Stress Regulation via Being in Nature and Social Support in Adults, a Meta-analysis

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F68081740%3A_____%2F23%3A00582518" target="_blank" >RIV/68081740:_____/23:00582518 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11410/23:10472298

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/9/1/77343/196335/Stress-Regulation-via-Being-in-Nature-and-Social" target="_blank" >https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/9/1/77343/196335/Stress-Regulation-via-Being-in-Nature-and-Social</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/collabra.77343" target="_blank" >10.1525/collabra.77343</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Stress Regulation via Being in Nature and Social Support in Adults, a Meta-analysis

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

In this meta-analysis, the authors investigated whether being in nature and emotional social support are reliable strategies to downregulate stress. We retrieved all the relevant articles that investigated a connection between one of these two strategies and stress. For being in nature we found 54 effects reported in 16 papers (total N = 1,697, MdnN = 52.5), while for emotional social support we found 18 effects reported in 13 papers (total N = 3,787, MdnN = 186). Although we initially found an effect for being in nature and emotional social support on stress (Hedges' g =-.42, Hedges' g =-.14, respectively), the effect only held for being in nature after applying our main publication bias correction technique (Hedges' g =-.60). The emotional social support literature also had a high risk of bias. Although the being-in-nature literature was moderately powered (.72) to detect effects of Cohen's d = .50 or larger, the risk of bias was considerable, and the reporting contained numerous statistical reporting errors.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Stress Regulation via Being in Nature and Social Support in Adults, a Meta-analysis

Popis výsledku anglicky

In this meta-analysis, the authors investigated whether being in nature and emotional social support are reliable strategies to downregulate stress. We retrieved all the relevant articles that investigated a connection between one of these two strategies and stress. For being in nature we found 54 effects reported in 16 papers (total N = 1,697, MdnN = 52.5), while for emotional social support we found 18 effects reported in 13 papers (total N = 3,787, MdnN = 186). Although we initially found an effect for being in nature and emotional social support on stress (Hedges' g =-.42, Hedges' g =-.14, respectively), the effect only held for being in nature after applying our main publication bias correction technique (Hedges' g =-.60). The emotional social support literature also had a high risk of bias. Although the being-in-nature literature was moderately powered (.72) to detect effects of Cohen's d = .50 or larger, the risk of bias was considerable, and the reporting contained numerous statistical reporting errors.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50101 - Psychology (including human - machine relations)

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/LX22NPO5101" target="_blank" >LX22NPO5101: Národní institut pro výzkum socioekonomických dopadů nemocí a systémových rizik</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

COLLABRA-PSYCHOL

ISSN

2474-7394

e-ISSN

2474-7394

Svazek periodika

9

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

26

Strana od-do

77343

Kód UT WoS článku

001009467400001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85162236491