| Literature DB >> 35966494 |
Chin-Wen Yeh1, Shih-Han Hung2, Chun-Yen Chang1.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of different natural environments on attention restoration and creativity. To compare the restorative benefits based on the degrees of perceived naturalness in urban areas, this study categorized environments into three types of perceived naturalness and tested the effect on one's creativity. The urban campus was selected as the study site, representing high-, medium-, and low-perceived naturalness photosets downloaded from Google Street Map images as experimental stimuli. The study invited 100 subjects to take the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA), which measures creative thinking by viewing the onscreen photosets of the experimental stimuli. In addition, this study asked participants to complete the Perceived Restoration Scale (PRS) questionnaires. The results showed that high- and medium-perceived naturalness in the urban-campus site was superior to low-perceived naturalness in creative performance. In addition, there were significant differences in elaboration and flexibility for different degrees of perceived naturalness. Various degrees of perceived naturalness showed a substantial correlation between PRS scores and ATTA scores. The attention restoration benefits of high- and medium-naturalness environments improve creativity. Our study indicates that viewing natural environments stimulates curiosity and fosters flexibility and imagination, highly natural environments distract our minds from work, and the benefits of attention restoration can improve the uniqueness and diversity of creative ideas. This study provides a reference for creative environmental design and supports further understanding of nature's health and creativity benefits in urban areas.Entities:
Keywords: attention restoration; creative thinking; inspiration; naturalness; urban green space
Year: 2022 PMID: 35966494 PMCID: PMC9363772 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.895213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 5.435
Definitions of environmental photo content for each degree of perceived naturalness.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| High naturalness (HN) |
| •Proximity to nature—very close to nature.•Proportion of natural elements—mainly natural elements, including flowers, trees and ground cover, with few artificial features such as trails and guardrails. |
|
| •Environment type—campus ecological pool, farmland, or green recreational area. | |
|
| ||
| Medium naturalness(MN) |
| •Proximity to nature—a moderately close-to-nature semi-artificial and semi-natural environment. •Proportion of natural elements—a balance of natural elements and artificial elements, with artificially designed streets and planting configurations. |
|
| •Environment type—campus streets and outdoor recreation spaces. | |
|
| ||
| Low naturalness (LN) |
| •Proximity to nature—very unnatural man-made environment. |
|
| •Proportion of natural elements—a street environment with few natural elements, dominated by man-made facilities such as cars, buildings, and driveways.•Environment type—artificial environments such as campus parking lots and roads. | |
|
|
Figure 1The scoring process among three researchers. High naturalness (HN), Medium naturalness (MN), Low naturalness (MN); # means numbers of data.
Figure 2Experiment process.
One-way ANOVA analysis of PRS for environments with different degrees of perceived naturalness in urban settings.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Being away | 4.12 (0.59) | 3.79 (0.82) | 3.15 (0.97) | 12.341 | 0.000 | HN>LN* |
| Fascination | 3.82 (0.76) | 3.88 (0.96) | 3.45 (0.87) | 2.352 | 0.101 | |
| Coherence | 2.97 (0.97) | 3.52 (0.83) | 3.52 (0.76) | 4.517 | 0.013 | LN>HN* |
| Scope | 3.82 (0.67) | 3.97 (0.77) | 3.12 (0.89) | 11.111 | 0.000 | HN>LN* MN>LN* |
| Compatibility | 3.76 (0.92) | 4.15 (0.87) | 3.39 (0.93) | 5.725 | 0.004 | MN>LN* |
| PRS | 18.50 (2.29) | 19.30 (2.89) | 16.64 (2.98) | 8.293 | 0.000 | HN>LN* MN>LN* |
.
Figure 3The effect of different degrees of perceived naturalness on restorativeness. N = 100, HN (n = 34), MN (n = 33), LN (n = 33), *p< 0.05. This figure shows the five indicators of restorative of their means scores in different degrees of perceived naturalness. The error bars indicate the standard deviation.
One-way ANOVA analysis on the original score of ATTA's Figural Activity 2 in landscape environments with different perceived naturalness.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Fluency | 6.06 (2.18) | 6.24 (1.94) | 5.76 (2.73) | 0.372 | 0.690 | |
| Originality | 1.19 (1.18) | 1.33 (1.27) | 0.67 (0.92) | 3.162 | 0.047 | MN>LN* |
| Elaboration | 3.47 (1.74) | 3.00 (1.58) | 1.88 (1.29) | 9.099 | 0.000 | HN>LN* |
| Flexibility | 3.44 (1.24) | 3.39 (1.25) | 2.48 (1.30) | 5.932 | 0.004 | HN>LN* |
.
Figure 4The effect of different degrees of perceived naturalness on creativity performance in Figural Activity 2. N = 98, HN (n = 32), MN (n = 33), LN (n = 33), *p< 0.05. This figure shows the creativities indicators of their means scores in different degrees of perceived naturalness. The error bars indicate the standard deviation. Nineteen samples scored zero on “originality” in the low naturalness.
One-way ANOVA analysis of the overall ATTA normalized score of creativity for environments with different degrees of perceived naturalness.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Fluency | 15.26 (1.51) | 15.39(1.35) | 14.73 (1.68) | 1.77 | 0.176 | |
| Originality | 15.00 (2.00) | 15.12 (2.30) | 14.00 (1.92) | 2.86 | 0.062 | |
| Elaboration | 16.26 (1.55) | 15.97 (1.70) | 15.03 (1.88) | 4.51 | 0.013 | HN>LN* |
| Flexibility | 15.35 (1.92) | 15.15 (2.09) | 13.79 (1.80) | 6.25 | 0.003 | HN>LN* |
| Total normalized score | 61.87 (4.88) | 61.61 (5.14) | 57.76 (5.06) | 6.83 | 0.002 | HN>LN* |
| Creative index (CI) | 67.94 (7.55) | 67.33 (7.20) | 62.15 (6.19) | 6.73 | 0.002 | HN>LN* |
.