The psychological benefits of open-water (wild) swimming: Exploring a self-determination approach using a 19-country sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of qualitative and quantitative research has explored the potential benefits to mental health and well-being of open-water or “wild” swimming. To date, most studies have used small samples in specific locations, limiting generalisability, and have not distinguished open-water swimming from other forms of outdoor swimming, such as in open-air pools, raising questions about any additional benefits of wild swimming over and above swimming outside per se . Using survey data from n = 1200 recently recalled outdoor swimming visits across 19 different countries, we compared self-reported well-being outcomes for swims in either open-water (wild) locations or open-air pools. Additionally, we explored the degree to which satisfaction of the motivations identified by self-determination theory (i.e. autonomy, relatedness, and competence) may explain any differences. Swimming visits in both locations were associated with high levels of positive, and low levels of negative, well-being, as well as high levels of autonomy, relatedness and competence. Open-water swimming was, nonetheless, associated with significantly higher positive well-being than open-air pool swims, with mediation analysis indicating that feelings of greater autonomy and competence (but not relatedness) primarily accounted for the difference. Results for anxiety were more nuanced, perhaps because more competent swimmers were more likely to swim in less safe, more anxiety inducing, places. Results re-iterate, help explain, and support the generalisation of previous research reporting potential benefits of open-water swimming for mental health and well-being, and highlight the need to support further safe access to high quality open-water locations. • Outdoor swimming was linked to positive well-being. • Open-water swimming was linked to higher well-being than open-air pool swimming. • This relationship was mediated by autonomy and competence, but not by relatedness. • In open-water, higher levels of competence were associated with greater anxiety. • Promoting open-water swimming can be beneficial for enhancing public health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".