.93, 0.94]0.94 [0.93, 0.94] |
5.795.79 |
0.880.88 |
2.07–7.002.07–7.00 |
− 1.02− 1.02 |
1.061.06 |
| Noticing Nature觉察自然（Noticing Nature） |
0.86 [0.83, 0.88]0.86 [0.83, 0.88] |
6.006.00 |
0.820.82 |
2.33–7.002.33–7.00 |
− 1.02− 1.02 |
1.001.00 |
| Mind & Body in Nature自然中的身心（Mind & Body in Nature） |
0.83 [0.80, 0.85]0.83 [0.80, 0.85] |
5.485.48 |
1.061.06 |
1.20–7.001.20–7.00 |
− 0.81− 0.81 |
0.600.60 |
| Interbeing with Nature与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature） |
0.88 [0.86, 0.90]0.88 [0.86, 0.90] |
5.795.79 |
1.021.02 |
1.80–7.001.80–7.00 |
− 1.16− 1.16 |
1.311.31 |
Note. Scores for the overall- and subscales are calculated as mean of the corresponding item scores, leading to a possible score range from 1 to 7.
注。总分与分量表的得分均按相应条目得分的均值计算，因此可能的得分范围为 1 到 7。
表 6 原文抽取文本（原始顺序，供核对）
Table 6
Descriptive statistics (7-Point Likert) for MEINS total and factors based on Study
3 EFA
Scale
Cronbach's
⍺
M
SD
Score
Range
Skewness
Kurtosis
MEINS
total
0.94 [0.93,
0.94]
5.79
0.88
2.07–7.00
− 1.02
1.06
Noticing
Nature
0.86 [0.83,
0.88]
6.00
0.82
2.33–7.00
− 1.02
1.00
Mind &
Body in
Nature
0.83 [0.80,
0.85]
5.48
1.06
1.20–7.00
− 0.81
0.60
Interbeing
with
Nature
0.88 [0.86,
0.90]
5.79
1.02
1.80–7.00
− 1.16
1.31
Note. Scores for the overall- and subscales are calculated as mean of the corre-
sponding item scores, leading to a possible score range from 1 to 7.
The factor Noticing Nature encompasses the external awareness in explicit relation to nature. Historically, external mindfulness, as emerging from Buddhist texts, referred to other people but may find wider applications in contemporary research (Anālayo, 2020). For example, in the 15-item Five facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-15; Baer et al., 2012), external awareness towards sounds includes a clock, cars, and even nature in the form of birds (Baer et al., 2006). Noticing nature has been subject of psychological research both within and outside of the scope of mindfulness. Sometimes framed as "actively noticing nature" (Richardson et al., 2021) or "engaging in simple nature activities" (Richardson, Passmore, et al., 2020), intentional attention towards specific aspects of nature is an important predictor of pro-nature conservation behaviours and nature connectedness (Richardson et al., 2021; Richardson, Passmore, et al., 2020). In fact, sensory engagement in nature is considered as a key pathway to nature connectedness (Lumber et al., 2017). Some non-mindfulness related interventions make use of this noticing, for example the 'three good things in nature' intervention has been shown to improve both well-being and mindfulness (Harvey et al., 2023).
觉察自然（Noticing Nature）这一因子涵盖了与自然界明确相关的外在觉察（external awareness）。历史上，外在正念（external mindfulness）源于佛教经典，原指对他人（other people）的觉察，但可能在当代研究中找到更广泛的应用（Anālayo, 2020）。例如，在 15 题版五因素正念问卷（FFMQ-15；Baer 等, 2012）中，对外在声音的正念觉察（mindful awareness）包括对时钟、汽车乃至以鸟类形态存在的自然（Baer 等, 2006）。觉察自然（Noticing Nature）一直是正念（mindfulness）范畴内外心理学研究的对象。有时被表述为"积极觉察自然"（actively noticing nature；Richardson 等, 2021）或"从事简单的自然活动"（engaging in simple nature activities；Richardson、Passmore 等, 2020），对自然特定方面有意投入的注意（intentional attention）是亲自然保护行为（pro-nature conservation behaviours）与自然联结（nature connectedness）的重要预测因素（Richardson 等, 2021；Richardson、Passmore 等, 2020）。事实上，自然中的感官投入（sensory engagement in nature）被认为是通向自然联结（nature connectedness）的关键路径（Lumber 等, 2017）。一些与非正念（non-mindfulness）相关的干预也利用了这一觉察，例如"自然中的三件好事"（three good things in nature）干预已被证明能同时改善幸福感（well-being）与正念（mindfulness）（Harvey 等, 2023）。
In mindfulness, a perceptual sensitivity towards nature is used in some nature-specific interventions, and in studies it is often framed within the concept of open monitoring (e.g. Lymeus et al., 2018). This connotation is captured explicitly in the items present in this factor, for example, "I notice the nature around me with curiosity". Further, the item wordings do not include any aspects of judgment or reactivity. Theoretical framework regarding perceptual sensitivity further highlights its connections to the Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995), through soft fascination, and to nature connectedness, through the abovementioned pathway of contact as well as the pathway of beauty (Macaulay et al., 2022).
在正念（mindfulness）中，对自然的感知敏感性（perceptual sensitivity）被用于一些自然特异性的干预（nature-specific interventions），并且在研究中常被框定（framed）于开放监控（open monitoring）的概念之内（例如 Lymeus 等, 2018）。这一内涵（connotation）被明确地捕捉于该因子现有题项中，例如"我带着好奇觉察我周围的自然"（I notice the nature around me with curiosity）。此外，题项的措辞不包含任何判断（judgment）或反应性（reactivity）的方面。关于感知敏感性（perceptual sensitivity）的理论框架进一步凸显了其与注意恢复理论（Attention Restoration Theory；Kaplan, 1995）通过柔性迷恋（soft fascination）的联系，以及与自然联结（nature connectedness）通过前述接触路径（pathway of contact）以及美（beauty）的路径（Macaulay 等, 2022）的联系。
The final factor, Interbeing with Nature, captures aspects of the notion of nature in self, as theorised to emerge from decentring attention from inner states towards nature (Sanyer et al., 2023). The term interbeing was coined by Buddhist monk and activist Thich Nhat Hanh, who was the founding figure of engaged Buddhism (Sankapal, 2024). Interbeing is an interpretation of the Buddhist concept of "emptiness" and describes a deep interconnection between all living and non-living beings to the extent that a "self" does not exist (Lim, 2022). This extent of interconnection is seldom part of westernised mindfulness programmes, even though it plays a central role in its Buddhist roots. Van Gordon et al. (2018) have criticised the lack of depth in the concept of interconnectedness in Western mindfulness. They highlight that interconnectedness tends to focus merely on the interdependence of separate entities, disregarding ideas of a boundaryless existence of human and nature. To honour both, the criticism from psychological researchers and the roots of mindfulness in spiritual Asian practices, we chose the term interbeing for our final factor, which included items addressing various aspects of this concept. Similar terms like "interconnectedness" or "interdependence" in turn may only address some aspects of the construct that the items capture. For example, items like "When I am in nature, I feel like I am part of something bigger" attempt to capture a depth of connection beyond interdependence or affinity in lay terms.
最后一个因子，与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature），涵盖了自然融入自我（nature in self）这一观念（notion）的若干方面，据理论化，它源于将注意（attention）从内在状态去中心化（decentring）而转向自然（Sanyer 等, 2023）。互在（interbeing）一词由佛教僧侣与活动家一行禅师（Thich Nhat Hanh）所创，他是对话佛教（engaged Buddhism）的奠基性人物（Sankapal, 2024）。互在（interbeing）是对佛教"空"（emptiness）概念的一种诠释，并描述了所有有生命与无生命存在之间的深度互连（interconnection），以至于"自我"（self）并不存在（Lim, 2022）。这种互连（interconnection）的程度鲜少成为西方化正念（mindfulness）方案的组成部分，尽管它在佛教根源中扮演核心角色。Van Gordon 等（2018）批评了西方正念（mindfulness）中互连（interconnectedness）概念缺乏深度。他们强调，互连（interconnectedness）往往仅聚焦于独立实体（separate entities）的相互依赖（interdependence），忽视了人类与自然无边界共存（boundaryless existence）的观念。为了同时尊重来自心理学研究者的批评与正念（mindfulness）在亚洲灵性实践中的根源，我们为最后一个因子选择了互在（interbeing）一词，该因子包含了涉及此概念多个方面的题项。类似术语如"互连"（interconnectedness）或"相互依赖"（interdependence）则只能涵盖题项所捕捉构念的某些方面。例如，诸如"当我在自然中时，我感到自己是更宏大事物的一部分"（When I am in nature, I feel like I am part of something bigger）这样的题项，试图捕捉超越相互依赖（interdependence）或通俗意义上亲和（affinity）的连接深度。
There is some possible conceptual overlap with the Interbeing aspect of the MEINS and the concept of nature connectedness, though the extent of that overlap depends on the specific approach to nature connectedness that is used. For example, this paper used the Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale (INS; Schultz, 2002) and the Nature Connection Index (NCI; Richardson et al., 2019) for validation: The INS may capture parts of interbeing by showing an overlap of self and nature, though it still defines a self with clear boundaries, thus differing from mindful interpretations of interbeing (Schultz, 2002; Van Gordon et al., 2018). The NCI, on the other hand, while including "being part" of nature, also focuses on a wider understanding of nature connectedness, including statements like "I always find beauty in nature" (Richardson et al., 2019). Such statements lie beyond the definition of mindfulness as they can be classed as a judgment (Macaulay et al., 2022). Statistically, both the INS and the NCI showed discriminant validity to the MEINS, suggesting that there is a difference in the constructs.
MEINS 的互在（interbeing）方面与自然联结（nature connectedness）这一概念之间可能存在一定的概念重叠（conceptual overlap），尽管重叠的程度取决于所采用的具体自然联结（nature connectedness）路径。例如，本文使用了自然纳入自我（INS；Schultz, 2002）与自然联结指数（NCI；Richardson 等, 2019）进行验证：INS 可能通过展现自我与自然的重叠来捕捉互在（interbeing）的部分内容，尽管它仍定义了一个具有清晰边界的自我，因而有别于对互在（interbeing）的正念（mindful）诠释（Schultz, 2002；Van Gordon 等, 2018）。另一方面，NCI 虽然包含了作为自然"一部分"（being part）的内容，但也聚焦于对自然联结（nature connectedness）更宽泛的理解，包括诸如"我总能在自然中发现美"（I always find beauty in nature）这样的陈述（Richardson 等, 2019）。此类陈述超出了正念（mindfulness）的定义，因为它们可被归类为判断（judgment）（Macaulay 等, 2022）。在统计上，INS 与 NCI 均显示出对 MEINS 的区分效度（discriminant validity），表明这些构念之间存在差异。
The concept of interbeing is not included in the concept of mindfulness itself in previous frameworks of mindfulness towards nature (e.g. Lymeus et al., 2018; Macaulay et al., 2022). In these programmes and frameworks, it is rather regarded as an outcome of mindfulness. Some recent intervention programmes, however, do include such interconnection or interdependence as part of mindfulness, highlighting its role for ethical consequences, such as pro-social and pro-environmental behaviour (Blanke et al., 2025). Including such concepts, which have traditionally been excluded when adapting mindfulness to non-spiritual contexts, can address criticisms of modern mindfulness. Such criticisms claim that mindfulness, as it is often used today, has been stripped of ethical, social, and political dimensions, which can hamper many of the positive effects of mindfulness beyond individual self-improvement (Walsh, 2016).
互在（interbeing）这一概念并未包含在先前面向自然的正念（mindfulness）框架中（例如 Lymeus 等, 2018；Macaulay 等, 2022）。在这些方案与框架中，它更被视为正念（mindfulness）的一种结果（outcome）。然而，一些近期的干预方案确实将这种互连（interconnection）或相互依赖（interdependence）作为正念（mindfulness）的一部分纳入，强调其在亲社会（pro-social）与亲环境行为（pro-environmental behaviour）等伦理后果（ethical consequences）中的作用（Blanke 等, 2025）。纳入这些在传统上将正念（mindfulness）适配于非灵性（non-spiritual）情境时曾被排除的概念，能够回应对于现代正念（mindfulness）的批评。此类批评声称，正念（mindfulness）正如当今常被使用的那样，已被剥离了伦理、社会与政治维度，这可能妨碍正念（mindfulness）超越个体自我提升（self-improvement）的诸多积极效应（Walsh, 2016）。
MEINS 与相关构念7.2. MEINS and related constructs
For the validation of the MEINS, we computed correlations with various constructs that should be related to mindful engagement in nature. Mindful engagement in nature was correlated with a medium effect size with the FFMQ-15 and showed discriminant validity with this measure. The MEINS was correlated to both the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5; World Health Organization, 2024) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985), though the effect strength was larger for satisfaction with life. Both correlation strengths were comparable to the relationship of general mindfulness with well-being. In hierarchical regressions, MEINS added additional predictive value to mindfulness and nature connectedness for life satisfaction, but not to the WHO-5. This suggests that the role of mindful engagement in nature may depend on the specific operationalisation of well-being used. Further, in this manuscript, it was employed in a general context. However, mindful engagement in nature may unfold its potential for well-being more clearly in nature experiences, as it plays a role in what people notice in nature. For example, several studies have found that not the actual biodiversity of a place, but the perceived biodiversity plays a role in well-being changes after exposure to these places (e.g. Farris et al., 2024; Ma & Wu, 2025;
为对 MEINS（自然中的正念投入量表 / MEINS）进行效度验证，我们计算了其与多个应当和自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）相关的构念之间的相关。自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）与五因素正念问卷 15 题版（FFMQ-15；Baer 等, 2012）呈中等效应量的相关，并显示出与该测量的区分效度（discriminant validity）。MEINS 与世界卫生组织五题幸福感指数（WHO-5 幸福感指数 / WHO-5；World Health Organization, 2024）及生活满意度量表（SWLS；Diener 等, 1985）均呈相关，尽管对生活满意度的效应强度更大。这两种相关的强度均与一般正念（mindfulness）与幸福感（well-being）之间的关系相当。在层级回归（hierarchical regression）中，MEINS 对生活满意度之外的正念（mindfulness）与自然联结（nature connectedness）增加了额外的预测价值，但对 WHO-5 没有。这表明自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）的作用可能取决于所使用的具体幸福感（well-being）操作化方式。此外，在本文中，它是在一般情境下使用的。然而，自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）在自然环境体验中可能更清晰地展现其对幸福感（well-being）的潜力，因为它在人们于自然中所注意到的事物上发挥作用。例如，若干研究发现，在一个地方实际的生物多样性（biodiversity）并非关键，真正起作用的而是感知生物多样性（perceived biodiversity），它在接触这些地方后的幸福感（well-being）变化中起作用（例如 Farris 等, 2024；Ma 与 Wu, 2025；
Table 7 表 7 Medians, Interquartile Range, and monotonic correlations (ρ) for the MEINS and the validation variables.MEINS 与效度变量的中位数、四分位距及单调相关（ρ）。
| Construct构念 | Median中位数 | IQR四分位距 | 11 | 22 | 33 | 44 | 55 |
|---|
| 1. MEINS1. MEINS（自然中的正念投入量表） | 5.935.93 | 5.33 - 6.475.33 - 6.47 | —— | —— | —— | —— | —— |
| 2. BEI2. BEI（生物多样性体验指数） | 3.253.25 | 2.75 – 4.002.75 – 4.00 | 0.32***0.32*** | —— | —— | —— | —— |
| 3. Plant Species3. 植物物种 | 66 | 4 - 104 - 10 | − 0.02− 0.02 | 0.26***0.26*** | —— | —— | —— |
| 4. Animal Species4. 动物物种 | 33 | 2 - 52 - 5 | 0.020.02 | 0.37***0.37*** | 0.46***0.46*** | —— | —— |
| 5. ECQ5. ECQ（环境特征问卷） | 2.32.3 | 2.1 – 2.52.1 – 2.5 | 0.22***0.22*** | 0.41***0.41*** | 0.33***0.33*** | 0.22***0.22*** | —— |
| 6. Walk Duration6. 步行时长 | 3 (30 min – 1 h)3（30 分钟 – 1 小时） | 2 - 4 (15 min – 2 h)2 - 4（15 分钟 – 2 小时） | 0.12*0.12* | 0. 23***0. 23*** | 0.18***0.18*** | 0.24***0.24*** | 0.12*0.12* |
Note. Spearman's ρ was chosen instead of Pearson's r due to the ordinary measurement of walking duration and outliers on the plant species variable. Accordingly, Median and IQR are reported instead of Mean and Standard Deviation.
注。由于步行时长的顺序测量及植物物种变量的异常值，选用 Spearman 的 ρ 而非 Pearson 的 r。相应地，报告中位数（Median）与四分位距（IQR）而非均值（Mean）与标准差（Standard Deviation）。
*p ≤ .05 **p ≤ .01 ***p ≤ .001.
*p ≤ .05，**p ≤ .01，***p ≤ .001。
表 7 原文抽取文本（原始顺序，供核对）
Table 7
Medians, Interquartile Range, and monotonic correlations (ρ) for the MEINS and the validation variables.
Construct
Median
IQR
1
2
3
4
5
1. MEINS
5.93
5.33 - 6.47
2. BEI
3.25
2.75 – 4.00
0.32***
3. Plant Species
6
4 - 10
− 0.02
0.26***
4. Animal Species
3
2 - 5
0.02
0.37***
0.46***
5. ECQ
2.3
2.1 – 2.5
0.22***
0.41***
0.33***
0.22***
6. Walk Duration
3 (30 min – 1 h)
2 - 4 (15 min – 2 h)
0.12*
0. 23***
0.18***
0.24***
0.12*
Note. Spearman's ρ was chosen instead of Pearson's r due to the ordinary measurement of walking duration and outliers on the plant species variable. Accordingly, Median and IQR are reported instead of Mean and Standard Deviation.
*p ≤ .05 **p ≤ .01 ***p ≤ .001.
Rozario et al., 2024). Mindful engagement in nature may heighten such perceptions through the attention towards natural elements and one's own reactions to them.
Rozario 等, 2024）。自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）可能通过对自然要素及个体自身对其反应的注意（attention），增强此类感知。
First evidence for this assumption was found in the results of Study 3, providing some further differentiation. Here, mindful engagement in nature was positively related to the characteristics of the environment people choose for their walks, the length of their walk, and perceived biodiversity when conceptualised as an experiential variable, but not to perceived biodiversity when conceptualised as the number of different species encountered. Previous research highlights that biodiversity experience is related but not equal to actual biodiversity and constitutes a qualitative experiential variable based on perceptual cues, such as colours and sounds. This experience being related to mindful engagement in nature, while the perceived number of species is not, is in line with the conceptualisation of mindfulness as sensory and directly experiential rather than elaborative or analytically labelling (Bishop et al., 2004). In some contexts, such as emotion regulation, labelling processes can even impede mindfulness (Nook et al., 2021). Similarly, mindful engagement in nature seems to relate to the overall experience of nature but not the conceptual labelling of details, such as separate species.
这一假设的首批证据见于研究 3 的结果，提供了进一步的区分。在此，自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）与人们为其散步所选环境（environment）的特征、散步的时长，以及在被概念化为体验性变量时的感知生物多样性（perceived biodiversity）呈正相关，但与在被概念化为所遇到的不同物种数量时的感知生物多样性（perceived biodiversity）不相关。先前的研究强调，生物多样性体验（biodiversity experience）与实际生物多样性相关但并不等同，它构成了一种基于感知线索（如颜色与声音）的质性体验变量。这种体验与自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）相关，而感知到的物种数量则不相关，这与将正念（mindfulness）概念化为感官性、直接体验性而非精细加工或分析性标记（labelling）的观点一致（Bishop 等, 2004）。在某些情境中，例如情绪调节，标记（labelling）过程甚至会阻碍正念（mindfulness）（Nook 等, 2021）。类似地，自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）似乎与对自然整体的体验相关，而非与诸如各独立物种等细节的概念性标记（labelling）相关。
For nature connectedness, the MEINS showed a medium-strength correlation with the NCI and a strong correlation with the INS. For both, the relationship with the MEINS was higher than with general mindfulness. However, previous research has found that the relationship between mindfulness and nature connectedness may be due to decentring rather than other subfactors of mindfulness. The correlation strength found between the MEINS and the NCI is similar to previously found correlation strengths of decentring and nature connectedness, while the correlation with the INS was stronger than those previous findings (Sanyer et al., 2023). Future research should examine the effects of nature-specific mindfulness on nature connectedness and how it is interconnected or parallel to previously investigated connections between decentring and nature connectedness.
就自然联结（nature connectedness）而言，MEINS 与 NCI（自然联结指数 / NCI）呈中等强度相关，与 INS（自然纳入自我 / INS）呈强相关。对两者而言，其与 MEINS 的关系均高于与一般正念（mindfulness）的关系。然而，先前的研究发现，正念（mindfulness）与自然联结（nature connectedness）之间的关系可能源于去中心化（decentring），而非正念（mindfulness）的其他子因子。MEINS 与 NCI 之间所发现的相关强度，与先前发现的去中心化（decentring）与自然联结（nature connectedness）的相关强度相近，而与 INS 的相关则强于那些先前的发现（Sanyer 等, 2023）。未来的研究应考察自然特异性正念（nature-specific mindfulness）对自然联结（nature connectedness）的效应，以及它如何与先前已研究的去中心化（decentring）和自然联结（nature connectedness）之间的联系相互交织或并行。
局限性7.3. Limitations
While the combination of inductive and deductive item generation and a three-step expert Delphi study methodologically provide high confidence in the content validity of the scale, the relatively small number of experts may have led to oversights. Such oversights can be partially compensated for by the range of expertise present in the expert sample, with most experts having expertise beyond just one area of mindfulness and nature (e.g. psychological researchers with training in mindful outdoor education).
尽管归纳与演绎相结合的题项生成方式，以及三步式专家德尔菲研究在方法上使我们对量表的内容效度（content validity）具有较高信心，但专家数量相对较少可能导致疏漏。此类疏漏可由专家样本中现有专业知识的广度部分地加以弥补，因为大多数专家拥有超越正念（mindfulness）与自然单一领域的专长（例如受过正念户外教育训练的心理研究者）。
The data collection via Prolific yielded diverse samples (see Supplementary Material B). However, the number of regular mindfulness practitioners in the samples was quite high, with only eight to twenty-four percent of participants not practising mindfulness at least sometimes. This may have skewed the overall scores on the MEINS, which, while still showing acceptable skewness and kurtosis values, were on average noticeably above the midpoint. Further research into the distribution of MEINS scores in different samples is needed. A 7-Point Likert Scale disentangling the previously joint anchors "never" and "very rarely" as well as "very often" and "always" did not solve this skew; however, this finding was in Study 3, which had a particularly high proportion of mindfulness practitioners. The use of a 7-Point Likert scale for more detailed differentiation is recommended. Further, the skew towards mindfulness practitioners limits the generalisation of this paper's findings. Other characteristics of Prolific participants, such as experience in responding to surveys, may have further impacted the results. Future research with non-practicing participants from various recruitment pools should seek to further investigate the psychometric properties of the MEINS. Such investigations should focus on the fit and predictive patterns of a 1-Factor structure compared to a 3-Factor structure.
通过 Prolific 进行的数据收集产生了多样化的样本（见补充材料 B）。然而，样本中定期正念（mindfulness）练习者的数量相当高，仅有百分之八到二十四的参与者不至少有时练习正念（mindfulness）。这可能导致 MEINS 的总体得分出现偏斜（skewed），尽管其仍显示出可接受的偏度（skewness）与峰度（kurtosis）值，但平均而言明显高于中点。需要进一步研究不同样本中 MEINS 得分的分布（distribution）。一个将先前合并的锚点"从不"（never）与"极少"（very rarely）以及"经常"（very often）与"总是"（always）区分开来的 7 点李克特（Likert）量表并未解决这一偏斜；然而，这一发现来自研究 3，该研究的正念（mindfulness）练习者比例尤其高。建议使用 7 点李克特（Likert）量表以获得更细致的区分。此外，向正念（mindfulness）练习者的偏斜限制了本文研究结论的推广性（generalisation）。Prolific 参与者的其他特征，例如回应调查的经验，可能进一步影响了结果。未来使用来自不同招募渠道的非练习者参与者的研究，应试图进一步考察 MEINS 的心理测量属性（psychometric properties）。此类研究应聚焦于单因子（1-Factor）结构与三因子（3-Factor）结构相比的拟合（fit）与预测模式。
Additionally, the measure for time spent in nature per week yielded some impossible and some unrealistic entries. Possible explanations are difficulties in time representations over larger time periods, which can lead to inaccuracies in estimating hours spent doing a certain activity in a week (Matthews & Meck, 2014; Walthery & Gershuny, 2019). In fact, there is little consensus in the current literature about ideal time-related measurements of nature contact (Holland et al., 2021). Our data suggests that the measurement employed presents tendencies and subjective self-perceptions rather than exact times. Future research may benefit from different measurement techniques that allow higher accuracy.
此外，每周在自然中所花费时间的测量产生了一些不可能的及一些不切实际的条目。可能的解释在于较长时段内时间表征的困难，这可能导致在估计一周内从事某项活动的小时数时出现不准确（Matthews 与 Meck, 2014；Walthery 与 Gershuny, 2019）。事实上，当前文献对于自然接触（nature contact）的理想时间相关测量（measurement）问题几乎未达成共识（Holland 等, 2021）。我们的数据表明，所采用的测量呈现的是倾向与主观（subjective）自我感知，而非精确时间。未来的研究或许可从能够提高准确性的不同测量技术中受益。
结论7.4. Conclusion
The intersection between mindfulness and nature to this day has been studied and conceptualised with varying levels of comparability. The interaction between mindfulness and nature suggests it is worth investigating mindful engagement in nature explicitly. This paper developed and validated a measurement scale, allowing assessment of mindful engagement in nature rather than just the related yet separate constructs of mindfulness in general or nature connectedness. Such nature specificity of mindfulness can contribute to a more detailed understanding of the reciprocal relationship between mindfulness and nature. In addition to its use in research, the MEINS can find application in mindfulness practice as an evaluation tool for interventions and programmes. The dimensions found through exploratory factor analysis align with theory and practice. They highlight the importance of integrating inward and outward attention, alongside interbeing, a construct often absent from Western mindfulness adaptations, despite its centrality in traditional source practices. Future research should investigate mindful engagement in nature in the contexts of nature-based experiences and mindfulness courses that include nature in any way. The application of the MEINS can enable researchers to better understand the pathways through which mindfulness contributes to human well-being and planetary health.
迄今为止，正念（mindfulness）与自然之间的交叉（intersection）已在具有不同可比性水平的层面被研究与概念化。正念（mindfulness）与自然之间的相互作用表明，值得对自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）进行明确的考察。本文开发并验证了（developed and validated）一个测量量表，使得对自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）的评估成为可能，而不仅仅是针对一般正念（mindfulness）或自然联结（nature connectedness）这些相关却分离的构念。正念（mindfulness）的这种自然特异性（nature specificity）有助于更细致地理解正念（mindfulness）与自然之间互惠的关系。除在研究中的应用外，MEINS 还可以在正念（mindfulness）实践中作为干预与方案的评估工具加以应用。通过探索性因子分析（exploratory factor analysis）所发现的维度与理论和实践相一致。它们凸显了整合（integrating）向内与向外注意（attention）的重要性，以及与自然互在（Interbeing with Nature），这一构念（construct）往往缺席于西方正念（mindfulness）的改编版本，尽管其在传统源流实践中具有核心地位（centrality）。未来的研究应在基于自然的体验（nature-based experiences）以及以任何方式纳入自然的冥想课程（mindfulness courses）情境中考察自然中的正念投入（mindful engagement in nature）。MEINS 的应用能够使研究者更好地理解正念（mindfulness）藉由何种路径促成人类幸福感（well-being）与地球健康（planetary health）。
数据声明Data statement
All scale development steps were preregistered on Open Science Framework prior to the start of each data collection, in succession, as some steps built on previous results: https://osf.io/3wzpc/overview. Data for Study 1-3 will be made available via the Open Science Framework upon manuscript publication in a clean version that has removed the ProlificIDs, any automatically recorded information, except for response duration, as well as any participants removed in the analysis. Data provided by Prolific regarding demographic variables of participants will not be made available beyond the tables provided in Supplementary Material B.
所有量表开发步骤均在每次数据收集开始前预注册于开放科学框架（OSF），依次进行，因为部分步骤建立在先前结果的基础上：https://osf.io/3wzpc/overview。研究 1-3 的数据将在手稿发表后通过开放科学框架（OSF）以清洁版本提供，该版本已移除 ProlificIDs、除作答时长外的任何自动记录信息，以及在分析中被剔除的参与者数据。Prolific 提供的关于参与者人口统计学变量的数据，除补充材料 B 中所提供表格外，将不会公开。
资助声明Funding declaration
Data collections for study 1-3 as well as employment of a research assistant were funded by the FernUniversität in Hagen through an internal research grant, Flexibler Förderfonds Nachwuchs [409_2024_10].
研究 1-3 的数据收集以及一名研究助理的聘用，由哈根费恩大学（FernUniversität in Hagen）通过一项内部研究资助「青年灵活资助基金」（Flexibler Förderfonds Nachwuchs）[409_2024_10] 提供经费。
CRediT 作者贡献声明CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lea Barbett: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Jascha L. Naumann: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Anette Rohmann: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Lea Barbett：概念化、数据管理、形式化分析、经费获取、调查实施、研究方法、项目管理、验证、可视化、初稿撰写、审阅与编辑。Jascha L. Naumann：数据管理、调查实施、研究方法、可视化、审阅与编辑。Anette Rohmann：概念化、研究方法、资源、指导、验证、审阅与编辑。
利益冲突Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
致谢Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all experts who contributed their time and knowledge throughout the Delphi Process that informed the item generation and content validity evaluation. The following experts agreed to be named in this paper:
- Dr. Sascha Kuhn, University of Gothenburg
- Ralitsa Shentova
- Dr. Patricia Zieris, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt
- Katharina Voigt
- Dr. Rose Macaulay, University of Melbourne
- Elke Loepthien-Gerwert, Circlewise Institute gGmbH, Germany
We further want to acknowledge the work of Vanessa Stachowiak, Tim Mildenberger, Anna Rabe, and Tina Conrad, supporting the preparation of this paper by formatting and proofreading preregistrations, supplements, tables in the manuscript, and the manuscript itself.
我们谨向所有在本研究德尔菲法（Delphi Process）过程中贡献时间与专业知识的专家表示感谢，该方法为条目的生成与内容效度评估提供了依据。以下专家同意在本文中具名：
- Sascha Kuhn 博士，哥德堡大学
- Ralitsa Shentova
- Patricia Zieris 博士，艾希施泰特-英戈尔施塔特天主教大学（Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt）
- Katharina Voigt
- Rose Macaulay 博士，墨尔本大学
- Elke Loepthien-Gerwert，德国 Circlewise Institute gGmbH
我们亦要感谢 Vanessa Stachowiak、Tim Mildenberger、Anna Rabe 和 Tina Conrad 的工作，她们通过整理与校对本研究的预注册方案、补充材料、手稿中的表格以及手稿本身，为本论文的准备工作提供了支持。
附录 A 补充数据Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.103165.
本文的补充数据可在以下网址在线获取：https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.103165。
参考文献References
- Anālayo, B. (2020). External mindfulness. Mindfulness, 11(7), 1632–1646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01377-8中文题名：外在正念
- Baer, R. A. (2009). Self-focused attention and mechanisms of change in mindfulness-10.1080/16506070902980703中文题名：（原文抽取残缺，暂缺译名）
- Baer, R. A., Carmody, J., & Hunsinger, M. (2012). Weekly change in mindfulness and perceived stress in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program. Journal of Clinical中文题名：基于正念的减压项目中正念与感知压力的每周变化
- Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1),中文题名：运用自我报告式评估方法探索正念的多重面向
- Barbett, Lea, Syropoulos, Stylianos, Capozzoli, Jin, & The C19 Consortium. (2026). Nature connectedness and well-being: Evidence from a multi-national investigation across 75 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 110, Article 102895. com/retrieve/pii/S0272494425003780中文题名：自然联结与幸福感：来自横跨75个国家的多国调查的证据
- Barragan-Jason, G., Loreau, M., de Mazancourt, C., Singer, M. C., & Parmesan, C. (2023). Psychological and physical connections with nature improve both human well-being and nature conservation: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Biological中文题名：与自然的心理及身体联结同时改善人类幸福感与自然保护：一项元分析系统综述
- Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241.中文题名：正念：一种拟议的操作性定义
- Blanke, E. S., Krämer, S., Loy, L. S., Liebmann, C., Nestler, S., & Kunzmann, U. (2025). Beyond individual stress reduction—The Mindful Students Program benefits university students and their environment. Mindfulness, 16(4), 864–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-025-02529-4中文题名：超越个体减压——"正念学生项目"惠及大学生及其所处环境
- Brick, C., Nielsen, K. S., Berger, S., Henn, L., Wolske, K. S., Lange, F., Hanss, D., Bauer, J. M., Aldoh, A., Sachisthal, M. S. M., Johnsen, S.Å. K., & Cologna, V. (2024). Current research practices on pro-environmental behavior: A survey of environmental psychologists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 97, Article中文题名：亲环境行为研究现状：一项针对环境心理学家的调查
- Burger, T., Potgieter, J. C., & Nell, W. (2024). Methods and environmental conditions typical of nature-based mindfulness practice: A scoping review. Mindfulness, 15(7),中文题名：基于自然的正念练习的典型方法与环境条件：一项范围综述
- Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article中文题名：自然联结与幸福之间的关系：一项元分析
- Choe, E. Y., Jorgensen, A., & Sheffield, D. (2020). Does a natural environment enhance the effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)? Examining the mental health and wellbeing, and nature connectedness benefits. Landscape and landurbplan.2020.103886中文题名：自然环境是否能提升基于正念的减压疗法（MBSR）的效果？考察心理健康、幸福感及自然联结的获益
- Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Psychology中文题名：因子分析初级教程（第2版）
- Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,中文题名：探索性因子分析的最佳实践：从分析中获益最多的四点建议
- Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life s15327752jpa4901_13中文题名：（原文抽取残缺，暂缺译名）
- Djernis, D., Lerstrup, I., Poulsen, D., Stigsdotter, U., Dahlgaard, J., & O'Toole, M. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of nature-based mindfulness: Effects of moving mindfulness training into an outdoor natural setting. International Journal of 10.3390/ijerph16173202中文题名：基于自然的正念之系统综述与元分析：将正念训练移至户外自然情境的效果
- Dragostinov, Y., Harðardóttir, D., McKenna, P. E., Robb, D. A., Nesset, B., Ahmad, M. I., Romeo, M., Lim, M. Y., Yu, C., Jang, Y., Diab, M., Cangelosi, A., Demiris, Y., Hastie, H., & Rajendran, G. (2022). Preliminary psychometric scale development using the mixed methods Delphi technique. Methods in Psychology, 7, Article 100103.中文题名：运用混合方法德尔菲技术的初步心理测量学量表开发
- Fackrell, K., Potgieter, I., Shekhawat, G. S., Baguley, D. M., Sereda, M., & Hoare, D. J. (2017). Clinical interventions for hyperacusis in adults: A scoping review to assess the current position and determine priorities for research. BioMed Research中文题名：成人听觉过敏的临床干预：一项评估现状并确定研究优先事项的范围综述
- Farris, S., Dempsey, N., McEwan, K., Hoyle, H., & Cameron, R. (2024). Does increasing biodiversity in an urban woodland setting promote positive emotional responses in humans? A stress recovery experiment using 360-degree videos of an urban pone.0297179中文题名：（原文抽取残缺，暂缺译名）
- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),中文题名：评估含不可观测变量与测量误差的结构方程模型
- Geiger, S. M., Grossman, P., & Schrader, U. (2019). Mindfulness and sustainability: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.09.010中文题名：（原文抽取残缺，暂缺译名）
- George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference: 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.中文题名：SPSS for Windows 循序渐进指南：简明手册与参考（11.0 更新版，第4版）
- Grosjean, P., & Ibanez, F. (2024). Pastecs: Package for analysis of space-time ecological series (R Package Version 1.4.2). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pastecs.中文题名：Pastecs：时空生态序列分析程序包（R 程序包版本 1.4.2）
- Grube, A., Schroer, J., Hentzschel, C., & Hertel, G. (2008). The event reconstruction method: An efficient measure of experience-based job satisfaction. Journal of 10.1348/096317907X251578中文题名：事件重构法：一种基于体验的工作满意度的有效测量
- Hartig, T. (1993). Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape and Urban中文题名：交易视角下的自然体验
- Harvey, C., Sheffield, D., Richardson, M., & Wells, R. (2023). The impact of a "Three Good Things in Nature" writing task on nature connectedness, pro-nature conservation behavior, life satisfaction, and mindfulness in children. Ecopsychology,中文题名：一项"自然中的三件好事"书写任务对儿童自然联结、亲自然保护行为、生活满意度与正念的影响
- Holland, I., DeVille, N. V., Browning, M. H. E. M., Buehler, R. M., Hart, J. E., Hipp, J. A., Mitchell, R., Rakow, D. A., Schiff, J. E., White, M. P., Yin, J., & James, P. (2021). Measuring nature contact: A narrative review. International Journal of Environmental ijerph18084092中文题名：测量自然接触：一项叙述性综述
- Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: 10705519909540118中文题名：协方差结构分析拟合指数的截断标准：传统标准与新替代标准的比较
- Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations 10.1016/0163-8343(82)90026-3中文题名：一项基于正念冥想实践的慢性疼痛患者行为医学门诊项目：理论考量
- Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and 10.1093/clipsy.bpg016中文题名：（原文抽取残缺，暂缺译名）
- Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. 4944(95)90001-2中文题名：自然的恢复性益处：迈向一个整合性框架
- Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.中文题名：信度研究中选取与报告组内相关系数（ICC）的指南
- Korpela, Kalevi M., Ylén, Matti, Tyrväinen, Liisa, & Silvennoinen, Harri (2008). Determinants of restorative experiences in everyday favorite places. Health & Place, nghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1353829207000962中文题名：日常偏爱场所中恢复性体验的决定因素
- Lee, J., Kim, K. H., Webster, C. S., & Henning, M. A. (2021). The evolution of mindfulness中文题名：（原文抽取残缺，暂缺译名）
- Leung, S.-O. (2011). A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point likert scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(4), 412–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.580697中文题名：4点、5点、6点和11点李克特量表在心理测量学属性与正态性方面的比较
- Lim, H. L. (2022). Mindfulness and motivation in self-transformation: Thich Nhat Hanh's teachings on the interbeing. Manusya: Journal of Humanities, 24(3), 334–354.中文题名：正念与自我转化中的动机：一行禅师关于互即互入的教义
- Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2022). SOLOMON: A method for splitting a sample into equivalent subsamples in factor analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 54(6), 2665–2677. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01750-y中文题名：SOLOMON：一种在因子分析中将样本拆分为等效子样本的方法
- Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS中文题名：超越认识自然：接触、情感、共情、意义与美感是通往自然联结的路径
- Lymeus, F., Lindberg, P., & Hartig, T. (2018). Building mindfulness bottom-up: Meditation in natural settings supports open monitoring and attention restoration.中文题名：自下而上地建构正念：在自然环境中冥想有助于开放监控与注意恢复
- Ma, K., & Wu, L. (2025). Perceived biodiversity of public greenspace and mental well-中文题名：（原文抽取残缺，暂缺译名）
- Macaulay, R., Johnson, K., Lee, K., & Williams, K. (2024). Examining the facets of mindful engagement and mind wandering in nature. Journal of Environmental中文题名：考察自然中正念投入与心智游移的多个面向
- Macaulay, R., Lee, K., Johnson, K., & Williams, K. (2022). Mindful engagement, psychological restoration, and connection with nature in constrained nature 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104263中文题名：（原文抽取残缺，暂缺译名）
- Macaulay, R., Royce, R., Jones, S., Johnson, K., Lanyon, A., McCawley, B., Martin, S., Rhydwen, M., Rowntree, C., Stone, J., Thomas, J. M., Vella-Brodrick, D., Walker, I., Ward, M., & Williams, K. (2023). Contemplative nature engagement practices to support individuals and communities facing ecological distress. School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences.中文题名：以沉思性自然参与实践支持面临生态困境的个人与社区
- Matthews, W. J., & Meck, W. H. (2014). Time perception: The bad news and the good. 10.1002/wcs.1298中文题名：时间知觉：坏消息与好消息
- Moshagen, M., & Bader, M. (2024). semPower: Power analyses for SEM (R Package Version 2.1.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semPower.中文题名：semPower：结构方程模型的功效分析（R 软件包版本 2.1.1）
- Nisbet, E., & Zelenski, J. (2013). The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness.中文题名：NR-6：一种测量自然关联性的简短新量表
- Nook, E. C., Satpute, A. B., & Ochsner, K. N. (2021). Emotion naming impedes both cognitive reappraisal and mindful acceptance strategies of emotion regulation.中文题名：为情绪命名会同时阻碍认知重评与正念接纳这两种情绪调节策略
- Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.中文题名：心理测量理论（第3版）
- Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., & McEwan, K. (2020). The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal 00118-6中文题名：自然联结与实现幸福感之间的关系：一项元分析
- R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.中文题名：R：一种用于统计计算的语言与环境
- Revelle, W. (2024). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R Package. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Version 2.4.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych.中文题名：Psych：用于心理学、心理测量学与人格研究的程序（R 软件包版本 2.4.12）
- Richardson, M., Dobson, J., Abson, D. J., Lumber, R., Hunt, A., Young, R., & Moorhouse, B. (2020). Applying the pathways to nature connectedness at a societal scale: A leverage points perspective. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1844296中文题名：在社会尺度上应用自然联结路径：一个杠杆点的视角
- Richardson, M., Hamlin, I., Butler, C., Thomas, R., & Hunt, A. (2021). Actively noticing nature (not just time in nature) helps promote nature connectedness. Ecopsychology.中文题名：主动留意自然（而非仅仅待在自然中）有助于提升自然联结
- Richardson, M., Hunt, A., Hinds, J., Bragg, R., Fido, D., Petronzi, D., Barbett, L., Clitherow, T., & White, M. (2019). A measure of nature connectedness for children and adults: Validation, performance, and insights. Sustainability, 11(12), Article中文题名：一种适用于儿童与成人的自然联结测量工具：验证、表现与启示
- Richardson, M., Passmore, H.-A., Barbett, L., Lumber, R., Thomas, R., & Hunt, A. (2020). The green care code: How nature connectedness and simple activities help explain pro-nature conservation behaviours. People and Nature, 2(3), 821–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10117中文题名：绿色关爱准则：自然联结与简单活动如何帮助解释亲自然的保护行为
- Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity.中文题名：评估判别效度的一份更新指南
- Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of中文题名：Lavaan：一个用于结构方程模型的 R 软件包
- Rozario, K., Oh, R. R. Y., Marselle, M., Schröger, E., Gillerot, L., Ponette, Q., Godbold, D., Haluza, D., Kilpi, K., Müller, D., Roeber, U., Verheyen, K., Muys, B., Müller, S., Shaw, T., & Bonn, A. (2024). The more the merrier? Perceived forest biodiversity promotes short-term mental health and well-being—A multicentre study. People and中文题名：越多越好？感知到的森林生物多样性促进短期心理健康与幸福感——一项多中心研究
- Sankapal, S. (2024). Thich Nhat Hanh's contributions to the field of mindfulness. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 15, 87–91.中文题名：一行禅师对正念领域的贡献
- Sanyer, M. M., Bettmann, J. E., Anstadt, G., Ganesh, K., & Hanley, A. W. (2023). Decenter to reenter nature: Relationships between decentering, self-transcendence, and nature connectedness. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3),中文题名：去中心化以重归自然：去中心化、自我超越与自然联结之间的关系
- 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.中文题名：与自然相融：人类—自然关系的心理学
- Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2018). Mindfulness and connectedness to nature: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 10–14.中文题名：正念与自然联结：一项元分析研究
- Thiermann, U. B., & Sheate, W. R. (2021). The way forward in mindfulness and sustainability: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Cognitive中文题名：正念与可持续性领域的前进之路：一项批判性综述与研究议程
- Van Gordon, W., Shonin, E., & Richardson, M. (2018). Mindfulness and nature.中文题名：正念与自然
- Walsh, Z. (2016). A meta-critique of mindfulness critiques: From McMindfulness to critical mindfulness. In R. E. Purser, D. Forbes, & A. Burke (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness: Culture, context, and social engagement (pp. 153–166). Springer中文题名：对正念批判的元批判：从“禅商业化的正念”到批判性正念
- Walthery, P., & Gershuny, J. (2019). Improving stylised working time estimates with time diary data: A multi study assessment for the UK. Social Indicators Research, 144中文题名：利用时间日记数据改进刻板化工时估计：一项针对英国的多元研究评估
- Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Blazeby, J. M., Clarke, M., Devane, D., Gargon, E., & Tugwell, P. (2012). Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: Issues to中文题名：（原文抽取残缺，暂缺译名）
- World Health Organization. (2024). The World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5). World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/WHO-UCN-MSD-MHE-2024.01.中文题名：世界卫生组织五项幸福感指数（WHO-5）
- Wu, N., & Jones, C. (2022). The relationship between connectedness to nature and well-being: A meta-analysis. Current Research in Psychology and Behavioral Science中文题名：自然联结与幸福感之间的关系：一项元分析