Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Prior research suggested images that feature aquatic elements were perceived to be more restorative. Specifically, images with a larger proportion of aquatic elements compared to greenery elements were more restorative than images that contained just greenery elements. This idea has been referred to as the “dose effect” of water. However, related work was not able to extend these results, leading to questions about the validity of the effect. The current study was conducted to determine whether we could replicate the “dose effect” using the same images as previous researchers and whether we could generalize the “dose effect” to a unique set of images. Our results indicated that we were unable to replicate the “dose effect” using the same images utilized in prior research, and we were also unable to generalize it to a unique set of images.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berman

M.G.

Jonides

Kaplan

(2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207-1212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x

Berto

(2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001

Berto

Baroni

M. R.

Zainaghi

Bettella

(2010). An exploratory study of the effect of high and low fascination environments on attentional fatigue. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 494–500. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.12.002

Gierlach-Spriggs

Kaufman

R. E.

Warner

S. B.

Jr. (1998). Restorative gardens: The healing landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Han

K.-T.

(2007). Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environment and Behaviour, 39, 529-556. doi: 10.1177/0013916506292016.

Hartig

Evans

G.W.

Jamner

L.D.

Davis

D.S.

Gärling

(2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3

Heerwagen

(1990). Psychosocial value of space. Whole Building Design Guide, 20.

Kaplan

(1995). The restorative benefits of nature – towards an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2

Kaplan

(1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Meade

A.W.

Craig

S.B.

(2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437-455. doi: 10.1037/a0028085

11.

Neilson

Klein

Briones

Craig

(2016). The importance of water is in question: Aquatic nature images do not have significantly higher restorativeness ratings than green nature images. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60, 446-449.

12.

Ulrich

R. S.

(1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environments. In Altman

Wohlwill

J. F.

(Eds.), Human behaviour and environment. Behaviour and the Natural Environment, Vol. 6 (pp. 85-125). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

13.

Ulrich

R.S.

(1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape research, 4, 17-23.

14.

Ulrich

Simons

Losito

Fiorito

Miles

Zelson

(1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.

15.

West

Welch

Galecki

(2014). Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

16.

White

Smith

Humphryes

Pahl

Snelling

Depledge

(2010). Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 482-493. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004

Are All Types of Natural Environments Created Equal? A Comparison of Different Elements in Nature for Improving Restoration in Work Environments

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References