The perception of beauty is known to be associated with the bodily sensations and evolutionary implications. However, whether the esthetic preference for natural landscape environments with different evolutionary benefits changes on the basis of different degrees of bodily sensations is still an open issue. The present study used four experiments to address this issue. The results showed that participants wearing a heavy backpack gave higher esthetic scores to and generate a strong attentional bias toward the green natural landscapes. Furthermore, the implicit association test (IAT) revealed that a green natural landscape was more readily associated with a high level of relaxation when the participants wore a backpack. The results indicated that the bodily sensation of a physical burden modulates the esthetic preference for natural environments when they consist of green plants, which are associated with a high level of relaxation and have significant evolutionary implications.
ArdizziM.FerroniF.SiriF.UmiltàM. A.CottiA.CalbiM.FaddaE.FreedbergD.GalleseV. (2020). Beholders’ sensorimotor engagement enhances aesthetic rating of pictorial facial expressions of pain. Psychological Research, 84(2), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1067-7
2.
BerleantA. (1995). The aesthetics of environment. Temple University Press.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4.
BermanM. G.HoutM. C.KardanO.HunterM. R.YourganovG.HendersonJ. M.HanayikT.KarimiH.JonidesJ. (2014). The perception of naturalness correlates with low-level visual features of environmental scenes. PLoS One, 9(12), e114572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114572
BermanM. G.KrossE.KrpanK. M.AskrenM. K.BursonA.DeldinP. J.KaplanS.SherdellL.GotlibI. H.JonidesJ. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(3), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012
7.
BertoR. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
8.
BeuteF.de KortY. A. W. (2014). Natural resistance: Exposure to nature and self-regulation, mood, and physiology after ego-depletion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.004
9.
BhallaM.ProffittD. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1076–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1076
10.
BratmanG. N.DailyG. C.LevyB. J.GrossJ. J. (2015). The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005
11.
CarlsonA.BerleantA. (2004). The aesthetics of natural environments. Broadview Press.
12.
ChangC. Y.ChenP. K. (2005). Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience, 40(5), 1354–1359. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.40.5.1354
13.
ChatterjeeA. (2013). The aesthetic brain: How we evolved to desire beauty and enjoy art. Oxford University Press.
CrossanC.SalmoniA. (2021). A simulated walk in nature: Testing predictions from the Attention Restoration Theory. Environment and Behavior, 53(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519882775
DadvandP.NieuwenhuijsenM. J.EsnaolaM.FornsJ.BasagañaX.Alvarez-PedrerolM.RivasI.López-VicenteM.De Castro PascualM.SuJ.JerrettM.QuerolX.SunyerJ. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(26), 7937–7942. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503402112
18.
DaviesS. (2012). The artful species: Aesthetics, art, and evolution. Oxford University Press.
19.
DuffyS.VergesM. (2010). Forces of nature affect implicit connections with nature. Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509338552
20.
DuttonD. (2003). Aesthetics and evolutionary psychology. In LevinsonJ. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics (pp. 693–705). Oxford University Press.
21.
DuttonD. (2009). The art instinct: Beauty, pleasure, and human evolution. Bloomsbury Press.
22.
FreedbergD.GalleseV. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.02.003
23.
FuegenK.BreitenbecherK. H. (2018). Walking and being outdoors in nature increase positive affect and energy. Ecopsychology, 10(1), 14–25.
24.
GallagherM.FerrèE. R. (2018). The aesthetics of verticality: A gravitational contribution to aesthetic preference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(12), 2655–2664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817751353
25.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
26.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087889
27.
HarrisonN. R.WoodhouseR. (2016). Modulation of auditory spatial attention by visual emotional cues: Differential effects of attentional engagement and disengagement for pleasant and unpleasant cues. Cognitive Processing, 17(2), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-016-0749-6
28.
HartigT. (2007). Three steps to understanding restorative environments as health resources. In WardThompsonC.TravlouP. (Eds.), Open space: People space (pp. 163–179). Taylor and Francis.
29.
HartigT.EvansG. W.JamnerL. D.DavisD. S.GärlingT. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3
30.
HunterM. R.AskarinejadA. (2015). Designer’s approach for scene selection in tests of preference and restoration along a continuum of natural to manmade environments. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01228
31.
JiangB.LiD.LarsenL.SullivanW. C. (2016). A dose-response curve describing the relationship between urban tree cover density and self-reported stress recovery. Environment and Behavior, 48(4), 607–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514552321
32.
KelzC.EvansG. W.RödererK. (2015). The restorative effects of redesigning the schoolyard: A multi-methodological, quasi-experimental study in rural Austrian middle schools. Environment & Behavior, 47(2), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513510528
33.
KillinA. (2013). The arts and human nature: Evolutionary aesthetics and the evolutionary status of art behaviours. Biology & Philosophy, 28(4), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9371-5
34.
KirschL. P.UrgesiC.CrossE. S. (2015). The shaping and reshaping of the aesthetic brain: Emerging perspectives on the neurobiology of embodied aesthetics. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 62, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.12.005
35.
KirschP. (2015). Oxytocin in the socioemotional brain: Implications for psychiatric disorders. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 17(4), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2015.17.4/pkirsch
36.
LangleyL. K.FriesenC. K.SavilleA. L.CierniaA. T. (2011). Timing of reflexive visuospatial orienting in young, young-old, and old-old adults. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(5), 1546–1561. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0108-8
37.
LaumannK.GärlingT.StormarkK. M. (2003). Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00110-X
38.
LessardD. A.LinkenaugerS. A.ProffittD. R. (2009). Look before you leap: Jumping ability affects distance perception. Perception, 38(12), 1863–1866. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6509
39.
LhuillierS.GyselinckV.DutriauxL.GrisonE.NicolasS. (2018). “Like a ball and chain”: Altering locomotion effort perception distorts spatial representations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.10.008
40.
LiJ.WuW.JinY.ZhaoR.BianW. (2021). Research on environmental comfort and cognitive performance based on EEG+VR+LEC evaluation method in underground space. Building and Environment, 198, 107886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107886
41.
ManerJ. K.GailliotM. T.DeWallC. N. (2007). Adaptive attentional attunement: Evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution & Human Behavior, 28(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.006
42.
McMahanE. A.EstesD. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(6), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.994224
43.
Nicholson-LordD. (2003). Green cities – and why we need them. New Economics Foundation.
44.
NummenmaaL.HietanenJ. K.CalvoM. G.HyönäJ. (2011). Food catches the eye but not for everyone: A BMI-contingent attentional bias in rapid detection of nutriments. PLoS One, 6(5), e19215. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019215
45.
PearceM. T.ZaidelD. W.VartanianO.SkovM.LederH.ChatterjeeA.NadalM. (2016). Neuroaesthetics: The cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615621274
46.
PetersonS. A.GibsonT. N. (2011). Implicit attentional orienting in a target detection task with central cues. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1532–1547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.07.004
SchertzK. E.BermanM. G. (2019). Understanding nature and its cognitive benefits. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419854100
52.
SeghersE. (2015). The artful mind: A critical review of the evolutionary psychological study of art. British Journal of Aesthetics, 55(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayu073
53.
TaylorA. F.KuoF. E.SullivanW. C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0241
54.
TsukiuraT.CabezaR. (2011). Shared brain activity for aesthetic and moral judgments: Implications for the beauty-is-good stereotype. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq025
55.
TyrväinenL.OjalaA.KorpelaK.LankiT.TsunetsuguY.KagawaT. (2014). The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005
56.
UlrichR. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In AltmanI.WohlwillJ. F. (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). Springer.
57.
UlrichR. S.SimonsR.LositoB. D.FioritoE.MilesM. A.ZelsonM. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
58.
Van HedgerS. C.NusbaumH. C.HealdS. L. M.HuangA.KotabeH. P.BermanM. G. (2019). The aesthetic preference for nature sounds depends on sound object recognition. Cognitive Science, 43(5), e12734. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12734
59.
VinsonD. W.JordanJ. S.HundA. M. (2017). Perceptually walking in another’s shoes: Goals and memories constrain spatial perception. Psychological Research, 81(1), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0714-5
60.
VogtJ.De HouwerJ.KosterE. H. W.Van DammeS.CrombezG. (2008). Allocation of spatial attention to emotional stimuli depends upon arousal and not valence. Emotion, 8(6), 880–885. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013981
61.
VromenJ. M. G.LippO. V.RemingtonR. W. (2015). The spider does not always win the fight for attention: Disengagement from threat is modulated by goal set. Cognition and Emotion, 29(7), 1185–1196. http://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.969198
62.
ZhangW.TangX.HeX.LaiS. (2018a). Attentional bias to beauty with evolutionary benefits: Evidence from aesthetic appraisal of landscape architecture. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 71. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00071
63.
ZhangW.TangX.HeX.ChenG. (2018b). Evolutionary effect on the embodied beauty of landscape architectures. Evolutionary Psychology, 16(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917749742
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
