Next Article in Journal
Smartphone Addiction in Youth: A Narrative Review of Systematic Evidence and Emerging Strategies
Previous Article in Journal
Postpartum Depression in Saudi Arabia: A Narrative Review of Prevalence, Knowledge, Risk Factors, and Quality-of-Life Impact
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Psychiatry International
Volume 6
Issue 4
10.3390/psychiatryint6040117
psychiatryint-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Not All Bad: A Laboratory Experiment Examining Viewing Images of Nature on Instagram Can Improve Wellbeing and Positive Emotions

by
Christopher Stiff
1,* and
Lisa J. Orchard
2
1
School of Psychology, Keele University, Dorothy Hodgkin Building, Newcastle ST5 5BG, UK
2
Independent Researcher, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Psychiatry Int. 2025, 6(4), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint6040117
Submission received: 8 May 2025 / Revised: 20 June 2025 / Accepted: 26 August 2025 / Published: 1 October 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Instagram is a hugely popular social media site; however, it has also been cited in many times as being a source of low self-esteem, unhappiness, and body dissatisfaction. Despite this, there is potential to use Instagram as a self-care delivery system and create positive changes in users’ mental health by showing them a specific type of image. In this paper, we use Stress Reduction Theory to demonstrate that viewing images of nature on Instagram can improve well-being (H1), by increasing feelings of connectedness with nature (H2). Furthermore, we posit this same influence will elicit more altruistic behaviour from users (H3). In a laboratory experiment, participants accessed images using either the #naturephotography hashtag, or a control hashtag (#bookshelves). Analyses showed that, in line with the proposed positive effects of SRT, viewing natural images improved well-being and positive emotions, and this was at least partially mediated by increased connectedness to nature. Future studies that use a more longitudinal approach, and examine how images can be presented within a more robust psychiatric intervention are then discussed.

1. Introduction

Instagram is a hugely popular social media app and website. In 2023, its userbase reached over 2 billion people [1]. Despite this, there are numerous concerns surrounding the impact of its use on wellbeing and mental health. There is a breadth of research that displays Instagram in a negative light, suggesting it can have a detrimental effect on mental health [2,3] and showing its association with poorer body image [4], depression [5], and loneliness [6].
However, research has suggested that users may be affected differently depending on their type of use [7]. Thus, instead of adopting a risk-aversive approach, if specific content is found to have a positive impact, any beneficial effects of use can be swiftly disseminated to its user-base to enact a positive change. The aim of this paper is to examine this type of use by signposting users to specific nature content on Instagram, to examine its effects on wellbeing, mental health, and helping behaviours.

1.1. Finding Images on Instagram

Instagram uses hashtags in the classification of images posted. Here, users append their posts with a word preceded by the #symbol to indicate the topic being posted. For example, a photo of a dog may use hashtags such as #dogsofinstagram, #doglover, or #dogoftheday; users can then search for those hashtags to find images of topics they are interested in. Previous work has shown that the ability to curate topics using hashtags helps users find content that is relevant to them, and help create solidarity with other users [8,9,10]. Using this system, we can ask users to deliberately search for hashtags which we believe may induce positive effects. One such image genre is of nature and natural environments.

1.2. The Benefits of Nature

Previous research has shown that being in a natural environment and around nature is beneficial psychologically, and has merit as a psychiatric intervention. Exposure to nature has been shown to improve quality of life [11] and happiness levels [12], to decrease stress levels [13] and improve wellbeing [14]. Systematic reviews of this literature have shown a consistent effect on emotional state, demonstrating an improvement in positive affect [15] and a decrease in negative affect [16] following exposure to nature.
Exposure to nature has also been examined in a therapeutic context and this research has again demonstrated the efficacy of natural environments to improve mental health. For example, researchers have found that ‘green spaces’ are beneficial for mental health, including feeling balanced in life, relaxed and stress-free [17]. Others also found that spending 30 min in a forested area decreased stress significantly [18]. Meta-analysis [19] and systematic reviews [20] have demonstrated the robustness of this influence, showing a consistent positive change following exposure to nature.

1.3. Theoretical Background

Stress Reduction Theory (SRT [21]) suggests that nature is seen as unthreatening, which allows us to relax. It has also been suggested that natural environments have a cultural element; they are traditionally seen as a place of tranquillity and peace [22]. SRT also suggests the inverse effects from non-natural environments: that man-made environments such as skyscrapers increase perceived oppressiveness—the sensation that structures are impinging on our physical and mental space [23]. Furthermore, built-up artificial surroundings impact on perceived environmental quality, giving the sensation that the air is polluted, the noise level too high, and the area too warm, uncomfortable, and crowded [24].
Considerable empirical support has been put forward for SRT. Researchers have emphasised the importance of nature experiences in fostering good mental health [25,26]. This has become particularly salient in the last few years and the COVID pandemic where—during lockdown—individuals were unable to socialise in the usual manner. Contact with nature in this period was found to attenuate the negative effects of isolation and improve positivity [27]. Overall, experiencing nature seems to have a positive effect on a person’s wellbeing.

1.4. Authentic vs. Artificial Nature Experiences

SRT does not specify that a therapeutic nature experience needs to be authentic. That is, an artificial natural environment could also be used to remedy perceived oppressiveness and poorer environmental quality. If those aspects of man-made urban environments are absent, there should still be a beneficial effect. A simple way to do this is to expose individuals to images of pleasant natural environments. Several studies have found support for this idea. For example, researchers have asked participants to engage in a simulated driving experience that would take them through different nature landscapes, such as green spaces, and through areas where there was no nature, such as motorways. When participants were driving through the green spaces their stress levels decreased drastically compared to when they drove through the motorway spaces [28,29,30]. In a similar vein, Brymer et al. (2020) research has also found that viewing images of nature had a positive impact on wellbeing [29,30]. Wellbeing, life satisfaction and happiness levels have also been increased when participants viewed nature using virtual reality [31].
In this paper, we formally test these ideas to see whether viewing images of nature on Instagram could be beneficial to mental health. The study asks participants to browse images on Instagram that are tagged with either a nature-related hashtag or a control, to see any immediate effects on wellbeing.
Previous work has established the benefits of being around nature. Therefore, our main hypothesis (H1) is that participants who view nature images on Instagram will have improved wellbeing compared with participants in a control condition.

1.5. Mechanisms for Improving Wellbeing

Experiencing nature also allows us to feel more connected to the natural environment [32,33,34]. Being exposed to “natural” stimuli enhances the sense of belonging to an embedding ecosystem; conversely, a lack of exposure causes a feeling of “disconnection” [35]. Directly experiencing nature has been shown to increase feelings of connectedness [36], and this connectedness can mediate a variety of positive psychological outcomes such as greater happiness and life satisfaction [37] and better self-regulation [38]. Furthermore, research has already highlighted a cross-sectional link between problematic smartphone use and nature connectedness and, subsequently, wellbeing [39]. Therefore, we could expect that the positive relationship between exposure to nature and improved wellbeing could be (partially) mediated by the increased connectedness to nature that occurs (H2).

1.6. Changing Behaviour

Finally, previous research has shown that mood and wellbeing can change behaviour. For example, a positive mood can facilitate problem-solving and decision-making [40], but can also encourage risky behaviour [41]. One form of behaviour that would be beneficial to elicit from others is altruism. Helping others has a number of benefits: first, it has the immediate benefit to the person being helped. Second, observing others help and propagating the sense that helping is socially normative can encourage others to help [42]. Third, the act of helping can actually make the helper feel more positive afterwards [43,44]. Previous work has shown that a positive mood can indeed facilitate helping [45]. Therefore, if viewing natural images improves wellbeing and general psychological disposition, we might also expect it will also increase the likelihood that participants will engage in helping behaviour (H3).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

An a priori G*Power 3.1 calculation using an effect size of 0.5, and an alpha of 0.05 indicated a sample of 102 was sufficient for 80% power.
One hundred and fifteen participants took part in the study initially, recruited from a UK university population. Participants were required to have their own Instagram account that they used at least once a week to take part. This was to ensure their account would be capable of utilising the image search features on Instagram. Ten participants who failed to follow instructions properly or did not pass attention checks were removed. The remaining sample contained 24 males, 79 females, and 2 participants who recorded an alternative gender. As this latter group was too small to allow for meaningful comparisons, these participants were also removed. This left a sample of 103 participants (mean age = 21.90, SD = 8.59, range = 47), fulfilling the required sample size. All participants took part for course credit at their host institution.

2.2. Design

This study used a between-subjects design. Although a pre- and post-session within-subjects aspect was mooted, there were concerns that participants could guess the study’s hypotheses from this and bias their answers. Therefore, this was not used.
The main independent variable was the hashtag participants were asked to look at—either “#naturephotography” in the experimental condition, or “#bookshelves” in the control condition. Gender was also included as an exploratory independent variable.
The main dependent variables were the participants’ positive and negative emotions, wellbeing, and altruistic behaviour. Participants’ connectedness to nature after viewing images was also included as a possible mediator.

2.3. Stimuli and Images

The stimuli used within this research study were images viewed on Instagram that matched with the hashtag for their conditions. #naturephotography leads the audience to the intended imagery of green space as described above. #bookshelves was chosen as the neutral control condition as it was felt that such content would not provide overly emotive imagery. Following presentation of the stimuli, participants were asked to complete a survey consisting of three scales.
Immediately following presentation of the stimuli, participants responded to the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS [46]), as an indicator of current affect. The scale asks participants to indicate the extent to which they are experiencing 10 positive (e.g., excited) and 10 negative (e.g., irritable) emotions at the current point of time on a 5-point scale. A higher score indicates more intensity of that emotion, allowing for a total positive affect score (α = 0.84) and a total negative affect score (α = 0.79).
Participants also completed the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale [47] (example item: “I feel relaxed”) allowing the calculation of a wellbeing score. The scale requires participants to select their level of agreement on 7 items from 1 to 5, with a higher score indicating more agreement and thus a higher wellbeing score (α = 0.76). The SWEMWS is a ubiquitous tool in the psychiatric domain as an index of mental health
To look at mechanisms behind any effects of nature exposure, the Connectedness to Nature Scale was included [48] (example item: “I feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me”) to obtain a total nature connectedness score. Participants indicated their agreement with 14 statements from 1 to 5, with a higher number indicating more agreement (α = 0.77).
Finally, to measure altruism, participants were asked if they would be willing to do some additional tasks which would benefit the research for another project once this one had finished, for no compensation. This fits with the psychological definition of altruism as a desire to improve another person’s situation even at a cost to oneself [49] and has been used in other studies effectively to measure altruistic behaviour in other studies [50].

2.4. Procedure

Participants entered the lab and were provided with an information sheet to read through, and given the opportunity to ask questions. Once any queries were resolved, participants signed the consent form and began the study.
All materials were presented online via the lab computer, and participants self-paced through the materials. Materials were presented through Qualtrics survey software (https://www.qualtrics.com). Participants started by entering their demographic information. Then, they read a paragraph of text explaining the study task; participants were asked to search for a certain hashtag on Instagram, using either the PC or their phone, and to scroll through the images for two minutes. Depending on the condition participants were given the hashtag “#naturephotography” (in the experimental condition) or “#bookshelves” (in the control condition).
Participants used their own Instagram accounts for this purpose. As content presented to users is somewhat driven by their previous interactions and searches, participants did not all see the exact same set of images. However, as a dedicated hashtag was used, the most popular content for that topic—which would be more consistent across users—would be included amongst more user-specific images [51]. Overall, the use of this method meant participants gained a more realistic experience of using Instagram, whilst maintaining sufficient experimental control over the presentation of stimuli.
A timer appeared onscreen counting down the two minutes, and participants could not proceed on the survey until that had elapsed. Participants were then presented with the main survey measures. The order of the scales was randomised for each participant, and the order of items within the survey was also randomised.
After completing the scales, participants were presented with the following text:
“That is the end of this part of the experiment, and you will receive your credit for participating. We also have some additional survey studies that we need to be completed. These are not done here, they are sent to your email address. You do not have to complete these. Moreover, there is no payment for doing these—you do not receive extra credit. If you choose to complete some, you will be taken to another screen to enter your contact details. However, your answers to the current study will not be linked with your contact details. That is, we will not know how many surveys you have chosen to do, including zero. You will receive your credit for the current study regardless of your choice. Click below to proceed”
On the next screen, participants were asked to tick the box indicating how many surveys they would be willing to complete, from zero to seven. This amount was our altruism measure.
After clicking past this screen, participants were given a final opportunity to withdraw all their data from the study. If participants had ticked this box, their data would have been discarded prior to analysis; however, none did.
After this, participants were told the experiment was over and given a debrief. This explained the true nature and aims of the study and also the truth about the altruism measure—namely, that there were no additional surveys to complete.
Participants were given the opportunity to ask any further questions, and were then credited and dismissed.

3. Results

Within the sample, 50 participants took part in the #naturephotography (i.e., experimental) condition, and 53 in the #bookshelves (i.e., control) condition.
An initial set of t-tests were performed on participants’ responses to the main dependent variables of positive affect, negative affect, wellbeing, and altruism based on the independent variable of gender. This yielded no significant differences for any variable (highest t = 1.03, p = 0.31). Therefore, as gender was not a variable of interest in this study and had no theoretical basis for a meaningful influence on our outcomes, it was excluded from subsequent analysis.
A MANOVA (hashtag condition: nature vs. bookshelves) was conducted on the main dependent variable. This was used as a more conservative test, controlling for correlations between measures. This yielded a non-significant Box test (Box’s M = 17.75, F (10, 47,636.38) = 170, p = 0.08) suggesting the assumption of homogeneity of covariances had been met. Levene’s test was non-significant for all variables (highest F = 2.57, p = 0.11) indicating the assumption of multivariate normality had been met. In line with recommendations [52] Pillai’s Trace is reported. This shows a main effect overall for hashtag condition (F (4, 97) = 3.64; p = 0.008; Cohen’s d = 0.77).
An examination of the analysis for each dependent variable showed a significant difference for positive emotions (F(1, 102) = 9.03; p = 0.003; Cohen’s d = 0.59), with participants reporting more positive affect in the #naturephotography condition than in the #bookshelves condition (M = 2.68, SD = 0.83; M = 2.19, SD = 0.82, respectively). Negative affect and wellbeing did not show a significant difference (all Fs < 1); however, the altruism measure was approaching significance (F (1, 100) = 2.93, p = 0.09, Cohen’s d = 0.35). Here, participants had indicated they would answer more surveys in the nature condition (M = 3.38, SD = 2.29) compared to the control condition (M = 2.67, 1.88).
To look at the effect of connectedness to nature (CoN) as a mediator, four mediation analyses were performed using hashtag condition as the predictor, and each of the dependent variables as the outcome. Analysis was conducted using the PROCESS macro add-on for SPSS 22 [53]. This output provides a 95% confidence interval, and mediation is said to be present if zero is not contained within that confidence interval [54].
These analyses showed significant indirect effects for CoN on positive emotions (B = −0.14, SE = 0.06, CI95% [−0.68, −0.06]. Participants in the #naturephotography condition showed more CoN, and in turn more positive affect. The same indirect effect was also present for CoN on wellbeing (B = −0.12, SE = 0.06, CI95% [−0.24, −0.02]. Again, browsing images of nature improved CoN, which lead to improved wellbeing—see Figure 1.

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Findings

In this paper, we set out to examine the impact of tailoring Instagram use by signposting participants to images of nature through a hashtag. It was expected that viewing nature images on Instagram could directly benefit users’ mental health. Previous research has shown that exposure to nature has value as a psychiatric intervention [17,20,55]. Moreover, there is evidence that this exposure does not have to be authentic, and that artificial nature experiences can also work. Thus, viewing images online can also be a positive psychological experience [18,30].
In this study, we found support for this idea. Participants who viewed images of nature through Instagram showed an increase in their positive emotions and expressed more positive mental health than those in the control condition. Moreover, this effect appeared to be at least partially mediated by a change in connectedness to nature—the feeling of closeness to the natural environment conferred through exposure to it.
Although not significant, there was also a tendency for participants to be more altruistic after viewing images of nature. This shows that exposure to nature online may have the potential to influence subsequent behaviour, as well as attitudes. This further demonstrates the benefits from nature exposure, even through social media and for only a few minutes.

4.2. Fitting the Findings into Existing Theory

Stress Reduction Theory [21] suggests that the benefits of nature come from the calming effect it has; furthermore, the removal of oppressive urban stimuli allows us to feel safe. This theory allows for the natural experience to be artificial. Tactile aspects of the nature experience are not emphasised; the theory relates more to the psychological stimulation aspects of urban vs. natural environments.
This study has directly supported this idea and further extended our theoretical understanding of the benefits of nature, and specifically, nature connectedness. The ability to go outside and experience nature in the “real world” is not always possible for individuals with ambulatory difficulties or anxieties about leaving their house [31,56,57]. Furthermore, there may be practical reasons making access to nature difficult. For instance, those working within inner cities may struggle to access nature due to their location. In this work, we have shown how simply browsing on your phone may help improve immediate psychological wellbeing and may have the potential to influence philanthropic behaviour towards others. This is a valuable contribution to growing field of work looking at how social media can be used in a more positive, therapeutic way [58,59,60,61]. The applied nature of this research suggests that digital literacy education should help individuals understand how to get the most from their Instagram usage through tailoring the content they follow. The research may also be beneficial to content creators, or those designing wellbeing initiatives within social media environments.

4.3. Future Work and Methodological Issues

Several aspects of this work could be improved in future studies.
First, a more natural browsing experience could be implemented. Participants here were asked to search for a particular hashtag and browse the images that resulted. This is a more ecologically valid experience of hashtag use, as it takes into account the diversity that would naturally occur between different users. However, this does mean that content which contains irrelevant—or even upsetting—images could appear on a user’s feed if that hashtag was in place. Going forward we would like to use a dedicated account posting nature content that could be followed by users, managed by a dedicated mental health professional. This kind of setup would be easier for to use, increasing engagement [62,63] and provide a robust source for self-care. A secondary benefit of this would be that as users engaged with the posted nature images, the number of algorithmically chosen images of a similar nature in their feed would likely increase [64].
The overall viewing experience could also be enhanced. As well as images, Instagram is increasingly gearing towards users posting videos with sound—known as “Reels”. Little research has examined these in isolation. However, video media which may include sound are more capable of capturing and holding attention, and offer more sensory stimulation [65,66]. It is likely therefore that the use of Reels in posts may have an even more positive effect on viewers.
In terms of data validity, a convenience sample was utilised here which can potentially restrict generalization of findings [67]. As such we would like to replicate this study with a further, more diverse sample (e.g., non-WEIRD) to look for effects across demographic and cultural borders. Qualitative measures could also be taken to get a fuller account of the users’ experience and how the images they viewed affected them.
We also did not find a significant effect for viewing nature photography on negative affect. The valence of emotions do not usually correlate [46,68] so this does not undermine the findings for positive emotions, but nevertheless it would be useful to examine this further. Negative emotions are often more palpable than positive and can have more deleterious effects [69,70] so finding a way to address both would be valuable. However, the findings may reflect that participants were already low in negative emotions (M = 1.32, SD = 0.54); thus, it is a positive finding that this did not change.
Further to this, we did not find significant differences in altruism between the two conditions, although the means were in the expected direction. Altruism is often a challenge to measure, as individuals’ motives for “doing good” versus “feeling good” can overlap making motives unclear [43,71]. In this study, it is also possible participants guessed that the request for further help was also part of the experiment rather than an addendum. There may have also been additional factors for not taking part in the studies, such as privacy concerns around leaving their data. Moving forward, finding a more realistic and genuine measure of altruism would be important for tapping into behavioural effects of viewing nature.
Finally, individual differences are an important aspect of any psychiatric treatment. Our sample is predominantly young and female. Gender differences have been found both in terms of connectedness with nature [72] and gender and age differences with Instagram use [73,74]. Balancing the distribution of these variables would be advisable in further examinations. In addition, one other factor may be the extent of a user’s nature-relatedness [75]; that is, the extent to which individuals feel part of the nature. Unlike nature connectedness, this is more of a stable trait than a stimuli-induced state. Users with high levels of nature-relatedness would likely benefit most from exposure to these media.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we have shown that exposure to nature and its subsequent benefits can be facilitated through browsing hashtagged images in Instagram. This has furthered the theoretical boundaries of SRT, and offered a new method of promoting psychological benefits amongst social media users. Such strategies feed into the wider discussion around digital literacy education. In the future, we can look again how these changes may propagate meaningful behavioural change amongst users, and how any positive effects can be sustained long term.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.S.; Methodology, C.S.; Formal Analysis, C.S.; Investigation, C.S.; Data Curation, C.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, C.S. and L.J.O.; Writing—Review and Editing, C.S. and L.J.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Keele University Research Ethics Committee (Approval Code: 0714; Approval date: 8 December 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request due to ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kate Allen, Lucy Spencer, and Jenna Jowett for their input on the article content and during data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Use of Generative AI

ChatGPT 4 was used to assist with the formatting of this article to conform to the journal guidelines. Grammarly and ChatGPT were used to check spelling and grammar. No generative AI was used in the writing or overall production of this article.

References

  1. McLachlan, S. 2024 Instagram Demographics: Top User Stats for Your Strategy. Available online: https://blog.hootsuite.com/instagram-demographics/ (accessed on 3 May 2024).
  2. Faelens, L.; Hoorelbeke, K.; Cambier, R.; Put, J.; Van de Putte, E.; De Raedt, R.; Koster, E.H.W. The Relationship between Instagram Use and Indicators of Mental Health: A Systematic Review. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2021, 4, 100121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Naslund, J.A.; Bondre, A.; Torous, J.; Aschbrenner, K.A. Social Media and Mental Health: Benefits, Risks, and Opportunities for Research and Practice. J. Technol. Behav. Sci. 2020, 5, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Perloff, R.M.; Romer, D.; Cornwell, B. Social Media Effects on Young Women’s Body Image Concerns: Theoretical Perspectives and an Agenda for Research. Sex Roles 2017, 71, 363–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fardouly, J.; Diedrichs, P.C.; Vartanian, L.R.; Halliwell, E. Appearance Comparison and Other Appearance-Related Influences on Body Dissatisfaction in Everyday Life. Body Image 2015, 12, 22–29. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nesi, J.; Prinstein, M.J. Instagram Use, Loneliness, and Social Comparison Orientation: Interact and Browse on Social Media, but Don’t Compare. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2015, 18, 703–708. [Google Scholar]
  7. Trifiro, B.M.; Prena, K. Active Instagram Use and Its Association with Self-Esteem and Well-Being. Technol. Mind Behav. 2021, 2, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mondragon, N.I.; Munitis, A.E.; Txertudi, M.B. The Breaking of Secrecy: Analysis of the Hashtag #MeTooInceste Regarding Testimonies of Sexual Incest Abuse in Childhood. Child Abus. Negl. 2022, 123, 105412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Powell, M.; Kim, A.D.; Smaldino, P.E. Hashtags as Signals of Political Identity: #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0286524. [Google Scholar]
  10. Reif, A.; Miller, I.; Taddicken, M. “Love the Skin You‘re In”: An Analysis of Women’s Self-Presentation and User Reactions to Selfies Using the Tumblr Hashtag #bodypositive. Mass Commun. Soc. 2022, 26, 1038–1061. [Google Scholar]
  11. Skibins, J.C.; Das, B.M.; Schuler, G. Digital Modalities, Nature, and Quality of Life: Mental Health and Conservation Benefits of Watching Bear Cams. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2022, 28, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Stieger, S.; Aichinger, I.; Swami, V. The Impact of Nature Exposure on Body Image and Happiness: An Experience Sampling Study. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2022, 32, 870–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sudimac, S.; Sale, V.; Kühn, S. How Nature Nurtures: Amygdala Activity Decreases as the Result of a One-Hour Walk in Nature. Mol. Psychiatry 2022, 27, 4446–4452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kreitzer, M.J. Wellbeing at the Workplace: The Urgency and Opportunity. In Innovative Staff Development in Healthcare; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 143–155. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A Systematic Review of Evidence for the Added Benefits to Health of Exposure to Natural Environments. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. McMahan, E.A.; Estes, D. The Effect of Contact with Natural Environments on Positive and Negative Affect: A Meta-Analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 2015, 10, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chalmin-Pui, L.S.; Griffiths, A.; Roe, J.; Heaton, T.; Cameron, R. Why Garden?—Attitudes and the Perceived Health Benefits of Home Gardening. Cities 2021, 112, 103118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shanahan, D.F.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Lin, B.B.; Dean, J.; Barber, E.; Fuller, R.A. Health Benefits from Nature Experiences Depend on Dose. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Lackey, N.Q.; Tysor, D.A.; McNay, G.D.; Joyner, L.; Baker, K.H.; Hodge, C. Mental Health Benefits of Nature-Based Recreation: A Systematic Review. Ann. Leis. Res. 2021, 24, 379–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cheng, X.; Liu, J.; Liu, H.; Lu, S. A Systematic Review of Evidence of Additional Health Benefits from Forest Exposure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 212, 104123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tuan, Y.-F. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1974; ISBN 0-13-925248-7. [Google Scholar]
  23. Asgarzadeh, M.; Lusk, A.; Koga, T.; Hirate, K. Measuring Oppressiveness of Streetscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Thach, T.-Q.; Mahirah, D.; Sauter, C.; Roberts, A.C.; Dunleavy, G.; Nazeha, N.; Rykov, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Christopoulos, G.I.; Soh, C.-K.; et al. Associations of Perceived Indoor Environmental Quality with Stress in the Workplace. Indoor Air 2020, 30, 1166–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; de Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Jimenez, M.P.; DeVille, N.V.; Elliott, E.G.; Schiff, J.E.; Wilt, G.E.; Hart, J.E.; James, P. Associations between Nature Exposure and Health: A Review of the Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pouso, S.; Borja, Á.; Fleming, L.E.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; White, M.P.; Uyarra, M.C. Contact with Blue-Green Spaces during the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown Beneficial for Mental Health. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jiang, B.; He, J.; Chen, J.; Larsen, L.; Wang, H. Perceived Green at Speed: A Simulated Driving Experiment Raises New Questions for Attention Restoration Theory and Stress Reduction Theory. Environ. Behav. 2021, 53, 296–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brymer, E.; Araújo, D.; Davids, K.; Pepping, G.J. Conceptualizing the Human Health Outcomes of Acting in Natural Environments: An Ecological Perspective. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pasca, L.; Carrus, G.; Loureiro, A.; Navarro, Ó.; Panno, A.; Tapia Follen, C.; Aragonés, J.I. Connectedness and Well-being in Simulated Nature. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2021, 14, 397–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yeo, N.L.; Elliott, L.R.; Bethel, A.; White, M.P.; Dean, S.G.; Garside, R. Indoor Nature Interventions for Health and Wellbeing of Older Adults in Residential Settings: A Systematic Review. Gerontologist 2020, 60, e184–e199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Martin, L.; White, M.P.; Hunt, A.; Richardson, M.; Pahl, S.; Burt, J. Nature Contact, Nature Connectedness and Associations with Health, Wellbeing and pro-Environmental Behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 68, 101389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ng, S.T.; Leung, A.K.-Y.; Chan, S.H.M. Through the Lens of a Naturalist: How Learning about Nature Promotes Nature Connectedness via Awe. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 92, 102069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Stehl, P.; White, M.P.; Vitale, V.; Pahl, S.; Elliott, L.R.; Fian, L.; Van Den Bosch, M. From Childhood Blue Space Exposure to Adult Environmentalism: The Role of Nature Connectedness and Nature Contact. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 93, 102225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zylstra, M.J.; Knight, A.T.; Esler, K.J.; Le Grange, L.L.L. Connectedness as a Core Conservation Concern: An Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and a Call for Practice. Springer Sci. Rev. 2014, 2, 119–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Garza-Terán, G.; Tapia-Fonllem, C.; Fraijo-Sing, B.; Borbón-Mendívil, D.; Poggio, L. Impact of Contact with Nature on the Wellbeing and Nature Connectedness Indicators After a Desertic Outdoor Experience on Isla Del Tiburon. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 864836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Capaldi, C.A.; Dopko, R.L.; Zelenski, J.M. The Relationship between Nature Connectedness and Happiness: A Meta-Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bakir-Demir, T.; Berument, S.K.; Sahin-Acar, B. The Relationship between Greenery and Self-Regulation of Children: The Mediation Role of Nature Connectedness. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Richardson, M.; Hussain, Z.; Griffiths, M.D. Problematic Smartphone Use, Nature Connectedness, and Anxiety. J. Behav. Addict. 2018, 7, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Isen, A.M. Some Ways in Which Positive Affect Influences Decision Making and Problem Solving. In Handbook of Emotions; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 548–573. [Google Scholar]
  41. Forgas, J.P. The Influence of Affect on Higher Level Cognition: A Review of Research on Interpretation, Judgement, Decision Making and Reasoning. Cogn. Emot. 2011, 25, 561–595. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kogut, T. The Socializing Effect of Observing Another’s Helping Behavior. Soc. Influ. 2016, 11, 101–110. [Google Scholar]
  43. Batson, C.D.; Powell, A.A. Altruism and Prosocial Behavior. In Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 5. Personality and Social Psychology; Weiner, I.B., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 463–484. [Google Scholar]
  44. Martela, F.; Ryan, R.M. Helping Others Makes Me Happy: The Influence of Generosity and Social Interest on Subjective Well-Being. J. Individ. Differ. 2015, 36, 135–145. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sabato, H.; Kogut, T. Happy to Help—If It’s Not Too Sad: The Effect of Mood on Helping Identifiable and Unidentifiable Victims. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0252278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Watson, D.; Clark, L.A.; Tellegen, A. Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Haver, A.; Akerjordet, K.; Caputi, P.; Furunes, T.; Magee, C. Measuring Mental Well-Being: A Validation of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in Norwegian and Swedish. Scand. J. Public Health 2015, 43, 721–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mayer, F.S.; Franz, C.M. A Connectedness to Nature Scale: A Measure of Individuals’ Feeling in Community with Nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Batson, C.D. Altruism in Humans; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hu, T.-Y.; Li, J.; Jia, H.; Xie, X. Helping Others, Warming Yourself: Altruistic Behaviors Increase Warmth Feelings of the Ambient Environment. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Macready, H. [SOLVED] Instagram Algorithm Tips for 2024. Available online: https://blog.hootsuite.com/instagram-algorithm/ (accessed on 6 December 2024).
  52. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics; SAGE: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-1-4462-7458-3. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  54. Delle, F.A.; Clayton, R.B.; Jordan Jackson, F.F.; Lee, J. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: Simultaneously Examining the Association between Three Social Networking Sites and Relationship Stress and Satisfaction. Psychol. Pop. Media 2023, 12, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Soga, M.; Evans, M.J.; Tsuchiya, K.; Fukano, Y. A Room with a Green View: The Importance of Nearby Nature for Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ecol. Appl. 2021, 31, e2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Hernandez, R.O. Effects of Therapeutic Gardens in Special Care Units for People with Dementia: Two Case Studies. J. Hous. Elder. 2007, 21, 117–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kearney, A.R.; Winterbottom, D. Nearby Nature and Long-Term Care Facility Residents: Benefits and Design Recommendations. J. Hous. Elder. 2006, 19, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Davies, B.; Turner, M.; Udell, J. Add a Comment … How Fitspiration and Body Positive Captions Attached to Social Media Images Influence the Mood and Body Esteem of Young Female Instagram Users. Body Image 2020, 33, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Lavis, A.; Winter, R. #Online harms or benefits? An ethnographic analysis of the positives and negatives of peer-support around self-harm on social media. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2020, 61, 842–854. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mendini, M.; Peter, P.C.; Maione, S. The Potential Positive Effects of Time Spent on Instagram on Consumers’ Gratitude, Altruism, and Willingness to Donate. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 143, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vente, T. Snapchat Story—I Need a Heart Transplant: Benefits of Social Media Use in Serious Illness. J. Adolesc. Health 2023, 73, 599–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hassenzahl, M.; Tractinsky, N. User Experience—A Research Agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2006, 25, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. O’Brien, H.L.; Toms, E.G. What Is User Engagement? A Conceptual Framework for Defining User Engagement with Technology. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2008, 59, 938–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rader, E.; Cotter, K.; Cho, J. Explanations as Mechanisms for Supporting Algorithmic Transparency. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  65. Möller, A.M.; Baumgartner, S.E.; Kühne, R.; Peter, J. The Effects of Social Information on the Enjoyment of Online Videos: An Eye Tracking Study on the Role of Attention. Media Psychol. 2021, 24, 214–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Simmonds, L.; Bogomolova, S.; Kennedy, R.; Nenycz-Thiel, M.; Bellman, S. A Dual-process Model of How Incorporating Audio-visual Sensory Cues in Video Advertising Promotes Active Attention. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 37, 1057–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Scholtz, S.E. Sacrifice Is a Step beyond Convenience: A Review of Convenience Sampling in Psychological Research in Africa. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2021, 47, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Flores-Kanter, P.E.; Garrido, L.E.; Moretti, L.S.; Medrano, L.A. A Modern Network Approach to Revisiting the Positive and Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS) Construct Validity: Journal of Clinical Psychology. J. Clin. Psychol. 2021, 77, 2370–2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Baumeister, R.F.; Bratslavsky, E.; Finkenauer, C.; Vohs, K.D. Bad Is Stronger than Good. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2001, 5, 323–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Vaish, A.; Grossmann, T.; Woodward, A. Not All Emotions Are Created Equal: The Negativity Bias in Social-Emotional Development. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 134, 383–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Penner, L.A.; Dovidio, J.F.; Piliavin, J.A.; Schroeder, D.A. Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2005, 56, 365–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rosa, C.D.; Larson, L.R.; Collado, S.; Cloutier, S.; Profice, C.C. Gender Differences in Connection to Nature, Outdoor Preferences, and Nature-Based Recreation Among College Students in Brazil and the United States. Leis. Sci. 2023, 45, 135–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Iftikhar, I.; Yasmeen, B.; Nadeem, M.; Ahmad, N. Filtered Reality: Exploring Gender Differences in Instagram Use, Social Conformity Pressure, and Regret among Young Adults. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2024, 34, 1153–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Noon, E.J.; Schuck, L.A.; Guțu, S.M.; Şahin, B.; Vujović, B.; Aydın, Z. To Compare, or Not to Compare? Age Moderates the Relationship between Social Comparisons on Instagram and Identity Processes during Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood. J. Adolesc. 2021, 93, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Zelenski, J.M.; Nisbet, E.K. Happiness and Feeling Connected: The Distinct Role of Nature Relatedness. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Psychiatryint 06 00117 g001
Figure 1. Indirect effects of connectedness to nature. Negative affect and altruism however did not show indirect effects (B = 0.02, SE = 0.03, CI95% [−0.03, 0.08]; and B = 0.13, SE = 0.12, CI95% [−0.04, 0.42], respectively). Therefore, there is partial support for mediation via CoN. * = p < 0.05. ** = p < 0.001.
Figure 1. Indirect effects of connectedness to nature. Negative affect and altruism however did not show indirect effects (B = 0.02, SE = 0.03, CI95% [−0.03, 0.08]; and B = 0.13, SE = 0.12, CI95% [−0.04, 0.42], respectively). Therefore, there is partial support for mediation via CoN. * = p < 0.05. ** = p < 0.001.
Psychiatryint 06 00117 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stiff, C.; Orchard, L.J. Not All Bad: A Laboratory Experiment Examining Viewing Images of Nature on Instagram Can Improve Wellbeing and Positive Emotions. Psychiatry Int. 2025, 6, 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint6040117

AMA Style

Stiff C, Orchard LJ. Not All Bad: A Laboratory Experiment Examining Viewing Images of Nature on Instagram Can Improve Wellbeing and Positive Emotions. Psychiatry International. 2025; 6(4):117. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint6040117

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stiff, Christopher, and Lisa J. Orchard. 2025. "Not All Bad: A Laboratory Experiment Examining Viewing Images of Nature on Instagram Can Improve Wellbeing and Positive Emotions" Psychiatry International 6, no. 4: 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint6040117

APA Style

Stiff, C., & Orchard, L. J. (2025). Not All Bad: A Laboratory Experiment Examining Viewing Images of Nature on Instagram Can Improve Wellbeing and Positive Emotions. Psychiatry International, 6(4), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint6040117

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop