Research has overwhelmingly shown that spending time in nature can be beneficial. Yet the field is dominated by studies focusing on cognitive and emotional outcomes and on only two settings high in human influence—the built environment and manicured nature. Therefore, relatively little is known about transcendent experiences in wilder natural environments and the personal traits that influence them. This study compares visitor experiences in two distinct natural environments (wild cliffs and manicured gardens) and how the trait “connectedness to nature” influences them. In the two environments, visitors (N=253) reported significantly different emotional appraisals (awe-inspiring, calming, disturbing, and boring) and transcendent (diminutive and deep flow) experiences. Linear regression analysis revealed that high levels of the trait “connectedness to nature” positively predicted transcendent and awe-inspiring experiences, particularly in wild nature. Nonlinear regression analysis revealed that low levels of the trait “connectedness to nature” predicted more disturbing and less calming experiences; however, as trait levels increased, these trends reversed. Results challenge future researchers to explore understudied environments, outcomes, and relationships, and urge planners and educators to consider how differing personality profiles can influence nature experiences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsM., GaterslebenB.2010. Variations in perception of danger, fear and preference in a simulated natural environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30:473–481.
2.
BertoR.2005. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25:249–259.
3.
BertoR., BaroniM. R., ZainaghiA., BettellaS.2010. An exploratory study of the effect of high and low fascination environments on attentional fatigue. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30:494–500.
4.
BowlerD. E., Buyung-AliL. M., KnightT. M., PullinA. S.2010. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BioMed Central Public Health, 10. 10.1186/1471-2458-10-456 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/456.
5.
ClaytonS.2003. Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. ClaytonS., OpotowS.Identity and the natural environment, 45–65. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
CsikszentmihalyiM.1992. Flow: The psychology of happiness. London, UK: Rider.
7.
DeYoungC. G.2006. Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91:1138–1151.
8.
DunlapR. E., Van LiereK. D.1978. The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9:10–19.
FieldA. P.2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: SAGE.
11.
FrantzC., MayerS., NortonC., RockM.2005. There is no “I” in nature: The influence of self-awareness on connectedness to nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25:427–436.
12.
FredricksonL., AndersonD.1999. A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19:21–39.
13.
GobsterP.1999. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal, 18:54–64.
HartigT., EvansG.1993. Psychological foundations of nature experience. GarlingT., GolledgeR. G.Behavior and environment: Psychological and geographical approaches, 427–457. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.
16.
HartigT., EvansG., JamnerL., DavisD., GarlingT.2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23:109–123.
17.
HartigT., StaatsH.2006. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26:215–226.
18.
HerzogT. R., BosleyP.1992. Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12:115–127.
19.
HerzogT. R., ChernickK. K.2000. Tranquility and danger in urban and natural settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20:29–39.
20.
HerzogT. R., KropscottL. S.2004. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36:659–677.
21.
HerzogT. R., MaguireC., NebelM.2003. Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23:159–170.
22.
HerzogT. R., MillerE. J.1998. The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30:429–449.
23.
HerzogT. R., RectorA. E.2009. Perceived danger and judged likelihood of restoration. Environment and Behavior, 41:387–401.
24.
HerzogT. R., SmithG.1988. Danger, mystery, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 20:320–344.
25.
HietanenJ. K., KorpelaK. M.2004. Do both negative and positive environmental scenes elicit rapid affective processing?Environment and Behavior, 36:558–577.
26.
HoffM. P., MapleT. L.1982. Sex and age differences in the avoidance of reptile exhibits by zoo visitors. Zoo Biology, 1:263–269.
27.
JangK. L., SteinM. B., TaylorS., LivesleyW. J.1999. Gender differences in the etiology of anxiety sensitivity: A twin study. Journal of Gender Specific Medicine, 2:39–44.
28.
JoyeY., Van den BergA.2011. Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10:261–268.
29.
KaplanR.1984. Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: An analysis of a continuing program. Leisure Sciences, 6:271–290.
30.
KaplanR.2001. The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33:507–542.
31.
KaplanR., KaplanS.1989. The experience of nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
KaplanS.1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15:169–182.
33.
KellertS. R.1997. Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
34.
KellertS. R., WilsonE. O.1993. The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
35.
KooleS., Van den BergA. E.2005. Lost in the wilderness: Terror management, action orientation, and nature evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88:1014–1028.
36.
KorpellaK. M., HartigT., KaiserF. G., FuhrerU.2001. Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33:572–589.
37.
LouvR.2005. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
38.
MarkowitzE. M., GoldbergL. R., AshtonM. C., LeeK.2012. Profiling the ‘pro-environmental individual’: A personality perspective. Journal of Personality, 80:81–111.
39.
MartensD., GutscherH., BauerN.2011. Walking in “wild” and “tended” urban forests: The impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31:36–44.
40.
MayerS., FrantzC.2004. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24:503–515.
41.
MayerS., FrantzC., Bruehlman-SenecallE., DolliverK.2009. Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41:607–643.
42.
MilfontT., SibleyC. G.2012. The Big Five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32:187–195.
43.
MitchellR. G.1983. Mountain experience: The psychology and sociology of adventure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., MurphyS. A.2009. The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41:715–740.
45.
RobertsB. W., DelVecchioW. F.2000. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 1:3–25.
46.
RossL., NisbettR. E.1991. The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York,NY: McGraw-Hill.
47.
RussellJ. A., LaniusU. F.1984. Adaptation level and the affective appraisal of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4:119–135.
48.
SchultzP. W.2001. Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for the self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21:327–339.
49.
SchultzW., TabanicoJ.2007. Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37:1219–1247.
50.
ShiotaM. N., KeltnerD., MossmanA.2007. The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals and effects on self-concept. Emotion and Cognition, 21:944–963.
51.
StaatsH., GaterslebenB., HartigT.2001. Change in mood as a function of environmental design: Arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17:283–300.
52.
StaatsH., HartigT.2004. Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24:199–211.
53.
TalbotJ. F., KaplanS.1986. Perspectives on wilderness: Re-examining the value of extended wilderness experiences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6:77–188.
54.
TamK. P.2013. Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34:64–78.
55.
UlrichR.S.1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. AltmanI., WohlwillJ. F.Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research, 6:85–125. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
56.
UlrichR. S.1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224:410–421.
57.
UlrichR. S., SimonsR. F., LositoB., ForitoE., MilesM., ZelsonM.1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11:201–230.
58.
Van den BergA., KooleS.2006. New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78:362–372.
59.
Van den BergA. E., KooleS. L., Van der WulpN. Y.2003. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23:135–146.
60.
Van den BergA. E., Ter HeijneM.2005. Fear versus fascination: An exploration of emotional responses to natural threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25:261–272.
61.
Van den BergA. E., Van Winsum-WestraM.2010. Manicured, romantic or wild? The relation between need for structure and preferences for garden styles. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9:179–186.
WilliamsK., HarveyD.2001. Transcendent experience in forest environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21:249–260.
64.
WilsonE.O.1984. Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
65.
WinkelG., SaegertS., EvansG. W.2009. An ecological perspective on theory, methods, and analysis in environmental psychology: Advances and challenges. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29:318–328.
66.
ZuckermanM.1994. Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York, NY: Cambridge Press.
67.
ZuckermanM., UlrichR. S., McLaughlinJ.1993. Sensation seeking and reactions to nature paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 15:563–576.
