Parental positive thinking and psychological flexibility in relation to children's nature connectedness: the mediating role of family functioning.

Parental positive thinking and psychological flexibility in relation to children’s nature connectedness: the mediating role of family functioning - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice BMC Psychol . 2026 Apr 18;14:820. doi: 10.1186/s40359-026-04459-9 Parental positive thinking and psychological flexibility in relation to children’s nature connectedness: the mediating role of family functioning Lina Ma 1 , Zhonglian Yan 1 , Yuedi Yang 1 , Haojie Yuan 1 , Wei Xiao 2, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Faculty of Education, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China 2 Faculty of Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Dec 2; Accepted 2026 Mar 25; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13234977  PMID: 41998768 Abstract Background To strengthen children’s nature connectedness, this study explored the mechanisms linking parental positive thinking, parental psychological flexibility, and young children’s nature connectedness, with a focus on the mediating role of family functioning. Method Questionnaires were administered to 673 parents of children aged 3–6 from Hubei, Guizhou, Guangdong, and Chongqing in China, using the Parental Positive Thinking Scale, the Parental Psychological Flexibility Scale, the Family Functioning Scale, and the Children’s Nature Connectedness Scale. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and mediation tests. Results Parental positive thinking was positively correlated with children’s nature connectedness (B = 0.191, p < 0.01). Parental psychological flexibility was positively correlated with children’s nature connectedness (B = 0.043, p < 0.01). Family functioning mediated the relationship between parental positive thinking and children’s nature connectedness (B = 0.256, 95% CI = [0.189, 0.322]). Conclusion Parental positive thinking and parental psychological flexibility are associated with children’s nature connectedness through family functioning. These findings suggest that in efforts to enhance children’s nature connectedness, cultivating parental positive thinking and parental psychological flexibility—and fully leveraging family functioning—are of important value and significance. Keywords: Parental positive thinking, Parental psychological flexibility, Family functioning, Children’s nature connectedness Introduction Nature connectedness refers to an individual’s subjective emotional bond with, and sense of interdependence with, the natural world [ 1 ]. Nature connectedness is increasingly recognized as a protective factor for children’s holistic development. Evidence suggests that early childhood nature connectedness is associated with better emotion regulation [ 2 ], fewer problem behaviors [ 3 ], and stronger pro-environmental attitudes in adulthood [ 4 ]. Rapid urbanization and digitalization have reduced children’s opportunities for direct contact with nature [ 5 ]. This shift has heightened concerns about “nature deficit disorder” and has drawn attention from both researchers and the public. Disconnection from nature has been associated with increased physical health risks (e.g., obesity and myopia) and poorer psychological development. Reported outcomes include poorer emotion regulation, reduced creativity, and lower environmental awareness [ 6 ]. The family is the primary microsystem in early childhood development. Family systems theory posits that family functioning and interaction patterns are key determinants of children’s development. As primary caregivers and role models, parents play a central role in shaping children’s experiences of nature and their attitudes toward it [ 7 ]. Among parental psychological characteristics, positive thinking and psychological flexibility are associated with children’s developmental outcomes [ 8 ]. However, these parental characteristics have received limited empirical attention in relation to children’s nature connectedness. Family functioning, a core component of the family system, may mediate the associations between parental characteristics and child developmental outcomes [ 9 ]. However, whether family functioning mediates the link between parental positive psychological characteristics and children’s nature connectedness has not been systematically examined. Therefore, we examined whether parental positive thinking and psychological flexibility are associated with children’s nature connectedness and tested whether family functioning mediates these associations. Children’s nature connectedness The concept of nature connectedness is rooted in the biophilia hypothesis [ 10 ], which proposes that humans have an innate tendency to affiliate with other living organisms and the natural environment. Nature connectedness is commonly defined as recognizing one’s belonging in nature and valuing the significance of this relationship [ 11 ]. It is also conceptualized as a multidimensional psychological construct comprising cognitive and affective components [ 12 ]. Nature connectedness reflects a close person–nature relationship and may involve cognitively including nature in the self, affective attachment to nature, and embodied engagement with natural settings [ 13 ]. In children aged 3–6 years, nature connectedness may be expressed through outdoor exploration, curiosity about plants and animals, and affectionate responses to natural elements (e.g., rocks, streams, and trees) [ 6 , 14 ]. Unlike environmental knowledge or pro-environmental behavior, nature connectedness is primarily affective and reflects whether children perceive themselves as part of nature rather than separate from it [ 2 ]. Developing nature connectedness in early childhood may benefit multiple developmental domains. Natural environments may reduce young children’s stress and anxiety through rich sensory input and restorative qualities, and may also support attention, memory, and creativity [ 15 – 17 ]. For example, Kuo and Taylor [ 3 ] found that children living in neighborhoods with more green space showed fewer attention problems and aggressive behaviors, consistent with nature’s restorative effects on cognition. In the socio-emotional domain, nature connectedness is associated with empathy and compassion. Children who feel more connected to nature may be more likely to care for other living beings, thereby supporting prosocial development [ 4 ]. Nature-based play may encourage physical activity, support sensory integration, and facilitate problem-solving by providing opportunities for unstructured exploration and learning in natural settings [ 18 ]. Longitudinal evidence suggests that early childhood nature connectedness predicts later pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (e.g., waste reduction, energy conservation, and participation in environmental activities) [ 19 ]. Despite these potential benefits, contemporary societal changes may undermine young children’s nature connectedness. Urbanization has reduced everyday access to natural settings, and many children now grow up in densely built environments with limited green space [ 5 ]. In addition, increased digital media use may displace outdoor time. A global survey reported that children aged 3–6 years spend an average of 2–4 h per day on screens, whereas outdoor time has declined by approximately 50% over the past three decades [ 20 ]. These trends have been described as “nature deficit disorder.” They may compromise children’s immediate well-being and, in the long term, weaken societal support for environmental sustainability. Accordingly, identifying modifiable factors that support children’s nature connectedness—particularly in contexts with limited access to nature—remains a research priority. Research on antecedents of young children’s nature connectedness has primarily focused on external contexts and child characteristics. External contexts include access to green space [ 21 ], cultural influences [ 22 ], and environmental education programs [ 23 ]. Child characteristics include age [ 24 ], gender [ 25 ], perceptual sensitivity [ 26 ], cognitive style [ 27 ], and emotional experiences [ 28 ]. Among these contexts, the family environment appears to play an important role in shaping young children’s nature connectedness [ 29 ]. Prior studies suggest that children’s nature connectedness is associated with parents’ own nature connectedness [ 25 ], parental education and socioeconomic status [ 30 ], and family values related to nature [ 24 ]. However, little research has examined how parental positive psychological resources relate to children’s nature connectedness. The mechanisms underlying these associations—such as mediation via family functioning—also remain unclear. Therefore, we focus on parental positive thinking and psychological flexibility and examine their associations with children’s nature connectedness, including the mediating role of family functioning. Parental positive thinking and children’s nature connectedness Positive thinking is a central construct in positive psychology and refers to an individual’s tendency to adopt an optimistic, hopeful, and constructive life orientation. It involves attending to positive events, making favorable attributions, and expecting future success [ 31 ]. In parenting contexts, positive thinking may be reflected in reframing challenges as opportunities, expressing confidence in children’s abilities, and fostering a positive emotional climate at home [ 32 ]. Positive thinking is associated with parental well-being and may influence children’s development through multiple pathways. The link between parental positive thinking and young children’s nature connectedness can be interpreted through social learning theory and emotion socialization theory. Social learning theory posits that children acquire behaviors and attitudes in part by observing and imitating their parents [ 33 ]. Parents with higher positive thinking may be more likely to view nature as a source of joy, curiosity, and growth and to engage in nature-related activities with their children [ 32 ]. Through these interactions, children may internalize their parents’ positive attitudes toward nature and develop their own nature connectedness. For example, parents who express excitement about discovering flowers or listening to birdsong may foster similar enthusiasm in their children, thereby strengthening children’s emotional bond with nature. Emotion socialization theory suggests that parents’ emotional expressions and coping strategies shape children’s emotional development and may also influence children’s perceptions of the environment [ 34 ]. Parents with more positive mindsets may regulate emotions more effectively and create warmer, more supportive home environments [ 35 ]. In such contexts, children may feel secure and be more willing to explore and take age-appropriate risks—processes that support engagement in nature-based activities. Natural settings can present novel and unpredictable experiences (e.g., encountering insects or navigating uneven terrain). Children who receive emotional support from parents may approach these experiences with curiosity rather than fear [ 7 ]. Conversely, parents with more negative mindsets may convey anxiety or discomfort in natural environments, which may lead children to associate nature with threat or boredom. Although direct evidence remains limited, available findings suggest a positive association between parental positive thinking and children’s nature connectedness. For example, Cheng and Monroe [ 4 ] reported that parents with higher optimism were more likely to encourage children’s outdoor activities; this encouragement, in turn, was associated with higher levels of children’s nature connectedness. However, several gaps remain. First, the mechanisms linking parenting-related psychological flexibility to children’s nature connectedness are poorly understood. Second, it remains unclear whether parenting-related psychological flexibility is uniquely associated with children’s nature connectedness after accounting for parental positive thinking. Therefore, we examined whether parenting-related psychological flexibility is associated with children’s nature connectedness after accounting for parental positive thinking, and tested whether family functioning mediates this association. Parental psychological flexibility and children’s nature connectedness Psychological flexibility is a core construct in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and refers to the ability to stay present, accept unwanted thoughts and emotions without avoidance, and persist in pursuing valued goals despite obstacles [ 36 ]. In parenting, psychological flexibility involves noticing and accepting negative thoughts, emotions, and impulses toward the child while continuing to engage in effective parenting behaviors [ 37 ]. Psychological flexibility is an important correlate of effective parenting and favorable child developmental outcomes. The association between parental psychological flexibility and children’s nature connectedness can be interpreted through self-determination theory and family systems theory. Self-determination theory posits that optimal development is supported when basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are satisfied [ 38 ]. Parents with greater psychological flexibility may be more likely to support children’s autonomy during nature exploration by allowing curiosity-driven discovery [ 39 ]. Such parents may avoid rigid rules and excessive direction while providing guidance that respects children’s choices. This autonomy-supportive approach may strengthen children’s sense of competence and foster nature connectedness. For example, parents who allow mud play or stone collecting, rather than prohibiting “messy” activities, may promote autonomy and strengthen children’s connection to nature. Family systems theory conceptualizes the family as an interconnected system in which parental characteristics shape child development through the family’s emotional climate and interaction patterns [ 40 ]. Parents with greater psychological flexibility may manage parenting stress and conflict more effectively, contributing to a more harmonious home environment [ 9 ]. In such settings, children may feel more secure and regulate emotions more effectively, which may facilitate sustained engagement in nature-related activities. Nature exploration often involves challenges, such as frustration when plants wither or fear of insects. Children in emotionally stable families may be better able to cope with these challenges and maintain interest in nature. Conversely, parents with lower psychological flexibility may avoid nature-related activities due to stress or anxiety or respond harshly to children’s mistakes during exploration. These responses may undermine children’s nature connectedness. Direct evidence on parental psychological flexibility and children’s nature connectedness is limited. However, related findings are consistent with this association. For example, parental psychological flexibility is associated with higher parent–child relationship quality [ 41 ] and better child emotion regulation [ 42 ], both of which are linked to stronger nature connectedness. Neenan and Dryden [ 43 ] reported that ACT-based training increased parents’ engagement in family outdoor activities; these increases were associated with improvements in children’s environmental attitudes. Together, these findings suggest that parental psychological flexibility may support children’s nature connectedness by improving parent–child interactions and facilitating the satisfaction of children’s basic psychological needs. However, several gaps remain. First, the mechanisms linking parenting-related psychological flexibility to children’s nature connectedness are poorly understood. Second, it remains unclear whether parenting-related psychological flexibility is uniquely associated with children’s nature connectedness after accounting for parental positive thinking. Therefore, we examined whether parenting-related psychological flexibility is associated with children’s nature connectedness after accounting for parental positive thinking and tested whether family functioning mediates this association. Family functioning as a mediating factor Family functioning refers to a family system’s capacity to meet members’ physiological, emotional, and psychological needs through effective communication, problem-solving, and emotional support [ 44 ]. Family functioning may mediate the association between parental characteristics and children’s developmental outcomes. Family systems theory conceptualizes the family as a dynamic system in which members mutually influence one another through recurring interaction patterns [ 40 ]. Positive parental characteristics (e.g., positive thinking and psychological flexibility) may influence children’s developmental outcomes by promoting healthier family functioning. Family functioning may mediate associations between parental characteristics and children’s nature connectedness through two pathways: the family environment pathway and the parent–child interaction pathway. The family-environment pathway posits that parental positive thinking and psychological flexibility contribute to a positive family climate characterized by open communication, mutual support, and shared values. Parents with higher positive thinking may communicate more optimistically with family members, thereby strengthening cohesion and a sense of belonging [ 32 ]. Parents with greater parenting-related psychological flexibility may resolve conflicts more effectively, adapt to change, and maintain family stability [ 9 ]. In such family climates, nature-related activities may be more highly valued and more often incorporated into daily routines. For example, cohesive families may plan outdoor excursions or gardening activities that provide children with opportunities to engage with nature and strengthen nature connectedness. Supportive family climates may also encourage children to share nature-related experiences and emotions, thereby deepening their emotional bond with the natural world [ 24 ]. The parent–child interaction pathway posits that positive parental characteristics improve the quality of parent–child interactions, which may in turn foster children’s nature connectedness. Parents with higher positive thinking and psychological flexibility may be more likely to engage in responsive and supportive interactions with their children [ 35 ]. During nature-related activities, such parents may listen to children’s questions, scaffold learning, and express enthusiasm for children’s discoveries. These interactions may support children’s competence and relatedness and make nature exploration more rewarding and meaningful [ 38 ]. For example, when a child asks about caterpillars, parents who respond with curiosity and provide information may strengthen the child’s interest in nature and deepen the parent–child bond. This strengthened bond may indirectly support nature connectedness. Prior studies suggest that family functioning can mediate associations between parental characteristics and child developmental outcomes. For example, Shek [ 9 ] reported that family cohesion mediated the association between parental mental health and children’s academic achievement. Yu et al. [ 45 ] found that family emotional expression mediated the association between paternal optimism and child optimism. Musitu-Ferrer et al. [ 46 ] reported that family socialization mediated associations between parenting styles and adolescents’ empathy toward and attachment to nature. Collectively, these studies suggest that family functioning may link positive parental characteristics to children’s nature connectedness. Current study Prior work on parental positive thinking, psychological flexibility, family functioning, and children’s nature connectedness provides a foundation for the present study. However, most studies have examined these variables in isolation and have not modeled parental positive thinking and psychological flexibility simultaneously to evaluate their unique and joint associations with children’s nature connectedness. In addition, the mechanisms linking parental characteristics to children’s nature connectedness remain understudied, particularly the mediating role of family functioning. Research in preschool populations is also fragmented. A coherent framework is needed to clarify how parental cognitive and psychological characteristics relate to children’s nature connectedness through family functioning. Accordingly, we examined associations among parental positive thinking, parental psychological flexibility, and children’s nature connectedness and tested a mediation model in which family functioning served as the mediator (Fig. 1 ). Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Hypothesis model We hypothesized that parental positive thinking would be positively associated with children’s nature connectedness (H1). We hypothesized that parenting-related psychological flexibility would be positively associated with children’s nature connectedness (H2). We hypothesized that family functioning would mediate the association between parental positive thinking and children’s nature connectedness (H3). We hypothesized that family functioning would mediate the association between parenting-related psychological flexibility and children’s nature connectedness (H4). Methods Participants The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the first author’s university. We distributed an online questionnaire to parents of children aged 3–6 years in Hubei, Guizhou, Guangdong, and Chongqing, China. All participants provided informed consent after receiving information about the study’s purpose and procedures. In total, 741 questionnaires were returned. We screened responses based on completion time and data completeness, yielding 673 valid questionnaires (valid response rate = 90.82%). Demographic characteristics of parents and children in the final sample ( N = 673) are summarized below. Among respondents, 121 were fathers (17.98%) and 552 were mothers (82.02%). Parental age was distributed as follows: <25 years ( n = 27, 4.01%), 25–29 years ( n = 91, 13.52%), 30–34 years ( n = 243, 36.11%), 35–39 years ( n = 227, 33.73%), 40–44 years ( n = 66, 9.81%), and ≥ 45 years ( n = 19, 2.82%). Parental education levels were as follows: junior high school or below ( n = 102, 15.16%), high school/technical secondary school ( n = 118, 17.53%), college ( n = 164, 24.37%), bachelor’s degree ( n = 262, 38.93%), and graduate degree ( n = 27, 4.01%). Family residence was distributed as follows: rural areas ( n = 210, 31.20%), county towns ( n = 152, 22.59%), and cities ( n = 311, 46.21%). Child sex was distributed as follows: boys ( n = 361, 53.64%) and girls ( n = 312, 46.36%). Child age was distributed as follows: 3 years ( n = 137, 20.36%), 4 years ( n = 194, 28.83%), 5 years ( n = 193, 28.68%), and 6 years ( n = 149, 22.14%). Only-child status was distributed as follows: only children ( n = 264, 39.23%) and non-only children ( n = 409, 60.77%). Among non-only children, birth order was distributed as follows: firstborn ( n = 132, 32.27%), second-born ( n = 255, 62.35%), and third-born or later ( n = 22, 5.38%). Measures Positive thinking scale Parental positive thinking was assessed using the Positive Thinking Scale developed by Caprara et al. [ 47 ] and translated into Chinese by Lu et al. [ 48 ]. The scale assesses positive self-perceptions, life outlook, future expectations, and trust in others. The scale includes 8 items and comprises three dimensions (self-esteem, life satisfaction, and optimism), rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater positive thinking. In the present sample, Cronbach’s α was 0.838 (self-esteem), 0.873 (life satisfaction), and 0.846 (optimism). Cronbach’s α for the total scale was 0.809. Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scale II Family functioning was assessed using the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale II (FACES II) [ 49 ]. The Chinese version was adapted by Fei et al. [ 50 ]. The scale includes 30 items and comprises two dimensions: family cohesion (16 items) and family adaptability (14 items). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always); higher scores indicate better family functioning. Cronbach’s α was 0.83 (cohesion), 0.85 (adaptability), and 0.94 (total scale). Children’s nature connectedness scale Children’s nature connectedness was assessed using the Early Childhood Nature Connectedness Scale [ 51 ], translated into Chinese by Gao et al. [ 52 ]. The scale includes 16 items and comprises four dimensions: nature enjoyment, nature empathy, nature responsibility, and nature awareness. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater nature connectedness. Cronbach’s α was 0.867 (nature enjoyment), 0.886 (nature empathy), 0.803 (nature responsibility), and 0.819 (nature awareness). Cronbach’s α for the total scale was 0.933. Parental psychological flexibility questionnaire Parental psychological flexibility was assessed using the Parental Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PPFQ) [ 37 ], adapted into Chinese by Li et al. [ 53 ]. The PPFQ includes 16 items and comprises three dimensions: cognitive defusion, committed action, and acceptance. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater psychological flexibility. Cronbach’s α was 0.931 (cognitive defusion), 0.857 (committed action), and 0.915 (acceptance). Cronbach’s α for the total scale was 0.885. Data analysis Data were analyzed using SPSS 27.0 and AMOS 28.0. Scale reliability was evaluated in SPSS. Common method bias was assessed using Harman’s single-factor test in AMOS. We examined demographic differences in children’s nature connectedness and computed bivariate correlations among study variables. We tested mediation using Hayes’ PROCESS macro with bootstrap confidence intervals to estimate indirect effects. Results Common method bias test All data were parent-reported. Common method bias was assessed using Harman’s single-factor test in AMOS 28.0. The single-factor model showed poor fit (χ²/df = 9.427, CFI = 0.425, IFI = 0.426, TLI = 0.408, NFI = 0.399, RMSEA = 0.112, RMR = 0.304). All fit indices were below commonly accepted thresholds. Together, these results suggest that common method bias is unlikely to be a major concern. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis According to the descriptive statistics in Table 1 , the scores of parental positive thinking, family functioning, children’s nature connectedness, and parental psychological flexibility were all above their theoretical midpoints. The correlation analysis showed that parental positive thinking and parental psychological flexibility were both significantly positively correlated with children’s nature connectedness; family functioning was significantly positively correlated with parental positive thinking, parental psychological flexibility, and children’s nature connectedness. The significant correlations among variables were consistent with the theoretical hypotheses, providing the necessary premise for subsequent tests of the mediating role of family functioning. Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables M STD Parental positive thinking Family functioning Children’s nature connectedness Parental psychological flexibility Respond-ents Parental age Parental educational level Family residences Child sex Child age Only child status Birth order Parental positive thinking 3.846 0.497 1 Family functioning 3.658 0.587 0.612** 1 Children’s nature connectedness 4.180 0.585 0.380** 0.455** 1 Parental psychological flexibility 4.367 1.017 0.020 0.079* 0.110** 1 Respondents 1.82 0.384 -0.048 -0.055 0.079* -0.019 1 Parental age 3.40 1.058 0.024 0.061 0.097* -0.014 -0.140** 1 Parental educational level 2.99 1.155 0.207** 0.255** 0.128** -0.092* -0.030 0.071 1 Family residences 2.15 0.868 0.138** 0.169** 0.131** -0.090* 0.027 0.130** 0.441** 1 Child sex 1.46 0.499 0.044 0.015 0.073 -0.027 0.040 0.012 -0.042 0.014 1 Child age 4.53 1.049 0.039 0.035 0.112** 0.114** 0.032 0.187** -0.064 0.078* -0.006 1 Only child status 1.61 0.489 0.023 -0.024 -0.008* 0.030 0.020 0.142** -0.246** -0.215** 0.076* 0.026 1 Birth order 1.05 0.949 0.049 -0.016 0.035 0.039 0.046 0.250** -0.267** -0.208** 0.081* 0.016 1 Open in a new tab * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 Mediation effect test To examine whether family functioning mediated the association between parental positive thinking and children’s nature connectedness, we conducted regression-based mediation analyses and evaluated indirect effects using bootstrap confidence intervals. As shown in Table 2 , parental positive thinking significantly and positively predicted children’s nature connectedness. After including family functioning, family functioning had a significant positive predictive effect on children’s nature connectedness, and the direct predictive effect of parental positive thinking on children’s nature connectedness remained significant; the model’s explanatory power increased from 14.4% to 22.3%. Table 2. Three-step regression results for family functioning as a mediator Children’s nature connectedness Family functioning Children’s nature connectedness B SE t p B SE t p B SE t p Constant 2.451 0.164 14.952 < 0.001 0.865 0.141 6.155 < 0.001 2.144 0.161 13.350 < 0.001 Parental positive thinking 0.448 0.042 10.639 < 0.001 0.723 0.036 20.044 < 0.001 0.191 0.051 3.776 < 0.001 Family functioning 0.354 0.043 8.250 < 0.001 R 2 0.144 0.375 0.223 Adjusted R 2 0.143 0.374 0.221 F F (1,671) = 113.180, p < 0.001 F (1,671) = 401.762, p < 0.001 F (2,670) = 96.277, p < 0.001 Open in a new tab We then used PROCESS Model 4 in SPSS to estimate the indirect effect of parental positive thinking on children’s nature connectedness via family functioning. As shown in Table 3 , parental positive thinking was positively correlated with children’s nature connectedness, supporting H1. The indirect effect via family functioning was significant, accounting for 57.14% of the total effect. Overall, the results indicated partial mediation, supporting H3. Table 3. Results of the mediation model Model effect Effect size SE 95%CI Effect proportion Total effect 0.448 0.042 [0.365, 0.530] 100% Direct effect 0.191 0.051 [0.092, 0.291] 42.86% Parental positive thinking → Family functioning → Children’s nature connectedness 0.256 0.034 [0.189, 0.322] 57.14% Open in a new tab To examine whether family functioning mediated the association between parental psychological flexibility and children’s nature connectedness, we repeated the mediation analyses and evaluated indirect effects using bootstrap confidence intervals. As shown in Table 4 , parental psychological flexibility significantly and positively predicted children’s nature connectedness. After including family functioning, family functioning had a significant positive predictive effect on children’s nature connectedness, and the direct effect of parental psychological flexibility on children’s nature connectedness remained significant; the model’s explanatory power increased from 1.2% to 21.2%. Table 4. Three-step regression results for family functioning as a mediator Children’s nature connectedness Family functioning Children’s nature connectedness B SE t p B SE t p B SE t p Constant 3.904 0.099 39.438 <0.001 3.458 0.100 34.740 < 0.001 2.356 0.148 15.921 < 0.001 Parental psychological flexibility 0.063 0.022 2.868 0.004 0.046 0.022 2.065 0.039 0.043 0.020 2.162 0.031 Family functioning 0.448 0.034 13.045 < 0.001 R 2 0.012 0.006 0.212 Adjusted R 2 0.011 0.005 0.210 F F (1,671) = 8.224, p = 0.004 F (1,671) = 4.264, p = 0.039 F (2,670) = 90.239, p < 0.001 Open in a new tab We then used PROCESS Model 4 in SPSS to estimate the indirect effect of parental psychological flexibility on children’s nature connectedness via family functioning. As shown in Table 5 , parental psychological flexibility showed a positive direct association with children’s nature connectedness, supporting H2. The indirect effect via family functioning was not significant (95% CI [− 0.005, 0.047]) because the confidence interval included zero. Therefore, H4 was not supported. Table 5. Results of the mediation model Model effect Effect size SE 95%CI Effect proportion Total effect 0.063 0.022 [0.020, 0.107] 100% Direct effect 0.043 0.020 [0.004, 0.082] 67.61% Parental psychological flexibility → Family functioning → Children’s nature connectedness 0.021 0.014 [-0.005, 0.047] 32.39% Open in a new tab Discussion Guided by social learning theory, emotion socialization theory, and family systems perspectives, we examined associations among parental positive thinking, parenting-related psychological flexibility, and children’s nature connectedness and tested whether family functioning mediated these associations. Parental positive thinking was positively associated with children’s nature connectedness, and the indirect effect via family functioning was significant, indicating partial mediation. Parental psychological flexibility was also positively associated with children’s nature connectedness; however, the indirect effect via family functioning was not significant. Parental positive thinking and children’s nature connectedness Parental positive thinking was positively associated with children’s nature connectedness, consistent with prior evidence [ 54 ]. Social learning theory posits that children acquire attitudes and behaviors in part by observing and imitating their parents [ 33 ]. As a relatively stable cognitive tendency, parental positive thinking may shape children’s affective and behavioral orientations toward nature through verbal messages and behavioral modeling. Cross-cultural research by Rosa et al. [ 55 ] reported intergenerational similarity in parent–child nature connectedness. Our findings suggest that parental positive thinking may be an important correlate of this intergenerational pattern. Specifically, parents with higher positive thinking may perceive nature as safe, enjoyable, and educationally valuable [ 56 ], which may increase opportunities for children to engage with nature. In this sample, parental positive thinking explained 14.4% of the variance in children’s nature connectedness. This proportion exceeded that reported by Barrable et al. [ 25 ] for parental nature connectedness, suggesting that a broad parental cognitive characteristic (positive thinking) may be more strongly associated with children’s nature connectedness than more specific nature-related characteristics. This pattern is consistent with Seligman’s positive psychology framework, which proposes that positive cognitive tendencies may have broad developmental implications [ 31 ]. He et al. [ 57 ] also reported an association between parental mindfulness and the frequency of nature interactions. Corthorn and Milicic [ 58 ] reported that mindfulness was positively associated with the use of positive thinking strategies. Together, these findings suggest that positive thinking may relate to children’s nature connectedness partly via parents’ greater openness to and engagement with nature. Lin and Xie [ 59 ] noted that parents with more positive thinking may be better able to create supportive developmental environments. Feng [ 60 ] suggested that natural environments may be particularly supportive learning contexts in early childhood, when multisensory exploration opportunities are abundant. This reasoning is consistent with the hypothesized pathway: parental positive thinking → greater exposure to nature → higher nature connectedness. Parental psychological flexibility and children’s nature connectedness Parenting-related psychological flexibility was positively associated with children’s nature connectedness and explained 1.2% of the variance. Although the effect was smaller than that for parental positive thinking, this finding motivates further investigation of pathways linking psychological flexibility to children’s nature connectedness. This result adds to the literature on children’s nature connectedness and is broadly consistent with ACT theory and related empirical work. According to Hayes et al. [ 36 ], parents with higher psychological flexibility may better tolerate emotional uncertainty in caregiving and adjust parenting strategies to meet children’s needs. Psychological flexibility may influence children’s nature connectedness through parent–child interactions. Cross-cultural research by Rohner et al. [ 61 ] suggests that parental acceptance and support are associated with secure attachment in children. Cheng and Monroe [ 4 ] reported that securely attached children may be more willing to explore natural environments, potentially reducing fear of unfamiliar natural elements and supporting stronger nature connectedness. Together, these findings provide a theoretical rationale for the observed association between parental psychological flexibility and children’s nature connectedness. This association is broadly consistent with Pan et al. [ 62 ], who reported links between parental psychological flexibility and child problem behaviors, suggesting that psychological flexibility may be relevant across multiple child outcomes. These results also extend prior work by Neenan and Dryden [ 43 ]. Although Neenan and Dryden [ 43 ] reported increased family outdoor activity following training, they did not test whether parental psychological flexibility was independently associated with children’s nature connectedness. In our analyses, the association between parental psychological flexibility and children’s nature connectedness remained significant after accounting for family functioning, suggesting that this association is not fully explained by family-level functioning. Consistent with Wang et al.’s emphasis on parental psychological flexibility and parent–child relationship quality, this association may reflect flexible parents’ greater acceptance of children’s autonomy during nature exploration. For example, when children dig in soil or observe insects, such parents may tolerate “messiness” and “uncertainty” and avoid excessive intervention. This approach may preserve children’s curiosity and exploratory motivation, thereby supporting stronger nature connectedness [ 38 ]. In this study, parental psychological flexibility explained less variance in children’s nature connectedness (1.2%) than parental positive thinking (14.4%). This difference may reflect distinct mechanisms through which these parental characteristics relate to children’s nature connectedness. Specifically, as a cognitive tendency, positive thinking may more directly shape parents’ appraisals of nature and related behavioral choices, thereby increasing children’s exposure to nature [ 31 ]. In contrast, psychological flexibility, as a coping-related characteristic, may relate to children’s exploratory motivation more indirectly via higher-quality parent–child interactions. Its association with child outcomes may depend on context-specific interaction patterns, which may help explain its relatively smaller contribution to explained variance [ 36 ]. This pattern aligns with Masten and Obradović’s distinction between primary and secondary protective factors [ 8 ], suggesting that parental positive thinking may be more proximal to children’s nature connectedness, whereas psychological flexibility may operate as a more distal or context-dependent resource. Together, these characteristics may jointly contribute to children’s nature connectedness. Family functioning as a mediator between parental positive thinking and children’s nature connectedness We observed a significant indirect effect via family functioning, indicating partial mediation between parental positive thinking and children’s nature connectedness. This finding is consistent with Cervinka’s [ 63 ] proposition that family systems may facilitate the intergenerational transmission of environmental attitudes. Epstein et al. [ 44 ] defined family functioning as family members’ capacity to interact in ways that meet one another’s needs. In our sample, parental positive thinking was strongly associated with family functioning and explained 37.5% of the variance. This proportion appears larger than that reported by Gaspar et al. [ 64 ] for parental emotional support, suggesting that parental positive thinking may be an important correlate of family functioning. Bai et al. [ 65 ] suggested that parents with more positive thinking may be more likely to recognize their contributions to the family, thereby supporting more secure and inclusive parent–child relationships. Fang [ 66 ] reported that higher-quality parent–child relationships were associated with greater family intimacy, which may support healthier family functioning. In the second part of the proposed pathway, family functioning was positively associated with children’s nature connectedness, consistent with Chawla’s qualitative findings [ 67 ]. Chawla [ 67 ] reported that greater family closeness was associated with more frequent discussions about nature and engagement in nature activities with children. Musitu-Ferrer et al. [ 46 ] showed quantitatively that such family interactions were associated with stronger emotional identification with nature and greater connection to nature. In our analyses, adding family functioning increased the explained variance in children’s nature connectedness from 14.4% to 22.3%. This pattern suggests that family functioning accounts for additional variance beyond parental positive thinking. The proportion of the total effect explained by the indirect effect (57.14%) was higher than that reported by Zeng et al. [ 68 ] in Chinese families. This difference may reflect the more comprehensive, multidimensional assessment of family functioning. This interpretation aligns with Bowen’s family systems theory, which emphasizes that system-level functioning reflects more than the sum of individual parts [ 40 ]. Family functioning as a mediator between parental psychological flexibility and children’s nature connectedness Parental psychological flexibility was positively associated with children’s nature connectedness, whereas the indirect effect via family functioning was not significant. Although this finding did not support our hypothesis, it may help clarify how parental psychological flexibility relates to children’s nature connectedness. Although the association was smaller than that for parental positive thinking, it remained statistically significant. This pattern is broadly consistent with attachment-related research by Rohner et al. [ 61 ] and findings by Cheng and Monroe [ 4 ]. Rohner et al. [ 61 ] noted that more accepting parenting is associated with secure parent–child relationships. Cheng and Monroe [ 4 ] reported that supportive interaction patterns are associated with less fear of unfamiliar natural elements and stronger connection to nature. One possible explanation is that parental psychological flexibility explained little variance in family functioning (0.6%), which contrasts with findings reported by Blackledge and Hayes [ 69 ]. Blackledge and Hayes [ 69 ] suggested that higher psychological flexibility may be associated with better conflict regulation. However, in our data, this association was small and may have limited implications for overall family functioning. This may be because parenting-related psychological flexibility primarily affects proximal processes (e.g., parent–child interactions and emotion regulation) rather than broader, system-level family functioning. In addition, family functioning is multidimensional and may be shaped by broader contextual and relational factors (e.g., socioeconomic conditions, family structure, social support, and partner relationship quality). Therefore, the unique contribution of any single parental characteristic may be limited. Cultural context may also matter because norms surrounding family values, emotional expression, and parenting expectations differ across societies. Associations observed in Western samples may not fully generalize to this study’s cultural context, which may partly explain the weaker association with overall family functioning. Although family functioning was positively associated with children’s nature connectedness, the path from parental psychological flexibility to family functioning was weak. This may explain the non-significant indirect effect. This interpretation aligns with Neenan and Dryden [ 43 ], who reported increased family outdoor activity following ACT-based training, suggesting that psychological flexibility may relate to outdoor activity through mechanisms other than overall family functioning. This may help explain why the direct association was significant whereas the indirect effect via family functioning was not. Comparative associations of parental positive thinking and parental psychological flexibility Using a parallel mediation framework with two parental predictors, we compared the relative associations of parental positive thinking and psychological flexibility with children’s nature connectedness. Overall, the association between parental positive thinking and children’s nature connectedness was larger than that for parental psychological flexibility, suggesting that positive thinking may be more strongly related to children’s nature connectedness in this sample. This difference may reflect differences in the nature of these characteristics. Positive thinking (a cognitive tendency) may relate more directly to parents’ appraisals of nature and everyday modeling [ 31 ], whereas psychological flexibility (a coping-related characteristic) may operate more through specific parenting processes (e.g., emotion regulation and conflict management) [ 36 ]. Positive thinking may also be expressed more consistently in contexts relevant to nature connectedness (e.g., family leisure choices and participation in nature activities), which may help explain its larger association. Parental positive thinking showed a much stronger association with family functioning than parental psychological flexibility. This pattern suggests that positive thinking may be more strongly related to overall family functioning, whereas psychological flexibility may be more weakly related at the system level. This interpretation is broadly consistent with Shek [ 9 ], who reported stronger associations between parental cognitive characteristics and family cohesion than between coping-related characteristics and cohesion. After accounting for family functioning, parental psychological flexibility remained significantly associated with children’s nature connectedness. This suggests that the association may not be fully explained by family functioning. This interpretation aligns with Ren et al. [ 70 ], who proposed that parental psychological flexibility may relate to child outcomes through children’s emotion regulation via pathways not captured by global family functioning. Conclusion Parental positive thinking was positively associated with children’s nature connectedness, and the indirect effect via family functioning was significant, consistent with partial mediation. Parental psychological flexibility was also positively associated with children’s nature connectedness; however, the indirect effect via family functioning was not significant. Family functioning emerged as a meaningful intermediary linking parental positive thinking with children’s nature connectedness. Adding family functioning increased the explained variance in children’s nature connectedness, suggesting that family-level factors account for variance beyond the parental predictors. Associations involving parental positive thinking were larger than those involving parental psychological flexibility, and positive thinking was more strongly associated with family functioning. Research implications These findings have theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this study extends research on correlates of children’s nature connectedness by identifying positive associations with both parental positive thinking and parenting-related psychological flexibility. This helps address a gap in the literature: parents’ broader psychological characteristics have received relatively limited attention. Second, the significant indirect effect via family functioning provides empirical support for applying family-systems perspectives to nature connectedness in early childhood. Third, the relative magnitudes of the associations suggest that cognitive (positive thinking) and coping-related (psychological flexibility) characteristics may relate to children’s nature connectedness through different pathways. Practically, the findings may inform family-based programs designed to support children’s engagement with nature. For families with lower parental positive thinking, interventions that positive cognitive appraisals (e.g., cognitive restructuring) may encourage parents to recognize nature’s educational and emotional value. For families with poorer family functioning, programs that improve communication skills and cohesion may strengthen the context through which parental positive thinking relates to children’s nature connectedness. For parents with lower psychological flexibility, strategies that support responsive parent–child interactions may be particularly relevant. This may include supporting children’s autonomy during nature exploration (e.g., allowing manageable risk and tolerating uncertainty). Given the relatively strong association for parental positive thinking, kindergartens and communities could offer parent workshops aimed at fostering positive cognitive strategies. Integrating nature education with positive-psychology–informed parenting supports may enhance efforts to promote children’s nature connectedness. Limitations and future directions Several limitations should be acknowledged and suggest directions for future research. First, this study used a cross-sectional design, which limits causal inference relative to longitudinal designs. Future studies should use longitudinal designs with repeated measurements across three or more waves to clarify temporal ordering and potential causal relationships among variables. In addition, this study relied exclusively on parent self-report measures, which may introduce common-source bias. Future research should incorporate multiple data sources (e.g., teacher reports, observational measures, and child assessments) to triangulate associations among parental positive thinking, parenting-related psychological flexibility, and children’s nature connectedness, thereby reducing common-source bias and strengthening the evidence base. Finally, the sample consisted primarily of parents of children aged 3–6 years. Therefore, caution is warranted when generalizing these findings to families with children in other age groups. Future research should broaden the sampling frame to include families across a wider range of developmental stages and backgrounds. Acknowledgements Thanks to the participants who participated in this study. We are very grateful to the editor and reviewers for their work as well as their suggestions for this paper. Authors’ contributions Lina Ma: conceptualization, methodology and data collection writing-original draft preparation. Zhonglian Yan: writing-review and editing. Yuedi Yang: investigation, software and formal analysis. Haojie Yuan: analysis and interpretation of data. Wei Xiao: resources, project administration and funding acquisition. Funding This study was supported by National Education Science Planning Program Ministry of Education Youth Project of China (ERA240432). Data availability Research data will be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. (email: 2025010119@mails.ccnu.edu.cn) Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Academic Committee of the Faculty of Education, Northeast Normal University, which functions under the authorization of the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Informed consent was obtained from all participating parents. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Capaldi CA, Dopko RL, Zelenski JM. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2014;5:92737. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 2. Mayer FS, Frantz CM. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24(4):503–15. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001. 3. Kuo FE, Taylor AF. A potential natural treatment for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Evidence from a national study. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(9):1580–6. 10.2105/ajph.94.9.1580. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Cheng CH, Monroe MC. Connection to nature: children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environ Behav. 2012;44(1):31–49. 10.1177/0013916510385082. [ Google Scholar ] 5. Louv R. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill (NC): Algonquin Books. 2008. 6. Chawla L. Benefits of nature contact for children. J Plann Literature. 2015;30(4):433–52. 10.1177/0885412215595441. [ Google Scholar ] 7. Chawla L. Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural world: A theoretical framework for empirical results. Child Youth Environ. 2007;17(4):144–70. 10.1353/cye.2007.0010. [ Google Scholar ] 8. Masten AS, Obradović J. Competence and resilience in development. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1094(1):13–27. 10.1196/annals.1376.003. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Shek DT. Family functioning and adolescent psychological well-being, school adjustment, and problem behavior: A Hong Kong Chinese study. J Genet Psychol. 2002;163(4):481–99. 10.1080/00221329709596656. [ Google Scholar ] 10. Wilson EO. Biophilia. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. 1984. 11. Schultz PW. Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. Psychology of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2002. pp. 61–78. 10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4. [ Google Scholar ] 12. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ Behav. 2009;41(5):715–40. 10.1177/0013916508318748. [ Google Scholar ] 13. Li Y, Jian L, Fang W. Connectedness to nature: conceptualization, measurements and promotion. Psychol Dev Educ. 2018;1120–7. 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2018.01.15. 14. Kahn PH Jr, Kellert SR, editors. Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. 2002. 15. Wells NM, Evans GW. Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environ Behav. 2003;35(3):311–30. 10.1177/0013916503035003001. [ Google Scholar ] 16. Atchley RA, Strayer DL, Atchley P. Creativity in the wild: Improving creative reasoning through immersion in natural settings. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(12):e51474. 10.1371/journal.pone.0051474. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Mustapa ND, Maliki NZ, Hamzah A. Repositioning children’s developmental needs in space planning: A review of connection to nature. Procedia-Social Behav Sci. 2015;170:330–9. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.04. [ Google Scholar ] 18. Ginsburg KR. The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics. 2007;119(1):182–91. 10.1542/peds.2006-2697. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Soga M, Gaston KJ. Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14(2):94–101. 10.1002/fee.1225. [ Google Scholar ] 20. World Health Organization. Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under 5 years of age. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2019. [ PubMed ] 21. Duron-Ramos MF, Collado S, García-Vázquez FI, Bello-Echeverria M. The role of urban/rural environments on Mexican children’s nature connection and pro-environmental behavior. Front Psychol. 2020;11:514. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00514. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Sedawi W, Assaraf OBZ, Reiss MJ. Indigenous children’s connectedness to nature: the potential influence of culture, gender and exposure to a contaminated environment. Cult Sci Edu. 2020;15(4):955–89. 10.1007/s11422-020-09982-8. [ Google Scholar ] 23. Mullenbach LE, Andrejewski RG, Mowen AJ. Connecting children to nature through residential outdoor environmental education. Environ Educ Res. 2019;25(3):365–74. 10.1080/13504622.2018.1458215. [ Google Scholar ] 24. Passmore HA, Martin L, Richardson M, White M, Hunt A, Pahl S. Parental/guardians’ nature connection better predicts children’s nature connectedness than visits or area-level characteristics. Ecopsychology. 2021;13(2):103–13. 10.1089/eco.2020.0033. [ Google Scholar ] 25. Barrable A, Booth D. Nature connection in early childhood: A quantitative cross-sectional study. Sustainability. 2020;12(1):375. 10.3390/su12010375. [ Google Scholar ] 26. Bakir-Demir T, Berument SK, Sahin-Acar B. The relationship between greenery and self-regulation of children: The mediation role of nature connectedness. J Environ Psychol. 2019;65:101327. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101327. [ Google Scholar ] 27. Leong LYC, Fischer R, McClure J. Are nature lovers more innovative? The relationship between connectedness with nature and cognitive styles. J Environ Psychol. 2014;40:57–63. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.03.007. [ Google Scholar ] 28. Pirchio S, Passiatore Y, Panno A, Cipparone M, Carrus G. The effects of contact with nature during outdoor environmental education on students’ wellbeing, connectedness to nature and prosociality. Front Psychol. 2021;12. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648458. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 29. Barrable AC, Booth N. Factors associated with nature connection in children: A review, synthesis, and implications for practice. J Environ Educ. 2021;52(3):197–214. [ Google Scholar ] 30. Ahmetoglu E. The contributions of familial and environmental factors to children’s connection with nature and outdoor activities. Early Child Dev Care. 2019;189(2):233–43. 10.1080/03004430.2017.1314273. [ Google Scholar ] 31. Seligman ME. Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New York (NY): Vintage. 2006. 32. Gable SL, Haidt J. What (and why) is positive psychology? Rev Gen Psychol. 2005;9(2):103–10. 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103. [ Google Scholar ] 33. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall. 1977. 34. Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, Spinrad TL. Parental socialization of emotion. Psychol Inq. 1998;9(4):249–73. 10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Gottman JM, DeClaire J. The heart of parenting: how to raise an emotionally intelligent child. New York (NY): Simon & Schuster. 1997. 36. Hayes SC, Villatte M, Levin M, Hildebrandt M. Open, aware, and active: Contextual approaches as an emerging trend in the behavioral and cognitive therapies. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2011;7(1):141–68. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104449. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Burke K, Moore S. Development of the parental psychological flexibility questionnaire. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2015;46(4):548–57. 10.1007/s10578-014-0495-x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 38. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68. 10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Grolnick WS, Ryan RM. Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. J Educ Psychol. 1989;81(2):143–54. 10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143. 40. Bowen M. Family therapy in clinical practice. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. 1993. 41. Wang Y, Yi Z, Yan L. Maternal psychological flexibility and six years old children’s problem behaviors: The mediating role of parent-child relationship. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2021;29(1):118–22. 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2021.01.023. [ Google Scholar ] 42. Hayes SC, Levin ME, Plumb-Vilardaga J, Villatte JL, Pistorello J. Acceptance and commitment therapy and contextual behavioral science: Examining the progress of a distinctive model of behavioral and cognitive therapy. Behav Ther. 2013;44(2):180–98. 10.1016/j.beth.2009.08.002. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Neenan M, Dryden W. Life coaching: a cognitive-behavioural approach. London: Routledge. 20. 44. Epstein NB, Bishop DS, Ryan CE, Miller IW, Keitner GI. The McMaster Family Assessment Device. J Marital Fam Ther. 1983;9(2):171–80. 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1983.tb01497.x. [ Google Scholar ] 45. Yu JJ, Ko YK. Paternal family expressiveness as a mediator between father’s dispositional optimism and child’s dispositional optimism. J Genet Psychol. 2013;174(6):677–95. 10.1080/00221325.2013.783548. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 46. Musitu-Ferrer D, León-Moreno C, Callejas-Jerónimo JE, Esteban-Ibáñez M, Musitu-Ochoa G. Relationships between parental socialization styles, empathy and connectedness with nature: Their implications in environmentalism. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(14). 10.3390/ijerph16142461. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 47. Caprara GV, Alessandri G, Eisenberg N, Kupfer A, Steca P, Caprara MG, Abela J. The positivity scale. Psychol Assess. 2012;24(3):701. 10.1037/a0026681. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 48. Lu M, Ke S, Fei P, Meng S. Parental positive thinking affects emotional behavior problems in children with ASD: The chain mediating role of emotion coaching and positive contribution. Chin J Special Educ. 2024;7:67–73. 90. [ Google Scholar ] 49. Olson DH, Russell CS, Sprenkle DH. Circumplex model of marital and family systems: Vl. Theoretical update. Fam Process. 1983;22(1):69–83. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1983.00069.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Fei L, Qi S, Yan Z, Li W, Xiang W. Preliminary evaluation of the family cohesion and adaptability scale and the family environment scale - A comparative study of normal families and families with schizophrenia members. Chin Mental Health J. 1991;5(5):198–202. [ Google Scholar ] 51. Sobko T, Jia Z, Brown G. Measuring connectedness to nature in preschool children in an urban setting and its relation to psychological functioning. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11):e0207057. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207057. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 52. Gao J, Xiao W, Juan L. The relationship of mother-child Intimacy and children’s creative personalities: The chain mediating effect of children’s connectedness to nature and pro-sociality. Stud Preschool Educ. 2021;617–30. 10.13861/j.cnki.sece.2021.06.002. 53. Li Z, Lin Y, Li Z, Zhuo Z. A preliminary study of validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the parental psychological flexibility questionnaire. Chin Mental Health J. 2018;32(2):166–73. [ Google Scholar ] 54. D’Amore C, Chawla L. Significant life experiences that connect children with nature: a research review and applications to a family nature club. Res Handb Child Nat. 2020. 10.1007/978-3-319-51949-4_49-1. [ Google Scholar ] 55. Rosa CD, Cabicieri PC, Silvia C. Nature experiences and adults’ self-reported pro-environmental behaviors: the role of connectedness to nature and childhood nature experiences. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1055. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01055. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 56. Guan W, Geng L. Intergenerational influence on children’s pro-environmental behaviors: Exploring the roles of psychological richness and mindful parenting. Pers Indiv Differ. 2024;229:112778. 10.1016/j.paid.2024.112778. [ Google Scholar ] 57. He J, Wang Z, Zhang Y, et al. The influence of mindful parenting on children’s creative tendencies: The chain mediating effect of parent-child intimacy and connectedness to nature. Behav Sci. 2024;14(3):223. 10.3390/bs14030223. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 58. Corthorn C, Milicic N. Mindfulness and parenting: A correlational study of non-meditating mothers of preschool children. J Child Fam stud. 2016;25(5):1672–83. 10.1007/s10826-015-0319-z. [ Google Scholar ] 59. Lin Q, Yu X. Research on the construction of meaning in life during parenting process of deaf children’s parents. Mod Special Educ (Research High Education). 2023;12:52–60. [ Google Scholar ] 60. Feng YF. Green curriculum: an effective exploration for enhancing the quality of rural kindergarten education. J Chin Soc Educ. 2024;(3):76–81. 61. Rohner RP, Khaleque A, Cournoyer DE. Parental acceptance-rejection: Theory, methods, cross‐cultural evidence, and implications. Ethos. 2005;33(3):299–334. 10.1525/eth.2005.33.3.299. [ Google Scholar ] 62. Pan B, Wang Y, Xu P, Gong Y, Zhao C, Miao J, Li Y. The complex longitudinal influence of paternal and maternal parental psychological flexibility on child problem behavior: exploring the role of parenting styles. BMC Psychol. 2024;12(1):793. 10.1186/s40359-024-02291-7. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 63. Cervinka R, Röderer K, Hefler E. Are nature lovers happy? On various indicators of well-being and connectedness with nature. J Health Psychol. 2012;17(3):379–88. 10.1177/1359105311416873. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 64. Gaspar T, Cerqueira A, Guedes FB, de Matos MG. Parental emotional support, family functioning and children’s quality of life. Psychol Stud. 2022;67(2):189–99. 10.1007/s12646-022-00652-z. [ Google Scholar ] 65. Bai Y, Ning J, Xiao L. The quality of life of parents of children with autism and its relationship with sense of coherence and coping srategies. Chin J Special Educ. 2024;5:42–51. [ Google Scholar ] 66. Fang XP. The influence of parental meta-emotion philosophy on preschoolers’self-concept:The mediating role of parent-child intimacy and children’s resilience. J Nanchang Univ. 2022;53(4):125–36. 10.13764/j.cnki.ncds.2022.04.007. [ Google Scholar ] 67. Chawla L. Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: A review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss. People Nat. 2020;2(3):619–42. 10.1002/pan3.10128. [ Google Scholar ] 68. Zeng XY. Parents’ environmental knowledge and perception of young children’s nature connectedness: the serial mediating role of parents’ environmental concern and parent–child engagement. J Psychol Afr. 2024;34(1):13–8. 10.1080/14330237.2024.2311988. [ Google Scholar ] 69. Blackledge JT, Hayes SC. Emotion regulation in acceptance and commitment therapy. J Clin Psychol. 2001;57(2):243–55. 10.1002/1097-4679(200102)57:2<243::aid-jclp9>3.0.co;2-x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 70. Ren X, Ren X, Yan Z, Lu S, Zhou X. Parental psychological flexibility and children’s behavior problems in rural areas in northeast China: The mediation of children’s emotion regulation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):15788. 10.3390/ijerph192315788. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement Research data will be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. (email: 2025010119@mails.ccnu.edu.cn) Articles from BMC Psychology are provided here courtesy of BMC ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.3 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Organizational happiness and its association with organizational commitment: A mixed-methods study among private school teachers in Türkiye.#154475
• Children's Subjective Well-Being aus einer ungleichheitstheoretischen Perspektive - der Capability Approach als Sensibilisierung für die Erforschung ungleicher Kindheiten#161092
• THE ROLE OF PARENTING BEHAVIOURS ON CHILDREN S SELF-CRITICISM#294971
• Selflessness, Self-Centeredness, and Mental Health in Dyads: Indirect Associations Through Affective and Functional Pathways#1121359
• Selflessness, Self-Centeredness, and Mental Health in Dyads: Indirect Associations Through Affective and Functional Pathways#1121269