Many contemporary work and home environments produce attentional fatigue. One way to recover from attentional fatigue is to place oneself in environments that promote feelings of tranquility. One approach to the systematic study of environment-tranquility relations is to frame the research within attention restoration theory (ART). Tranquility (e.g., feeling peaceful and relaxed) facilitates restoration and may be evoked by higher degrees of coherence. Coherence, in this context, refers to environmental arrangements that are structured in such a way that a setting is easy to comprehend. Visual and auditory coherence can be nested within two emotional genres: one is “pastoral,” and the other is “sublime.” Repeated-measures ANOVA yielded significant differences among different combinations of visual and auditory coherence. Although the more pastoral combinations increased perceived tranquility levels, this study verified that individuals may want to seek out less stimulating environments to optimize restorative benefits. Key Words: Restoration—Tranquility—Coherence—Visual stimuli—Auditory stimuli.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenA. S. (2012). Ecomusicology: Music, culture, nature … and change in environmental studies?. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2, 192–201.
2.
BakerF., UhligS., AustinD. S., LoewyJ. V., & de BruijnM. (2011). Voicework in music therapy: Research and practice. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
3.
BorglinG., JakobssonU., EdbergA. K., & HallbergI. R. (2006). Older people in Sweden with various degrees of present quality of life: Their health, social support, everyday activities and sense of coherence. Health and Social Care in the Community, 14, 136–146.
4.
BurkeE. (1990). A philosophical inquiry. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
CarlesJ. L., BarrioI. L., & de LucioJ. V. (1999). Sound influence on landscape values. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 191–200.
6.
ChalanL. (1998). Effectiveness of a music therapy intervention on relaxation and anxiety for patients receiving ventilatory assistance. The Journal of Acute and Critical Care, 27, 169–176.
7.
CimprichB., & RonisD. L. (2003). An environmental intervention to restore attention in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 26, 284–292.
8.
CraigC., KleinM. I., MenonC. V., & RinaldoS. B. (2015). Digital nature benefits typical individuals but not individuals with depressive symptoms. Ecopsychology, 7, 53–58.
9.
De YoungR. (2010). Restoring mental vitality in an endangered world: Reflections on the benefits of walking. Ecopsychology, 2, 13–22.
10.
EliovsonS. (1971). Gardening the Japanese way. London: George G. Harrap.
11.
FieldT., MartinezA., NawrockiT., PickensJ., FoxN. A., & SchanbergS. (1998). Music shifts frontal EEG in depressed adolescents. Adolescence, 33, 109–116.
12.
HelsingerE. K. (1997). Rural scenes and national representation: Britain, 1815–1850. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
HerzogT. R., & BosleyP. J. (1992). Tranquility and preference as adjective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 115–127.
14.
HerzogT. R., HayesL. J., ApplinR. C., & WeatherlyA. M. (2011). Incompatibility and mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 43, 827–847.
15.
HerzogT. R., MaguireC. P., & NebelM. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative compoments of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159–170.
JohnsonC. L. (1986). “Giant HANDEL” and the musical sublime. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 19, 515–533.
18.
JuslinP. N., & SlobodaJ. A. (2011). Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
KaplanR. (1984). Impact of urban nature: A theoretical analysis. Urban Ecology, 8, 189–197.
20.
KaplanR., & KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
21.
KaplanR., KaplanS., & RyanR. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
22.
KaplanS. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3–32.
23.
KaplanS. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
24.
KaplanS., & KaplanR. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger Publishers.
25.
KuoF. E., & SullivanW. D. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 543–571.
26.
LabbéE., SchmidtN., BabinJ., & PharrM. (2007). Coping with stress: The effectiveness of different types of music. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 32, 163–168.
27.
Longinus. (1985). On the sublime (ArietiJ. A. & CrossettJ. M., Trans.). New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
28.
LoxC. L., JacksonS., TuholskiS. W., WasleyD. A., & TreasureD. C. (2000). Revisiting the measurement of exercise-induced feeling states: The physical activity affect scale (PAAS). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 4, 79–95.
29.
LundqvistL. O., CarlssonF., & HilmerssonP. (2009). Emotional responses to music: Experience, expression, and physiology. Psychology of Music, 37, 61–90.
30.
McKinneyC. H., TimsF. C., KumarA. M., & KumarM. (1997). The effect of selected classical music and spontaneous imagery on plasma β-endorphin. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 85–99.
31.
NishimuraA., & HiramatsuK. (2003). Soundmonograph as a description of soundscape. Paper presented at the 32nd International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Jeju International Convention Center, Seogwipo, Korea.
32.
OpieJ., & ElliotJ. (1996). Tracking the elusive jeremiad: The rhetorical character of American environmental discourse. In CantrillJ. G. & OravecC. L. (Eds.), The symbolic earth: Discourse and our creation of the environment (pp. 9–37). Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
33.
RussellJ. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.
34.
SatoI., & ConnerT. S. (2013). The quality of time in nature: How fascination explains and enhances the relationship between nature experiences and daily affect. Ecopsychology, 5, 197–204.
35.
SudaM., MorimotoK., ObataA., KoizumiH., & MakiA. (2008). Emotional responses to music: Towards scientific perspectives on music therapy. Neuroreport, 19, 75–78.
36.
ThurlowC., & JaworskiA. (2010). Silence is golden: The ‘anti-communicational’ linguascaping of super-elite mobility. In JaworskiA. & ThurlowC. (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 187–218). London: Continuum.
37.
van den BergA. E., HartigT., & StaatH. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 79–96.
38.
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.
