Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Jul 1;18(4):e70181. doi: 10.1111/aphw.70181

Nature connectedness and healthy eating: The possible role of self‐control

Yun Chen 1, Nina He 1, Jingyan He 1, Ranzhi Yang 1, Jiang Jiang 1,✉, Xinyi Yang 2, Jiaqian Xu 1
PMCID: PMC13428333  PMID: 42383365

Abstract

Nature connectedness has been shown to promote healthier eating behaviors, yet the underlying processes remain underexplored. The present study investigates self‐control, informed by stress reduction theory and attention restoration theory, as a critical mediator in this relationship through three studies. Study 1 (n = 200) employed a cross‐sectional survey and confirmed the positive association between nature connectedness and healthy eating behaviors, while providing preliminary evidence for the mediating role of self‐control. Study 2 (n = 193) employed an online experiment to manipulate nature connectedness and found that increased nature connectedness elevated self‐control, which was then linked to healthier food choices in a lunch scenario. Study 3 (n = 256), using a three‐wave longitudinal study, further validated that self‐control mediated the nature connectedness–healthy eating behaviors link. Together, these studies converge to suggest that self‐control may serve as a key psychological pathway linking nature connectedness with healthy eating behaviors. Our research suggests that nature‐based interventions targeting self‐control enhancement may serve as an effective approach for promoting sustainable healthy eating behaviors.

Keywords: healthy eating behaviors, nature connectedness, public health, self‐control

INTRODUCTION

Unhealthy diets are one of the greatest risk factors for obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and other noncommunicable diseases, which have reached pandemic proportions globally (Afshin et al., 2019). In response to individuals' desire to establish healthy diets, researchers have been identifying influential factors (Zorbas et al., 2018). Among them, psychological and/or physical connection with nature (collectively termed “nature connectedness,” Barragan‐Jason et al., 2023) is unique in that it situates the individual within the natural environment system (Wei et al., 2018). Unfortunately, even though nature connectedness has been shown to promote healthy eating behaviors (Langlois & Chandon, 2024; Liem & Woo, 2024; Qiu & Wan, 2024), the pathway underlying this beneficial effect remains largely unknown (Chang & Chiou, 2024). Without clarity on how this association unfolds, the theoretical integration of the natural environment into the healthy eating framework remains limited, leaving intervention targets vague and making it difficult to identify key intervention points accurately.

We propose that self‐control may serve as a key psychological process through which nature connectedness relates to healthy eating behavior, drawing on stress reduction theory (SRT) and attention restoration theory (ART) (Kaplan, 1995; Ulrich et al., 1991). Specifically, nature connectedness may facilitate attentional recovery and replenish self‐control resources, while simultaneously reducing stress and alleviating the depletion of self‐control resources. The resulting improvement in self‐control may enable individuals to overcome impulsive, intuition‐driven preferences and make more deliberate, rational dietary choices in support of long‐term health goals (Hofmann et al., 2009). The present research adopts multiple methodological approaches to empirically examine the above proposition.

Nature connectedness and healthy eating behaviors

Nature connectedness is broadly defined as comprising two interrelated dimensions: psychological connection (the extent to which people see themselves as part of nature, Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Tam, 2013) and physical connection arising from contact with nature (Barragan‐Jason et al., 2023). A growing body of research has linked nature connectedness to a range of health, well‐being, and environmental benefits, including reduced cardiovascular risk, alleviated anxiety and depression, enhanced well‐being, and stronger pro‐environmental intentions and behaviors (Hartig et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2020; McDougall et al., 2024). Nature connectedness has also been linked to reduced sedentary behaviors and increased outdoor activities (Nigg et al., 2023; Remme et al., 2021), suggesting its role as a promising driver of health‐promoting behaviors.

Healthy eating behaviors, defined as patterns of food intake that are beneficial to health or at least not harmful (Stevenson, 2017), have been increasingly identified in research as being positively influenced by nature connectedness (see Table S1). Individuals with higher nature connectedness exhibit a greater preference for healthier (more nutritious and less processed) options while demonstrating a greater likelihood of resisting unhealthy foods (Langlois & Chandon, 2024). In experimental settings, active nature engagement (e.g. 20‐min park walks) promotes healthier eating by increasing healthy snack intake and decreasing unhealthy consumption (Langlois & Chandon, 2024). Moreover, the benefits of nature connectedness are accessible at a low cost. Even brief passive exposure to nature, whether through visual or auditory stimuli, can significantly enhance fruit and vegetable intake while reducing cravings for high‐calorie foods and decreasing sugar consumption (Chang & Chiou, 2024; Kao et al., 2019; Liem & Woo, 2024; Michels et al., 2022; Sobko et al., 2020). Beyond controlled environments, these findings have been successfully translated into real‐world applications, where simple environmental modifications—such as placing nature imagery on vending machines or playing birdsong in supermarkets—have been shown to effectively nudge consumers toward healthier food choices (Spendrup et al., 2016; Stöckli et al., 2016). In conclusion, nature connectedness serves as a low‐cost and highly feasible strategy for dietary intervention strategy.

Self‐control: A process linking nature connectedness to healthy eating

How does nature connectedness promote healthy eating behaviors? While studies highlight the positive effects of nature exposure on dietary choices (Langlois & Chandon, 2024; Liem & Woo, 2024), research examining the underlying processes remains limited. Two theoretical perspectives offer relevant insights: SRT and ART. SRT posits that nature alleviates psychological stress, thereby reducing the likelihood of emotional eating and other impulsive behaviors (Ulrich et al., 1991). Meanwhile, ART suggests that natural environments help restore cognitive resources such as directed attention, which may in turn improve individuals' focus on long‐term health goals (Kaplan, 1995). Although SRT and ART approach the link from different angles—emotional regulation versus cognitive restoration—both are closely linked to self‐control. We posit that stress reduction and attentional restoration are the upstream psychological mechanisms, whereas self‐control, conceptualized as the ability to consciously regulate one's behavior by overcoming impulses or automatic responses (Baumeister et al., 2007), serves as the proximal mechanism through which their effects unfold. This suggests that self‐control may serve as a shared psychological process integrating these two theoretical perspectives, with nature connectedness enhancing self‐control through the mechanisms proposed by SRT and ART.

According to SRT, natural environments can alleviate physiological stress (Ulrich et al., 1991), which may help preserve self‐control resources. Regulating emotions and cognition under stress continuously consumes limited psychological resources, eventually leading to ego depletion 1 and impairing behavioral regulation (Baumeister et al., 2007). Daily stress levels significantly predict subsequent self‐control depletion (Park et al., 2016). Moreover, stress amplifies individuals' craving for immediate rewards and increases the likelihood of choosing instantly gratifying foods or engaging in emotional and external eating (Chuang & Wang, 2022; Maier et al., 2015). Fortunately, exposure to natural environments can effectively lower cortisol levels and relieve stress (Bakir‐Demir et al., 2021; Ewert & Chang, 2018), thereby reducing the depletion of self‐control resources and supporting goal‐directed behavior.

At the same time, ART suggests that natural environments may replenish self‐control by helping restore attention resources. Self‐control capacity depends on a finite pool of psychological resources that can be depleted through exertion (Baumeister et al., 2007). Nature connectedness, however, may help counteract this depletion by replenishing these resources (Chow & Lau, 2015; Kaplan & Berman, 2010). The “soft fascination” characteristic of nature effortlessly captures involuntary attention, allowing directed attention—essential for self‐control—to rest and recover (Kaplan, 1995). Empirical studies have shown that individuals exposed to natural environments exhibit better self‐control compared to those in urban settings (Beute & De Kort, 2014; Minor et al., 2023; Newman & Brucks, 2016).

Improved self‐control, in turn, positively influences healthy eating behaviors (Mann & Ward, 2025). Self‐control can be understood as a dynamic interplay between the control system, which supports goal‐directed actions, and the impulsive system, which drives automatic responses (Hofmann et al., 2009). Healthy eating behaviors typically require the control system, as they involve thoughtful evaluation and resistance to temptation (König et al., 2021). When self‐control resources are depleted, the impulsive system tends to be dominant, making individuals more susceptible to immediate food temptations. In line with this perspective, empirical research shows that individuals with higher self‐control are more likely to choose fruits and vegetables and avoid high‐calorie snacks, whereas those with lower self‐control tend to select unhealthy foods like fast food and desserts, underscoring the pivotal role of self‐control in dietary decision‐making (Fan & Wang, 2022; Haynes et al., 2016; Limbers & Young, 2015; Mann & Ward, 2025).

Some indirect empirical evidences also support the mediating role of self‐control in the link between nature connectedness and healthy eating. Delay discounting—a representative index reflecting the degree of self‐control—reflects individuals' preferences between immediate and delayed rewards (Takehana et al., 2024). Studies have shown that nature connectedness significantly reduces delay discounting tendencies and leads to healthier dietary choices (Chang & Chiou, 2024; Kao et al., 2019), possibly due to the perception of abundance and predictability conveyed by natural environments, which shifts individuals' focus toward long‐term health benefits (van der Wal et al., 2013). Given that reduced delay discounting indicates enhanced self‐control (Duckworth et al., 2013; Takehana et al., 2024), these findings provide critical empirical support for the idea that self‐control likely plays a more fundamental role in explaining how nature connectedness promotes healthy eating behaviors (Loewenstein & Carbone, 2024).

Drawing upon these theoretical and empirical insights, the present research posited the following hypothesis: Self‐control mediates the relationship between nature connectedness and healthy eating. Specifically, nature connectedness enhances self‐control levels, which in turn facilitates healthier eating behaviors.

Current study

This research aimed to investigate how nature connectedness affects healthy eating behaviors through the mediating role of self‐control. Across three studies, we tested the hypothesis that nature connectedness indirectly promotes healthy eating behaviors by enhancing self‐control. Study 1 employed a cross‐sectional correlational study to preliminarily examine self‐control as a mediator in the relationship between nature connectedness and healthy eating. Study 2 designed an experiment to manipulate nature connectedness, establishing causal support for the findings of Study 1. Study 3 used a three‐wave longitudinal study, further validating that self‐control mediated the nature connectedness–healthy eating behaviors link.

STUDY 1: MEASURING NATURE CONNECTEDNESS AND PROCESS EVIDENCE

Study 1 aimed to preliminarily examine the mediating role of self‐control through a cross‐sectional correlational study that measured participants' nature connectedness, self‐control, and healthy eating behaviors. This study was not pre‐registered. De‐identified data are publicly available at https://osf.io/ywtrp.

Method

Participants and procedures

A Monte Carlo power analysis (Schoemann et al., 2017) estimated the sample size required to detect the indirect effect of nature connectedness on healthy eating via self‐control. Assuming medium intercorrelations (rs = .30) among the variables based on existing literature (Uhlmann et al., 2022), the analysis determined that 163 participants were needed to achieve 85% power at α = .05. We recruited 200 Chinese participants (116 women; Mage = 31.49 years, SD age = 7.60 years) via Credamo (https://www.credamo.com/), an online survey platform in China. All participants passed attention checks and were included in the analyses. A total of 80% had a bachelor's degree, and 66.5% reported an annual family income between ￥50,000 and ￥300,000. The average body mass index (BMI), calculated from self‐reported height and weight, was 21.21 kg/m2 (SD BMI = 2.48). For health behaviors, 74% engaged in fitness activities regularly or always (5‐point scale), and 40% were actively trying to lose weight (yes/no). Study 1 has been approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Beijing Normal University (IRB No. BNU202503030061).

Participants completed three questionnaires assessing nature connectedness, self‐control, and healthy eating behavior, with embedded attention checks. Demographics data, including gender, age, education, annual family income, height, weight, fitness frequency, and whether they were trying to lose weight, were then collected. Upon completion, participants received ￥3 (≈$0.42) as compensation.

Measures

Nature connectedness

The 14‐item Connectedness to Nature scale (CNS, Mayer & Frantz, 2004) was used to measure participants' nature connectedness. Sample items included “I often feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me” and “I often feel disconnected from nature” (reverse‐scored). Responses used a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Scores were computed by averaging all items after reverse‐coding three oppositely worded items, with higher scores (Cronbach' s α = .71) reflecting a stronger connection with nature.

Self‐control

The Brief Self‐Control Scale was utilized to assess participants' levels of self‐control (Tangney et al., 2004). Participants rated items like “I am good at resisting temptation” and “I have a hard time breaking bad habits” (reverse‐scored) on a 5‐point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much). Nine negatively worded items were reverse scored, and the mean score of all items was calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of self‐control (Cronbach' s α = .93).

Healthy eating behaviors

The Healthy and Unhealthy Eating Behavior Scale was employed (Guertin et al., 2020), which has also been applied in Chinese populations with satisfactory reliability and validity (Tang et al., 2023). Participants reported their consumption frequency over the past 3 months using a 5‐point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The scale included 11 healthy eating items (e.g. “I eat vegetables”) and 11 unhealthy eating items (e.g. “I eat foods that are deep‐fried”), with the latter reverse‐scored. A composite score was calculated by averaging all 22 items, where higher mean scores indicated healthier eating behaviors (Cronbach's α = .81).

Results

Pearson's correlation was performed to examine the associations among the core variables (see Table 1 for the descriptive statistics and intercorrelation coefficients). The results showed that nature connectedness was positively correlated with both self‐control (r = .55, p < .001) and healthy eating behaviors (r = .45, p < .001). Additionally, self‐control showed a positive correlation with healthy eating behaviors (r = .62, p < .001).

TABLE 1.

Intercorrelations of the core variables in Study 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Gender —
2. Age −.04 —
3. Education −.01 −.05 —
4. Annual family income −.04 .32*** .30*** —
5. BMI −.46*** .27*** −.14* −.16* —
6. Fitness frequency −.27*** .25*** .07 .26** .15* —
7. Lose weight −.16* −.13 −.02 −.11 −.06 −.14 —
8. Nature connectedness −.14 .10 −.09 .19** .08 .26*** −.06 —
9. Self‐control −.27*** .29*** .02 .37*** .12 .52*** −.05 .55*** —
10. Healthy eating behaviors −.19** .26*** .04 .30*** .11 .36*** .02 .45*** .62*** —
M 1.58 31.49 4.12 3.11 21.21 3.79 1.60 4.29 3.99 3.66
SD 0.50 7.60 0.45 0.92 2.48 0.95 0.49 0.35 0.76 0.41
Open in a new tab

Note: Gender was coded as 1 (men) or 2 (women). Educational level was coded as 1 (middle school or below), 2 (high school), 3 (college), 4 (undergraduate), or 5 (postgraduate or above). Annual family income was coded as 1 (less than ￥50,000), 2 (￥50,000–￥150,000), 3 (￥150,000–￥300,000), 4 (￥300,000–￥500,000), 5 (￥500,000–￥1,000,000), or 6 (￥1,000,000 or above).

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01, and

***

p < .001.

To test the mediating role of self‐control, a mediation analysis with 5000 bootstrap samples was conducted using Mplus 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Nature connectedness was specified as the predictor, self‐control as the mediator, and healthy eating behaviors as the outcome. The results (see Figure 1) indicate that the mediating effect of self‐control was significant (indirect effect = .29, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.22, 0.39]), supporting our hypothesis. That is, nature connectedness was associated with healthy eating behaviors via self‐control.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

The mediation model for the effect of nature connectedness on healthy eating behaviors via self‐control in Study 1. Note: The coefficients in the figure are standardized. The total effect is displayed above the line, while the direct effect is shown below the line. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

We reconducted the analyses after controlling for gender, age, annual family income and fitness frequency, as these variables were significantly associated with both self‐control and healthy eating behaviors. The results showed that the indirect effect of self‐control remained significant (β = .26, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [0.18, 0.36]), further corroborating our hypothesis and demonstrating the robustness of our findings.

STUDY 2: MANIPULATED NATURE CONNECTEDNESS AND PROCESS EVIDENCE

Study 2 used an online experimental design to manipulate nature connectedness and assess its effect on participants' healthy food choices in a lunch ordering scenario, providing causal evidence and validating the mediating role of self‐control. Study 2 was not pre‐registered. De‐identified data are available at the same Open Science Framework (OSF) repository (https://osf.io/ywtrp).

Method

Participants

A Monte Carlo power analysis (Schoemann et al., 2017) was conducted for the proposed mediation model. Based on evidence that nature connectedness manipulation has a medium‐sized effect on healthy eating (Kao et al., 2019), medium intercorrelations (rs = .30) were assumed, indicating that 163 participants would provide 85% power. We recruited 200 Chinese participants via Credamo, excluding seven for insufficient engagement (immersion rating below 4 on a 10‐point scale). The final sample consisted of 193 participants (118 men; Mage = 30.87 years, SD age = 8.57; MBMI = 21.10, SD BMI = 2.60), who were randomly assigned to either the nature (n = 100; exposure to natural scenes) or the built condition (n = 93; exposure to urban environments such as streets and buildings) in a between‐subjects design.

Among the participants, 64.8% held a bachelor's degree, 66.3% reported an annual family income between ￥50,000 and ￥300,000, 50.7% engaged in fitness activities regularly or consistently, and 32.1% were actively trying to lose weight. Independent‐samples t‐tests showed no significant differences between the nature and built conditions on demographic variables, BMI, or health‐related behaviors (ps > .05), ensuring group comparability. Study 2 was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Beijing Normal University under the same ethics approval as Study 1 (IRB No. BNU202503030061).

Procedures and materials

First, participants were randomly assigned to either the nature or built condition. In each condition, they watched a 1‐min first‐person perspective video and imagined themselves taking a walk in that environment. The natural setting video featured trees, bushes, and birdsong, while the built setting video showcased streets, buildings, and traffic sounds (illustrative stills from both videos are shown in Figure 2). After watching the video, participants answered an attention‐check question (“Did you hear birds chirping?” for the nature condition; “Did you hear car honking?” for the built condition) and rated their level of immersion on a 10‐point scale, both to ensure task engagement. Those who failed the attention check or rated their immersion below 4 were excluded from further analyses.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Screenshots of the two environmental conditions. Note: Nature (left) and built (right).

Participants then completed two brief questionnaires. To reduce participant burden in this experimental setting, the manipulation check for nature connectedness was conducted using three items from the CNS (Mayer et al., 2009; e.g. “Right now I feel a sense of oneness with the natural world around me”). Responses were rated on a 5‐point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with a higher mean score indicating a stronger sense of nature connectedness (Cronbach's α = .89). Self‐control was assessed using three well‐performing items selected from the Brief Self‐Control Scale used in Study 1 (Tangney et al., 2004; e.g. “I can refuse things that are harmful to me”), which capture core facets of the construct and demonstrate high face validity in everyday life (Schmid et al., 2024). These items were rated on a 5‐point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much), and a higher mean score reflected a greater level of self‐control (Cronbach's α = .78).

After that, participants were instructed to imagine entering a restaurant in the environment shown in the video (nature or built) for lunch and complete a food‐choosing task, designed to assess healthy eating behaviors (Briers & Laporte, 2013; Simon & Hurst, 2021). They viewed 30 food images, half of which were classified as healthier and the other half as less healthy based on participants' perceived healthiness (see Tables S2–S5 for assessment details). The images were divided into four categories: 12 dishes (e.g. salad vs. fried chicken), six staple foods (e.g. rice vs. instant noodles), six snacks (e.g. nuts vs. cake), and six drinks (e.g. lemonade vs. cola). Participants were asked to select two dishes, one staple food, one snack, and one drink. Healthy eating behaviors scores were calculated by averaging the scores of the five chosen items. Additionally, the overall percentage of healthier food choices was recorded, along with category‐specific percentages (dishes, staple foods, snacks, and drinks), ranging from 0 to 100.

Finally, all participants completed the same demographic information as in Study 1, were then debriefed about the purpose of the experiment, and received ￥2 (≈$0.28) as compensation.

Results

An independent‐samples t‐test was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the nature connectedness manipulation. Participants in the nature condition (M = 4.44, SD = 0.44) reported significantly higher levels of nature connectedness than those in the built condition (M = 2.43, SD = 0.93), t(191) = 19.33, p < .001, d = 2.00, showing that the manipulation was effective.

Then, the effect of nature connectedness on self‐control and healthy eating behaviors was examined. Independent‐samples t‐tests indicated significant differences between the nature and built conditions in self‐control and healthy eating behaviors (see Table 2). Participants in the nature condition exhibited higher levels of self‐control as well as healthy eating behaviors (ps < .05). Further, specific analyses revealed that the nature group selected higher rates of healthier dishes, staple foods, and drinks (ps < .05), also healthier snacks chosen (p = .065).

TABLE 2.

Descriptive statistics and group differences by condition in Study 2.

Nature condition (n = 100) Built condition (n = 93) t/χ 2 p Cohen's d/φ
Gender (n, % women) 100, 66% 93, 59% 2.06 .151 0.10
Age 31.55 ± 7.49 30.13 ± 9.58 1.15 .251 0.17
Education 4.07 ± 0.62 4.24 ± 0.62 −1.87 .064 0.27
Annual family income 3.13 ± 1.02 2.94 ± 1.02 1.32 .187 0.19
BMI 21.41 ± 2.65 20.78 ± 2.52 1.68 .095 0.24
Fitness frequency 3.28 ± 1.01 3.33 ± 1.10 −0.352 .725 0.05
Lose weight (n, % women) 36, 36% 26, 28% 1.43 .232 0.09
Self‐control 3.50 ± 0.97 3.20 ± 1.03 2.08 .039 0.30
Healthy eating score 6.37 ± 0.97 5.75 ± 1.32 3.77 .000 0.53
Healthier dishes selection rate 83.00 ± 28.62 71.51 ± 34.89 2.51 .013 0.36
Healthier staple food selection rate 83.00 ± 37.75 67.74 ± 47.00 2.50 .013 0.35
Healthier drink selection rate 90.00 ± 30.15 77.42 ± 42.04 2.40 .017 0.36
Healthier snack selection rate 84.00 ± 36.85 73.12 ± 44.58 1.85 .065 0.27
Open in a new tab

Note: Values for the nature condition and built condition are presented as mean ± standard deviation. For categorical variables (gender and weight loss status), chi‐square tests with phi (φ) were used to estimate effect sizes. For continuous variables, independent‐samples t‐tests with Cohen's d were used.

Using the same bootstrapping method as in Study 1, we conducted a mediation analysis with self‐control as the mediator. The results indicated that nature connectedness significantly influenced healthy eating behaviors through self‐control, β = .03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.002, 0.072], supporting the mediation effect. We further investigated the mediation effects of self‐control between nature connectedness and specific categories of healthier food choices. The results revealed significant mediation effects for dishes, β = .03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.002, 0.099]. The mediation effect for staple foods was marginally significant, β = .020, SE = 0.015, 95% CI = [0.000, 0.062], while no significant effect was found for snacks (β = .003, SE = 0.012, 95% CI = [−0.018, 0.033]) and drinks (β = .00, SE = 0.01, 95% CI = [−0.029, 0.023]). These findings provided further support for the mediating role of self‐control in the link between nature connectedness and healthy eating, particularly for primary meal components such as dishes and staple foods.

STUDY 3: LONGITUDINAL PROCESS EVIDENCE

This pre‐registered study aimed to further examine the mediating role of self‐control using a three‐wave longitudinal study. Considering that Study 2 employed a trait measure of self‐control, which may have been insufficiently sensitive to capture state fluctuations, we refined the measurement in the current study and further examined our hypothesis. The hypothesis, data collection plan, and planned analyses were all preregistered on the OSF (https://osf.io/96mdy) prior to data collection.

Methods

Participants and procedure

Participants were recruited from a university in Wuhan, China, via an elective mental health course. A total of 256 freshmen participated in this three‐wave study, with data provided for at least one time point to maximize sample retention (246 completed all three waves, nine completed two waves, and one completed one wave). A Monte Carlo simulation in Mplus estimated statistical power for the indirect effect in the specified longitudinal mediation model. Based on prior research (Kao et al., 2019) and accounting for potential publication bias, conservative effect sizes (a = .25, b = .25) were specified. With a sample size of 256, power was approximately 91%, indicating adequate power to detect moderate indirect effects. The participants were aged 17–20 years (M = 18.04, SD = 0.59), 64% were male, and the average BMI was 21.68 kg/m2 (SD = 3.56). Most participants majored in computer science (41%), life sciences (29%), mathematics (26%), or linguistics (4%).

To ensure data quality, careless responders were identified using four criteria (Ward & Meade, 2023): (a) a longstring index with a cutoff of 1.96 SD, (b) Mahalanobis distance at p < .001, (c) two screening items, and (d) response time (the proportion of items answered in <1s exceeding 30%). The number of students with valid data was 230 at T1, 216 at T2, and 192 at T3, resulting in an overall missing data rate of 16.9%. Missing data were handled using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation. Little's missing completely at random (MCAR) test (Little, 1988) was not significant (χ 2[89] = 109.98, p > .05) and the normed chi‐square demonstrated a good fit (χ 2/df = 1.24 < 3) between sample scores with and without imputation, suggesting that the data may be MCAR.

Data were collected in class during scheduled sessions, with students completing the questionnaires collectively under the supervision of a psychology instructor. After providing informed consent, participants completed the T1 survey in September 2025, followed by T2 2 weeks later, and T3 4 weeks after T1. Student ID and email information were collected to enable data matching across waves, and participation in this study could be used as one option for earning course credit as compensation. Study 3 has been approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Beijing Normal University (IRB No. BNU202509150237).

Measures

Nature connectedness

The seven‐item CNS (CNS‐7; Pasca et al., 2017), a short form of the original 14‐item scale (Mayer & Frantz, 2004), was used to assess participants' nature connectedness to reduce participant burden. Responses were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with higher mean scores indicating a stronger sense of connection with nature. The CNS‐7 has demonstrated high reliability and structural validity and has been validated for use in Chinese samples (Swami et al., 2024). In the present study, reliability was adequately acceptable, with Cronbach's α of .83, .88, and .93 at T1, T2, and T3, respectively.

Self‐control

Six items adapted from the Brief Self‐Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004) and identified in previous research (Schmid et al., 2024; e.g. “In the past two weeks, I was good at resisting temptation”) were used to assess participants' self‐control over the past 2 weeks. Responses were rated on a 5‐point scale (1 = not at all true, 5 = totally true), with higher mean scores indicating greater self‐control capacity. This brief version of the scale was administered to reduce participant burden in the longitudinal study (Trull & Ebner‐Priemer, 2020), and items were selected for their high face validity in capturing everyday self‐control. In this study, Cronbach's α reliability for this scale was .68, .71, and .77 at T1, T2, and T3, respectively.

Healthy eating behaviors

Six items from a culturally adapted scale developed for Chinese populations (Fan & Wang, 2022; e.g. “Limit use of sugars and food containing sugar (sweets)”) were used to assess participants' healthy eating behaviors over the past 2 weeks. Responses were rated on a 7‐point scale (1 = never, 7 = every day), with higher mean scores indicating more frequent engagement in healthy eating behaviors (αs = .68–.82).

Fruit and vegetable consumption (FVC)

FVC was assessed using four open‐ended questions (Ares et al., 2025; Fodor et al., 2014). Participants reported the number of days they consumed fruit in the past seven days and the number of fruit servings they ate on those days. The same two questions were then repeated for vegetables. A serving of fruit was defined as one medium‐sized apple, and a serving of vegetables as half a plate, with both portion sizes illustrated by pictures and text to facilitate accurate reporting. A statement was also provided that potato‐based products (e.g. French fries) should not be considered as fruit or vegetables. The average daily total fruit and vegetable intake was calculated as (days per week × servings per day)/7 and summed across fruit and vegetables to obtain the total daily FVC.

We also collected demographic information in Wave 1, including age, gender, major, height, weight, family socioeconomic status, and parents' education level. In addition, perceived stress and perceived restoration were assessed to preliminarily examine the proposed theoretical mechanisms, with detailed measurement provided in Supporting Information S3.

Results

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations among nature connectedness, self‐control, healthy eating behaviors, and FVC are presented in Table 3. The correlations between these main variables were all positive and significant, ranging from r = .15 to r = .70 (ps < .05).

TABLE 3.

Intercorrelations of the core variables in Study 3.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Gender —
2. Age −.07 —
3. SES .08 .00 —
4. BMI −.25*** .09 .09 —
5. T1 NC −.04 −.03 .03 −.03 —
6. T2 SC −.13 .06 .15* .11 .21** —
7. T1 HEB −.13* −.01 .05 −.00 .23*** .23*** —
8. T3 HEB −.15* −.09 .10 .05 .32*** .36*** .70*** —
9. T1 FVC −.02 −.06 .08 .15* .20** .17* .15* .19* —
10. T3 FVC −.17* .00 .20** .03 .25*** .25** .20** .28*** .42*** —
M 1.36 18.04 3.27 21.68 4.01 2.98 5.27 5.15 2.36 2.10
SD 0.48 0.59 0.68 3.56 0.63 0.59 0.96 1.13 1.65 1.41
Open in a new tab

Note: Gender was coded as 1 (men) or 2 (women).

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; FVC, fruit and vegetable consumption; HEB, healthy eating behavior; NC, nature connectedness; SC, self‐control; SES, subjective socioeconomic status (1–5).

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01, and

***

p < .001.

Mediation analysis was conducted in Mplus 8.3 using 10,000 bootstrap samples. Controlling T1 healthy eating behavior, there was a significant indirect path from nature connectedness at T1 to healthy eating behavior at T3 mediated by self‐control at T2 (indirect effect = .04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.008, 0.094]). Specifically, a one‐unit increase in nature connectedness resulted in a 0.14‐unit increase in healthy eating behavior, of which 0.04 units were attributable to changes in self‐control.

Similarly, when FVC was entered as the outcome variable, results again revealed a significant indirect effect of nature connectedness at T1 on FVC at T3 via self‐control at T2 (indirect effect = .03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.001, 0.088]). A one‐unit increase in nature connectedness resulted in a 0.19‐unit increase in FVC, of which 0.03 units were due to changes in self‐control. These provided robust evidence for the proposed mediating role of self‐control in the relationship between nature connectedness and healthy eating behaviors.

In accordance with recommended practice (Sidi & Harel, 2018), a sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation (200 imputations) was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the primary findings. Parameter estimates were combined using Rubin's rules. The results were largely consistent with the primary analyses. Specifically, the indirect effect of nature connectedness on healthy eating via self‐control was statistically significant (β = .08, p = .026), whereas the indirect effect on fruit and vegetable intake was marginal (β = .07, p = .097). Overall, these findings suggest a generally consistent mediation pattern.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research examined the psychological process through which nature connectedness promotes healthy eating behavior, focusing on the mediating role of self‐control. Across three complementary studies employing diverse methodologies—including self‐report surveys, experimental manipulation, and longitudinal study—we found consistent with this proposed process. Higher nature connectedness, self‐control, and healthy eating behavior were positively associated. Experimental manipulation of nature connectedness further validated its causal effect on healthier food preferences through improved self‐control. The longitudinal findings provided stronger temporal evidence consistent with the proposed indirect process across time. Overall, these findings establish self‐control as a key psychological pathway linking nature connectedness to healthier eating behavior.

Nature connectedness as a driver of healthy eating behaviors

The results of three studies demonstrate that individuals with higher levels of nature connectedness were more likely to engage in healthier dietary behaviors. Consistent with prior findings (Langlois & Chandon, 2024; Liem & Woo, 2024; Uhlmann et al., 2022), the current work systematically extended this literature by employing a multi‐method approach, demonstrating the robustness of this effect across temporal dimensions (from short‐term choices to long‐term habits) and food types (diverse healthy options). To elaborate, first, while earlier studies largely focused on short‐term experimental manipulations (e.g. the immediate effects of nature exposure on food choice), we showed that the positive association between nature connectedness and healthy eating extends across temporal horizons—from immediate food choices to long‐term dietary habits measured across three months. Second, by incorporating diverse food categories, we demonstrated that this effect generalizes beyond specific food items (e.g. the amount of sugar chosen for a reward drink) to broader domains of healthy eating habits (e.g. eating regularly and consuming appropriate portions) and actual dietary behaviors (e.g. FVC). Together, our findings—spanning cross‐sectional survey evidence, experimental causal evidence, and longitudinal evidence—provide robust support for the role of nature connectedness in promoting healthy eating behaviors and strengthen the empirical foundation for nature‐based health interventions.

Self‐control as the central pathway

Our study extends previous understanding by identifying self‐control as the central pathway linking nature connectedness to healthy eating behaviors. While SRT and ART suggest the restorative effects conceptualize nature's restorative effects from emotional and cognitive perspectives, our work integrates these views into a unified self‐control framework. Specifically, nature connectedness may influence self‐control through two pathways: resource protection (reducing resource depletion due to stress and emotional regulation demands) and resource replenishment (restoring attentional capacity necessary for goal‐directed behavior).

Importantly, the primary aim of this research was to establish self‐control as a key psychological process linking nature connectedness to healthy eating behaviors, drawing on ART and SRT. Accordingly, the main analyses did not directly test the specific mechanisms proposed by ART and SRT. In Study 3, we conducted exploratory analyses to examine the potential roles of perceived restoration and perceived stress in the association between nature connectedness and self‐control (see Figures S1–S3 and Table S6). The results did not support a parallel mediation model; instead, they were more consistent with a temporally ordered serial pathway, such that nature connectedness was associated with higher perceived restoration, which in turn was linked to lower perceived stress and subsequently higher self‐control, suggesting a sequential rather than parallel organization of resource replenishment and resource protection processes. This pattern is directionally consistent with prior research showing that exposure to nature is associated with enhanced restorative experiences, reduced subjective stress, and improved quality of life (Baceviciene & Jankauskiene, 2022). These findings suggest that, in the context of everyday resource depletion, individuals may replenish attentional and other psychological resources through contact with nature. However, such restored resources may not directly translate into higher general self‐control, but may instead exert their influence indirectly through reductions in subjective stress, highlighting stress reduction as a potentially more proximal pathway linking restoration to self‐control functioning. These findings should be interpreted with caution given the exploratory nature of Study 3. In addition, the restoration measures primarily assessed environmental restorative qualities rather than dynamic changes in individuals' cognitive resources over time (van den Berg et al., 2014), which may limit their sensitivity to temporal restoration processes. Future research should more rigorously examine whether these two processes operate in parallel or sequentially, using experimental or intervention designs.

Future research could further examine the psychological mechanisms underlying the association between nature exposure, self‐control, and healthy eating. The present study primarily interprets its findings within restorative frameworks, including ART and SRT (Kaplan, 1995; Ulrich et al., 1991). These theories suggest that exposure to natural environments may enhance self‐control by replenishing depleted attentional and affective resources, thereby supporting healthier behavioral regulation. While this restorative account is consistent with the observed indirect effect via self‐control, it does not preclude the possibility that other processes may also contribute. From the perspective of self‐determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), sustained engagement with natural environments may foster autonomous motivation by providing inherently interesting and enriching experiences (Yang et al., 2022). This motivational process, in turn, may support self‐control capacity and promote healthier eating behaviors. Future research could further test whether autonomous motivation operates as an additional or alternative mediator, alongside restorative resource replenishment, in explaining the effects of nature connectedness on self‐control and healthy eating behaviors.

Contributions and implications

This work makes several theoretical contributions. First, it positions self‐control as the central psychological process, which accounts for the link between nature connectedness and healthy eating behaviors. While attention restoration and stress reduction are important, they are ultimately facilitators of self‐control. By identifying self‐control as the core process that integrates and underpins these mechanisms, this research advances a deeper understanding of the intrinsic psychological drivers behind this relationship. Second, it enriches the diversity of the existing literature by incorporating Chinese samples, which moves beyond the Western‐centric focus of prior studies. Finally, it introduces a methodological advancement by developing a more nuanced approach to measuring healthy eating behaviors, moving beyond narrow measures to evaluate overall dietary patterns.

Our findings also have significant practical implications for promoting healthy eating behaviors at both individual and society levels. While awareness of healthy eating is growing, many individuals struggle to translate this knowledge into action, especially when faced with the temptation of unhealthy foods (Goukens & Klesse, 2022). Although Study 3 yielded small effect sizes at the individual level, these effects may still carry practical significance, as even small effects can accumulate over time, across situations, or across individuals, and may therefore produce meaningful consequences in the long run (Funder & Ozer, 2019). In addition, nature‐based influences are inherently repeatable and can be integrated into everyday contexts, allowing their effects to operate across repeated exposures. Unlike traditional self‐control strategies—such as cognitive reappraisal, effortful inhibition, or automatic regulation—which often require substantial cognitive resources (Mann & Ward, 2025), nature‐based interventions are low‐cost, are scalable, and can be implemented at community or institutional levels (e.g. campus greening and workplace nature access). These characteristics suggest that, despite their modest magnitude at the individual level, the observed effects may have meaningful implications at the population level.

For individuals seeking to improve their dietary habits or lose weight, especially those with low self‐control, our study suggests that they can enhance self‐control and improve dietary choices through simple, everyday interactions with nature, such as spending time in parks or viewing nature videos. These activities replenish cognitive resources and reduce impulsive decision‐making, offering a universally applicable approach that requires no specialized training or financial investment. Evidence from related health research suggests that approximately 120 min of nature exposure per week may represent a potential threshold, above which benefits for health and well‐being are more likely to emerge (White et al., 2019). Future research could systematically manipulate the scale, duration, and frequency of nature exposure to identify the minimum and optimal dose of nature‐based interventions required to produce clinically significant dietary changes. Building on these parameters, long‐term nature‐based interventions (e.g. for individuals aiming to lose weight) could be developed and tested to examine their potential for producing sustained improvements in self‐control and healthy eating behaviors.

At the societal level, integrating natural elements into urban planning and food environments can serve as a powerful nudge. Governments can expand access to green spaces, while businesses in the food industry can incorporate nature‐inspired designs—such as greenery in restaurants, nature‐themed packaging, or digital interfaces with natural visuals—to subtly encourage healthier choices (Liem & Woo, 2024; Michels et al., 2022; Qiu & Wan, 2024; Spendrup et al., 2016; Stöckli et al., 2016; Vanhatalo et al., 2022). By leveraging nature connectedness to strengthen self‐control, these strategies not only support healthier eating but also promote broader well‐being and pro‐environmental behaviors (Martin et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2026), creating a sustainable pathway for individuals to align their behaviors with both health and environmental sustainability goals.

Limitations and future research directions

Some limitations of this study warrant consideration for future research. First, the current research did not consider boundary conditions of nature's effect on healthy eating. Emerging evidence suggests that different types of natural environments confer unequal psychological benefits (Allard‐Poesi et al., 2022; Nutsford et al., 2016). While most studies have focused on green spaces (e.g. parks and woodlands), blue spaces—environments characterized by water, such as rivers, lakes, and coasts—may offer distinct, and possibly stronger, restorative benefits (Grassini et al., 2019). Future research should systematically compare different natural environments to identify which specific features most effectively promote healthy eating via the self‐control pathway.

Second, the experimental manipulation involved only a brief one‐minute virtual exposure to natural environments. Although prior research suggests that even one‐minute video exposure can reliably induce restorative and affective benefits (Li et al., 2021), those findings do not directly address self‐control or food choices. Moreover, real‐life nature experiences are far more complex. Therefore, future studies could examine longer exposure durations and adopt more immersive approaches (e.g. virtual reality) to better capture potential effects on self‐control and food‐related decisions.

Third, self‐control was assessed using self‐report measures, particularly following the experimental manipulation. Thus, the observed differences may reflect not only changes in self‐control but also potential demand characteristics. Future research should incorporate more state‐sensitive and behavioral measures of self‐control (e.g. food‐related Stroop tasks) to provide a more rigorous test of the proposed mechanism.

Fourth, while Studies 1 and 2 relied on online methodology, which may limit ecological validity for real‐world eating behaviors, previous evidence suggests that online studies on nature and food choices yield results comparable to field experiments (Langlois & Chandon, 2024). Study 3 also helps address this limitation by tracking participants' actual dietary behavior over time. Future research could conduct field experiments in real‐world settings (e.g. restaurants) to further improve ecological validity and practical applicability.

CONCLUSION

The key contribution of the present research was the consistent finding that self‐control mediated the relationship between nature connectedness and healthy eating behavior. Specifically, nature connectedness enhanced self‐control, which in turn promoted healthier eating. Therefore, to effectively promote healthy eating behaviors, interventions could focus on enhancing nature connectedness and strengthening self‐control.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This research was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board at the Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University (IRB No.: BNU202503030061 for Studies 1 and 2 and BNU202509150237 for Study 3), and all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines.

Supporting information

Table S1 Supporting information.

Table S2 Perceived healthiness and ranking of dishes in Study 2.

Table S3 Perceived healthiness and ranking of staple foods in Study 2.

Table S4 Perceived healthiness and ranking of snacks in Study 2.

Table S5 Perceived healthiness and ranking of drinks in Study 2.

Figure S1 Pathways from nature connectedness to self‐control through perceived restoration and perceived stress.

Figure S2 Pathways from T1 nature connectedness to T3 self‐control through T2 perceived restoration and T2 perceived stress.

Figure S3 Pathways from T1 nature connectedness to T3 self‐control through T1 perceived restoration and T2 perceived stress.

Table S6 Intercorrelations of the core variables.

APHW-18-0-s001.docx (807KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Yuxiu Nie for her assistance in the longitudinal data collection process.

Chen, Y. , He, N. , He, J. , Yang, R. , Jiang, J. , Yang, X. , & Xu, J. (2026). Nature connectedness and healthy eating: The possible role of self‐control. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 18(4), e70181. 10.1111/aphw.70181

Funding information This paper was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31871126).

ENDNOTES

1

The concept of “ego depletion” has been subject to debate, with mixed evidence from large‐scale replication attempts (e.g. Hagger et al., 2016; Vohs et al., 2021) and more recent multi‐lab studies (e.g. Dang et al., 2025). It is important to clarify that our use of the term here refers specifically to the observed phenomenon that stress may diminish self‐control capacity.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data are openly available through OSF: https://osf.io/ywtrp.

REFERENCES

  1. Afshin, A. , Sur, P. J. , Fay, K. A. , Cornaby, L. , Ferrara, G. , Salama, J. S. , Mullany, E. C. , Abate, K. H. , Abbafati, C. , Abebe, Z. , Afarideh, M. , Aggarwal, A. , Agrawal, S. , Akinyemiju, T. , Alahdab, F. , Bacha, U. , Bachman, V. F. , Badali, H. , Badawi, A. , … Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet, 393(10184), 1958–1972. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allard‐Poesi, F. , Matos, L. B. S. , & Massu, J. (2022). Not all types of nature have an equal effect on urban residents' well‐being: A structural equation model approach. Health & Place, 74, 102759. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ares, G. , Brunet, G. , Giménez, A. , Girona, A. , & Vidal, L. (2025). Understanding fruit and vegetable consumption among Uruguayan adults. Appetite, 206, 107824. 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baceviciene, M. , & Jankauskiene, R. (2022). The mediating effect of nature restorativeness, stress level, and nature connectedness in the association between nature exposure and quality of life. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 2098. 10.3390/ijerph19042098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakir‐Demir, T. , Berument, S. K. , & Akkaya, S. (2021). Nature connectedness boosts the bright side of emotion regulation, which in turn reduces stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101642. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101642 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 Conservation, 277, 109842. 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109842 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumeister, R. F. , Vohs, K. D. , & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self‐control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351–355. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beute, F. , & De Kort, Y. A. W. (2014). Natural resistance: Exposure to nature and self‐regulation, mood, and physiology after ego‐depletion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 167–178. [Google Scholar]
  9. Briers, B. , & Laporte, S. (2013). A wallet full of calories: The effect of financial dissatisfaction on the desire for food energy. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(6), 767–781. 10.1509/jmr.10.0513 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang, Y. Y. C. , & Chiou, W. B. (2024). How exposure to natural scenes can promote weight control behaviors: A replication experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 98, 102413. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102413 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chow, J. T. , & Lau, S. (2015). Nature gives us strength: Exposure to nature counteracts ego‐depletion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(1), 70–85. 10.1080/00224545.2014.972310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chuang, H. L. , & Wang, Y. F. (2022). Understanding the associations among perceived stress, self‐control skills, and overeating in Asian adolescents. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 43(5), e347–e355. 10.1097/DBP.0000000000001050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dang, J. , Xiao, S. , Mao, L. , Liu, X. , Baumert, A. , Bonneterre, S. , Cai, S. , Chen, X. , de Chanaleilles, M. , Ding, N. , Fan, W. , Feng, Y. , Gao, D. , He, X. , Huang, W. , Ismail, I. , Jia, L. , Li, H. , Li, R. , … Schiöth, H. B. (2025). Revisiting ego depletion: Evidence from multi‐lab collaborations. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 19, 18344909251386084. 10.1177/18344909251386084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Duckworth, A. L. , Tsukayama, E. , & Kirby, T. A. (2013). Is it really self‐control? Examining the predictive power of the delay of gratification task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 843–855. 10.1177/0146167213482589 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ewert, A. , & Chang, Y. (2018). Levels of nature and stress response. Behavioral Sciences, 8(5), 49. 10.3390/bs8050049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fan, L. , & Wang, Y. (2022). Healthy eating behaviors and self‐control in scarcity: The protective effects of self‐compassion. Appetite, 169, 105860. 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105860 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fodor, D. P. , Antoni, C. H. , Wiedemann, A. U. , & Burkert, S. (2014). Healthy eating at different risk levels for job stress: Testing a moderated mediation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 256–267. 10.1037/a0036267 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Funder, D. C. , & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. 10.1177/2515245919847202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Goukens, C. , & Klesse, A. K. (2022). Internal and external forces that prevent (vs. facilitate) healthy eating: Review and outlook within consumer psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101328. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Grassini, S. , Revonsuo, A. , Castellotti, S. , Petrizzo, I. , Benedetti, V. , & Koivisto, M. (2019). Processing of natural scenery is associated with lower attentional and cognitive load compared with urban ones. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 1–11. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Guertin, C. , Pelletier, L. , & Pope, P. (2020). The validation of the Healthy and Unhealthy Eating Behavior Scale (HUEBS): Examining the interplay between stages of change and motivation and their association with healthy and unhealthy eating behaviors and physical health. Appetite, 144, 104487. 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hagger, M. S. , Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. , Alberts, H. , Anggono, C. O. , Batailler, C. , Birt, A. R. , Brand, R. , Brandt, M. J. , Brewer, G. , Bruyneel, S. , Calvillo, D. P. , Campbell, W. K. , Cannon, P. R. , Carlucci, M. , Carruth, N. P. , Cheung, T. , Crowell, A. , De Ridder, D. T. D. , Dewitte, S. , … Zwienenberg, M. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego‐depletion effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 546–573. 10.1177/1745691616652873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hartig, T. , Mitchell, R. , De Vries, S. , & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35(1), 207–228. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Haynes, A. , Kemps, E. , & Moffitt, R. (2016). Does trait self‐control predict weaker desire for unhealthy stimuli? A lab‐based study of unhealthy snack intake. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 69–74. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hofmann, W. , Friese, M. , & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self‐control from a dual‐systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 162–176. 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kao, C. C. , Wu, W. H. , & Chiou, W. B. (2019). Exposure to nature may induce lower discounting and lead to healthier dietary choices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101333. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101333 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaplan, S. , & Berman, M. G. (2010). Directed attention as a common resource for executive functioning and self‐regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 43–57. 10.1177/1745691609356784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. König, L. M. , Sproesser, G. , Schupp, H. T. , & Renner, B. (2021). Preference for intuition and deliberation in eating decision‐making: Scale validation and associations with eating behaviour and health. British Journal of Health Psychology, 26(1), 109–131. 10.1111/bjhp.12460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Langlois, M. , & Chandon, P. (2024). Experiencing nature leads to healthier food choices. Communications Psychology, 2(1), 24. 10.1038/s44271-024-00072-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, Z. , Ba, M. , & Kang, J. (2021). Physiological indicators and subjective restorativeness with audio‐visual interactions in urban soundscapes. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 103360. 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103360 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Liem, D. G. , & Woo, Y. C. (2024). Encouraging online consumers into making better food choices: The power of nature exposure on healthy food choices. Appetite, 199, 107382. 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Limbers, C. A. , & Young, D. (2015). Executive functions and consumption of fruits/vegetables and high saturated fat foods in young adults. Journal of Health Psychology, 20(5), 602–611. 10.1177/1359105315573470 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Loewenstein, G. , & Carbone, E. (2024). Self‐control ≠ temporal discounting. Current Opinion in Psychology, 60, 101924. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101924 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Maier, S. U. , Makwana, A. B. , & Hare, T. A. (2015). Acute stress impairs self‐control in goal‐directed choice by altering multiple functional connections within the brain's decision circuits. Neuron, 87(3), 621–631. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mann, T. , & Ward, A. (2025). The self‐control of eating. Annual Review of Psychology, 76, 87–114. 10.1146/annurev-psych-012424-035404 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin, L. , White, M. P. , Hunt, A. , Richardson, M. , Pahl, S. , & Burt, J. (2020). Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro‐environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 68, 101389. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101389 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mayer, F. S. , & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mayer, F. S. , Frantz, C. M. , Bruehlman‐Senecal, E. , & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 607–643. 10.1177/0013916508319745 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. McDougall, C. W. , Elliott, L. R. , White, M. P. , Grellier, J. , Bell, S. , Bratman, G. N. , Nieuwenhuijsen, M. , Lima, M. L. , Ojala, A. , Cirach, M. , Roiko, A. , van den Bosch, M. , & Fleming, L. E. (2024). What types of nature exposure are associated with hedonic, eudaimonic and evaluative wellbeing? An 18‐country study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 100, 102479. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Michels, N. , Debra, G. , Mattheeuws, L. , & Hooyberg, A. (2022). Indoor nature integration for stress recovery and healthy eating: A picture experiment with plants versus green color. Environmental Research, 212, 113643. 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Minor, K. , Glavind, K. L. , Schwartz, A. J. , Danforth, C. M. , Lehmann, S. , & Bjerre‐Nielsen, A. (2023). Nature exposure is associated with reduced smartphone use. Environment and Behavior, 55(3), 103–139. 10.1177/00139165231167165 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Muthén, L. K. , & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  45. Newman, K. P. , & Brucks, M. (2016). When are natural and urban environments restorative? The impact of environmental compatibility on self‐control restoration. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Mahwah, N.J.), 26(4), 535–541. 10.1177/0033294119884063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nigg, C. , Petersen, E. , & MacIntyre, T. (2023). Natural environments, psychosocial health, and health behaviors in a crisis—A scoping review of the literature in the COVID‐19 context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 88, 102009. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Nutsford, D. , Pearson, A. L. , Kingham, S. , & Reitsma, F. (2016). Residential exposure to visible blue space (but not green space) associated with lower psychological distress in a capital city. Health & Place, 39, 70–78. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Park, C. L. , Wright, B. R. , Pais, J. , & Ray, D. M. (2016). Daily stress and self‐control. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 35(9), 738–753. 10.1521/jscp.2016.35.9.738 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Pasca, L. , Aragonés, J. I. , & Coello, M. T. (2017). An analysis of the connectedness to nature scale based on item response theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1330. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Qiu, L. , & Wan, X. (2024). Nature's beauty versus urban bustle: Chinese folk music influences food choices by inducing mental imagery of different scenes. Appetite, 199, 107507. 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Remme, R. P. , Frumkin, H. , Guerry, A. D. , King, A. C. , Mandle, L. , Sarabu, C. , Bratman, G. N. , Giles‐Corti, B. , Hamel, P. , Han, B. , Hicks, J. L. , James, P. , Lawler, J. J. , Lindahl, T. , Liu, H. , Lu, Y. , Oosterbroek, B. , Paudel, B. , Sallis, J. F. , … Daily, G. C. (2021). An ecosystem service perspective on urban nature, physical activity, and health. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(22), e2018472118. 10.1073/pnas.2018472118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ryan, R. , & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self‐determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. 10.1521/978.14625/28806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Schmid, J. , Moschko, T. , Riccio, M. , Snyder, K. A. , Gawrilow, C. , & Stadler, G. (2024). Self‐control fluctuates from day to day and is linked to subjective well‐being within and between persons. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐being, 16(1), 254–272. 10.1111/aphw.12482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Schoemann, A. M. , Boulton, A. J. , & Short, S. D. (2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. 10.1177/1948550617715068 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sidi, Y. , & Harel, O. (2018). The treatment of incomplete data: Reporting, analysis, reproducibility, and replicability. Social Science & Medicine, 209, 169–173. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Simon, K. , & Hurst, M. (2021). Body positivity, but not for everyone: The role of model size in exposure effects on women's mood, body satisfaction, and food choice. Body Image, 39, 125–130. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Sobko, T. , Brown, G. T. , & Cheng, W. H. (2020). Does connectedness to nature improve the eating behaviours of pre‐schoolers? Emerging evidence from the Play&Grow randomised controlled trial in Hong Kong. Appetite, 154, 104781. 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Spendrup, S. , Hunter, E. , & Isgren, E. (2016). Exploring the relationship between nature sounds, connectedness to nature, mood and willingness to buy sustainable food: A retail field experiment. Appetite, 100, 133–141. 10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Stevenson, R. J. (2017). Psychological correlates of habitual diet in healthy adults. Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 53–90. 10.1037/bul0000065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Stöckli, S. , Stämpfli, A. E. , Messner, C. , & Brunner, T. A. (2016). An (un)healthy poster: When environmental cues affect consumers' food choices at vending machines. Appetite, 96, 368–374. 10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Swami, V. , White, M. P. , Voracek, M. , Tran, U. S. , Aavik, T. , Ranjbar, H. A. , Adebayo, S. O. , Afhami, R. , Ahmed, O. , Aimé, A. , Akel, M. , Al Halbusi, H. , Alexias, G. , Ali, K. F. , Alp‐Dal, N. , Alsalhani, A. B. , Álvarez‐Solas, S. , Soares Amaral, A. C. , Andrianto, S. , … Stieger, S. (2024). Exposure and connectedness to natural environments: An examination of the measurement invariance of the Nature Exposure Scale (NES) and Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) across 65 nations, 40 languages, gender identities, and age groups. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 99, 102432. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102432 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Takehana, A. , Tanaka, D. , Arai, M. , Hattori, Y. , Yoshimoto, T. , Matsui, T. , Sadato, N. , Chikazoe, J. , & Jimura, K. (2024). Healthy dietary choices involve prefrontal mechanisms associated with long‐term reward maximization but not working memory. Cerebral Cortex, 34(7), bhae302. 10.1093/cercor/bhae302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Tam, K. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Tang, S. , Li, X. , Wang, M. , & Sha, L. (2023). Nutrition literacy mediates the relationship between self‐efficacy and eating behavior in young tuberculosis patients: A cross‐sectional study. Preventive Medicine Reports, 33, 102187. 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Tangney, J. P. , Baumeister, R. F. , & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self‐control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Trull, T. J. , & Ebner‐Priemer, U. W. (2020). Ambulatory assessment in psychopathology research: A review of recommended reporting guidelines and current practices. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 129(1), 56–63. 10.1037/abn0000473 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Uhlmann, K. , Ross, H. , Buckley, L. , & Lin, B. B. (2022). Nature relatedness, connections to food and wellbeing in Australian adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84, 101888. 10.3390/ijerph15071371 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Ulrich, R. S. , Simons, R. F. , Losito, B. D. , Fiorito, E. , Miles, M. A. , & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. van den Berg, A. E. , Jorgensen, A. , & Wilson, E. R. (2014). Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: Does setting type make a difference? Landscape and Urban Planning, 127, 173–181. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. van der Wal, A. J. , Schade, H. M. , Krabbendam, L. , & van Vugt, M. (2013). Do natural landscapes reduce future discounting in humans? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1773), 20132295. 10.1098/rspb.2013.2295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Vanhatalo, S. , Liedes, H. , & Pennanen, K. (2022). Nature ambience in a lunch restaurant has the potential to evoke positive emotions, reduce stress, and support healthy food choices and sustainable behavior: A field experiment among Finnish customers. Food, 11(7), 964. 10.3390/foods11070964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Vohs, K. D. , Schmeichel, B. J. , Lohmann, S. , Gronau, Q. F. , Finley, A. J. , Ainsworth, S. E. , Alquist, J. L. , Baker, M. D. , Brizi, A. , Bunyi, A. , Butschek, G. J. , Campbell, C. , Capaldi, J. , Cau, C. , Chambers, H. , Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. , Christensen, W. J. , Clay, S. L. , Curtis, J. , … Albarracín, D. (2021). A multisite preregistered paradigmatic test of the ego‐depletion effect. Psychological Science, 32(10), 1566–1581. 10.1177/0956797621989733 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Wang, X. , Liu, Y. , Zhang, Y. , Su, Z. , Hua, L. , Zhao, Y. , & Li, J. (2026). Longitudinal associations between self‐control and pro‐environmental behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 110, 102946. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.102946 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Ward, M. K. , & Meade, A. W. (2023). Dealing with careless responding in survey data: Prevention, identification, and recommended best practices. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 577–596. 10.1146/annurev-psych-040422-045007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Wei, Y. , Ray, I. , Western, A. W. , & Lu, Z. X. (2018). Understanding ourselves and the environment in which we live. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 33, 161–166. 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.06.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. White, M. P. , Alcock, I. , Grellier, J. , Wheeler, B. W. , Hartig, T. , Warber, S. L. , Bone, A. , Depledge, M. H. , & Fleming, L. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9, 7730. 10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Yang, Y. , Cai, H. , Yang, Z. , Zhao, X. , Li, M. , Han, R. , & Chen, S. X. (2022). Why does nature enhance psychological well‐being? A self‐determination account. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 83, 1–12. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101872 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Zorbas, C. , Palermo, C. , Chung, A. , Iguacel, I. , Peeters, A. , Bennett, R. , & Backholer, K. (2018). Factors perceived to influence healthy eating: A systematic review and meta‐ethnographic synthesis of the literature. Nutrition Reviews, 76(12), 861–874. 10.1093/nutrit/nuy043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1 Supporting information.

Table S2 Perceived healthiness and ranking of dishes in Study 2.

Table S3 Perceived healthiness and ranking of staple foods in Study 2.

Table S4 Perceived healthiness and ranking of snacks in Study 2.

Table S5 Perceived healthiness and ranking of drinks in Study 2.

Figure S1 Pathways from nature connectedness to self‐control through perceived restoration and perceived stress.

Figure S2 Pathways from T1 nature connectedness to T3 self‐control through T2 perceived restoration and T2 perceived stress.

Figure S3 Pathways from T1 nature connectedness to T3 self‐control through T1 perceived restoration and T2 perceived stress.

Table S6 Intercorrelations of the core variables.

APHW-18-0-s001.docx (807KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Data are openly available through OSF: https://osf.io/ywtrp.

Articles from Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES