Latest Blog Posts
Lymeus, Lindberg, and Hartig assessed mindfulness training in different environments. They found that “The setting matters in meditation. . . . Many mindfulness-based health interventions emphasize effortful attention training exercises in sparsely furnished indoor settings. However, many beginners with attention regulation problems struggle with the exercises and drop out. In contrast, restoration skills training (ReST) – a five-week course set in a garden environment – builds on mindfulness practices adapted to draw on restorative processes stimulated effortlessly in nature contacts. Expecting that the ReST approach will facilitate the introduction to mindfulness, we compared drop-out and homework completion records from four rounds of ReST vs. conventional mindfulness training. . . . Randomly assigned ReST participants had lower drop-out and more sustained homework completion over the course weeks. . . . The improved acceptability with ReST means that more people can enjoy the long-term benefits of establishing a meditation practice.” The gardens chosen as study settings were cogntively restrative.
Freddie Lymeus, Per Lindberg, and Terry Hartig. 2019. “A Natural Meditation Setting Improves Compliance with Mindfulness Training.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 64, pp. 98-106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05.008
Schertz and Berman reviewed published studies exploring the cognitive repercussions of being exposed to nature. They determined that “exposure to a variety of natural stimuli (vs. urban stimuli) consistently improves working memory performance. . . . Overall, there is compelling evidence to support the advice of Thoreau and Murray to spend time in nature. Exposure to natural environments has been shown to improve performance on working memory, cognitive-flexibility, and attentional-control tasks. These results come from studies conducted using a variety of simulated environments (e.g., images, sounds, virtual reality) as well as real-world environmental exposure.. . . One potential mechanism that has emerged for these effects involves the perception of the low-level features of the environment. . . . low-level features include color properties—such as hue, saturation, and brightness (value)—as well as spatial properties—such as the density of straight and nonstraight edges and entropy. . . . Natural environments in general have more nonstraight edges, less color saturation, and less variability of hues.”
Kathryn Schertz and Marc Berman. “Understanding Nature and Its Cognitive Benefits.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, in press, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419854100
Why do we value handmade objects, even when “perfect” machine made options are available? Waytz in The Power of Human: How Our Shared Humanity Can Help Us Create a Better World answers that question. Waytz reports, for example, that “people consciously or subconsciously judge the value of something based on the perceived effort put into it. The first studies examining this effect, led by psychologist Justin Kruger . . . demonstrated that people valued poems, paintings, and medieval armor more highly when they believed these artifacts required more human effort to produce. . . . Van Osselaer’s studies provide critical insight as to why people prefer handmade to machine-made products: love. Participants reported believing that handmade products contained more love and were made with more love than machine-made products. . . . Job and colleagues showed in their research that the mere trace of a human creator enhanced people’s assessments of an object’s value. . . . Job’s participants believed that the human touch imbued objects with social qualities such as warmth, friendliness, and sincerity.”
Adam Waytz. 2019. The Power of Human: How Our Shared Humanity Can Help Us Create a Better World. W.W. Norton; New York.
Liu, Yin, and Liang, in research relevant to art selection and other design decisions, have learned that we prefer to see things clearly. They investigated “a potential association between clarity (i.e., operationalized as visual resolution) and affect [emotion] in human cognition. . . . providing support for the ideas of embodied cognition as well as implications for our preference for clarity and aversion to blur. . . . the present findings provide important implications for the evaluative judgments in daily life. The reason why we prefer HD screens and dislike the blurry view on smoggy days is normally regarded as our preference for more visual details. Here in our research, the findings suggest that these phenomena may partly be the consequences of an automatic tendency to view blurrier objects as worse.”
Yiguang Liu, Jun Yin, and Junying Liang. 2019. “Why Smoggy Days Suppress Our Mood: Automatic Association Between Clarity and Valence.” Frontiers in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01580
Zuniga-Teran lead a team which determined that parks are used more when the routes potential users would take to them are more walkable. The investigators found that “Walkable neighborhoods may predict a higher frequency of greenspace use. Walking as a mode to reach greenspace may predict higher frequency of greenspace visitation. Driving as a mode to reach greenspace may predict lower frequency of use of greenspace. Proximity to greenspace may not predict the frequency of greenspace visitation for residents. . . . Walkability elements that were found to influence the probability of greenspace visitation include perceptions of traffic safety (pedestrian and biking infrastructure), surveillance (the extent to which people inside buildings can see pedestrians on the street), and community (spaces that allow social interaction). This study provides empirical evidence to support policies that will improve walkability in neighborhoods so that public health goals of increasing physical activity and wellbeing are achieved.” People who walk or bike to greenspaces are 3.5 times more likely to travel to them daily than individuals who get to them in other ways.
Adriana Zuniga-Teran, Philip Stoker, Randy Gimblett, Barron Orr, Stuart Marsh, David Guertin, and Nader Chalfoun. “Exploring the Influence of Neighborhood Walkability on the Frequency of Use of Greenspace.” Landscape and Urban Planning, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103609
Astell-Burt and Feng linked the mental and physical health of city-dwelling people over 45 years old to the extensiveness of the tree canopies and the amount of grass near their homes. They determined that “exposure to 30% or more tree canopy compared with 0% to 9% tree canopy was associated with 31% lower odds of incident psychological distress, whereas exposure to 30% or more grass was associated with 71% higher odds of prevalent psychological distress after adjusting for age, sex, income, economic status, couple status, and educational level. Similar results were found for self-rated fair to poor general health but not physician-diagnosed depression or anxiety. . . . Protection and restoration of urban tree canopy specifically, rather than any urban greening, may be a good option for promotion of community mental health.” More details on the study: “Percentage of total green space, tree canopy, grass . . . [was] measured within 1.6-km (1-mile) road network distance buffers around residential addresses at baseline.”
Thomas Astell-Burt and Xiaogi Feng. 2019. “Association of Urban Green Space with Mental Health and General Health Among Adults in Australia.” JAMA Network, vol. 2, no. 7, e198209, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8209
Mastandrea, Wagoner, and Hogg looked at links between where people live and art preferences. They learned that when “American and Italian participants evaluated two pieces of abstract art and two pieces of representational art that were attributed to fictional American or Italian artists. The key prediction, that participants would evaluate pieces of art, specifically abstract art, more favorably if the artist was a conational than a national outgroup member, was supported, but only among American participants (the Americans had less art-related experience and were more aesthetically uncertain than the Italians). Americans liked American art more than Italian art, American art was liked more by Americans than Italians, and the preference for representational over abstract art disappeared among Americans evaluating American art.”
S. Mastandrea, J. Wagoner, and M. Hogg. “Liking for Abstract and Representational Art: National Identity as an Art Appreciation Heuristic.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, in press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000272
Melissa Piatkowski, Addie Abushousheh, and Ellen Taylor have written the whitepaper “Healthcare at Home,” which is available to all at the Center for Health Design website indicated below. This useful, comprehensive text is described on the noted website: “Within the past decade, advances in medical technology, changes in reimbursement structures, the desires and complex care needs of an aging population, and innovative care delivery models have initiated a shift from providing care in hospitals to outpatient settings. And more recently, the acceleration and amplification of these factors is pushing healthcare options . . . towards acute and subacute care in the home. . . .While this paper aims to present the salient research on design strategies that specifically facilitate healthcare at home, this is an emerging area. . . . Because Aging in Place and Universal Design approaches are highly relevant to the provision of healthcare at home, this paper draws largely from evidence in these two areas.” Topics covered range from building and room layout to flooring to lighting to home aesthetics. This whitepaper is particularly important because “there is an opportunity to shift thinking in typical residential design towards a more sustainable concept of home – how home can support health and healing.”
Our attitudes towards nature evolve over our lives. Meidenbauer and colleagues found that “Children aged 4-11 years do not show the preference for nature [over urban spaces] found in adults [children demonstrated robust preferences for urban over natural environments]. With age, children’s preferences for urban over natural environments decrease. More nearby nature is associated with fewer attention problems in children. The observed attentional benefits are unrelated to the children’s preferences. Children’s preferences were not linked to their home, school or play environments. . . . both adults and children show cognitive and affective [emotional] benefits after nature exposure.
Kimberly Meidenbauer, Cecilia Stenfors, Jaime Young, Elliot Layden, Kathryn Schertz, Omid Kardan, Jean Decety, and Marc Berman. “The Gradual Development of the Preference for Natural Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101328
Video links to the 2018 and 2019 sessions of the Architecture-For-Health lecture series, hosted by Texas A &M University (College of Architecture and Health Science Center School of Public Health), are now available without charge at https://www.pbs.org/show/texas-architecture-for-health/. As indicated on the linked to website: “Leading healthcare designers and administrators will explore the built environment’s effect on health and hospital facility design in the Architecture-For-Health Lecture Series at the Texas A&M College of Architecture.”