Advertisement

Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment

  • Roger S. Ulrich
Part of the Human Behavior and Environment book series (HUBE, volume 6)

Abstract

Affect is central to conscious experience and behavior in any environment, whether natural or built, crowded or unpopulated. Because virtually no meaningful thoughts, actions, or environmental encounters occur without affect (Ittelson, 1973, p. 16; Izard, 1977; Zajonc, 1980), an affective state is an important indicator of the nature and significance of a person’s ongoing interaction with an environment (Lazarus, Kanner, & Folkman, 1980, p. 190). Research concerning affective and aesthetic response, therefore, may have a central role in advancing our understanding of human interactions with the natural environment and could prove pivotal in the development of comprehensive theories. Further, this area of research relates to important questions in environmental planning and design, including, for instance, visual landscape assessment, the provision of vegetation and parks in cities, and issues of wilderness management and recreation. Concerning the latter, it appears that aesthetic and emotional experiences are the most important benefits realized by many recreationists in the natural environment (Rossman & Ulehla, 1977; Shafer & Mietz, 1969).

Keywords

Natural Setting Affective Response Natural Scene Affective Reaction Cognitive Appraisal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altaian, I., & Chemers, M. M. Culture and environment. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-III). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. Appleton, J. The experience of landscape. London: Wiley, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, M. B. Emotion and personality (Vol. 1): Psychological aspects. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  5. Arthur, L. M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical tests. Forest Science, 1977, 23, 151–159.Google Scholar
  6. Balint, M. Friendly expanses—Horrid empty spaces. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1955, 36, 225–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berlyne, D. E. Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1963, 17, 274–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berlyne, D. E. Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 1970, 8, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berlyne, D. E. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.Google Scholar
  11. Berlyne, D. E. Extension to Indian subjects of a study of exploratory and verbal responses to visual patterns. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1975, 6, 316–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berlyne, D. E., Robbins, M. C., & Thompson, R. A cross-cultural study of exploratory and verbal responses to visual patterns varying in complexity. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York: Wiley, 1974, pp. 259–278.Google Scholar
  13. Bernaldez, F. G., & Parra, F. Dimensions of landscape preferences from pairwise comparisons. In Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. Berkeley, Calif.: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, 1979, pp. 256–262.Google Scholar
  14. Brush, R. O. Perceived quality of scenic and recreational environments. In K. H. Craik & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Perceiving environmental quality. New York: Plenum Press, 1976, pp. 47–58.Google Scholar
  15. Brush, R. O. Forests can be managed for esthetics: A study of forest land owners in Massachusetts. In Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference. Syracuse, N.Y.: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and USDA Forest Service, 1978, pp. 349–360.Google Scholar
  16. Brush, R. O., & Palmer, J. F. Measuring the impact of urbanization on scenic quality: Land use change in the northeast. In Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. Berkeley, Calif.: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, 1979, pp. 358–364.Google Scholar
  17. Brush, R. O., & Shafer, E. L., Jr. Application of a landscape preference model to land management. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975, pp. 168–182.Google Scholar
  18. Buhyoff, G. J., Wellman, J. D., Harvey, H., & Fraser, R. A. Landscape architects’ interpretations of people’s landscape preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 1978, 6, 255–262.Google Scholar
  19. Calvin, J. S., Dearinger, J. A., & Curtin, M. E. An attempt at assessing preferences for natural landscapes. Environment and Behavior, 1972, 4, 447–470.Google Scholar
  20. Civco, D. L. Numerical modeling of eastern Connecticut’s visual resources. In Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. Berkeley, Calif.: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, 1979, pp. 263–270.Google Scholar
  21. Clamp, P. Evaluating English landscapes—Some recent developments. Environment and Planning, 1976, 8, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cole, M., & Scribner, S. Culture and thought: A psychological introduction. New York: Wiley, 1974.Google Scholar
  23. Coughlin, R. E., & Goldstein, K. A. The extent of agreement among observers on environmental attractiveness. Regional Science Research Institute Discussion Paper Series, No. 37. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute, 1970.Google Scholar
  24. Craik, K. H. A system of landscape dimensions: Appraisal of its objectivity and illustration of its scientific application (Report to Resources of the Future, Inc.). Berkeley: University of California Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, 1970.Google Scholar
  25. Cullen, G. Townscape. New York: Reinhold, 1961.Google Scholar
  26. Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method (USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167). Ft. Collins, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1976.Google Scholar
  27. Daniel, T. C., & Schroeder, H. Scenic beauty estimation model: Predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes. In Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. Berkeley/Calif.: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, 1979, pp. 514–523.Google Scholar
  28. Day, H. I. Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness, and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Driver, B. L., & Greene, P. Man’s nature: Innate determinants of response to natural environments. In Children, nature, and the urban environment (USDA Forest Service Report NE-30). Upper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1977, pp. 63–70.Google Scholar
  30. Driver, B. L., Rosenthal, D., & Peterson, G. Social benefits of urban forests and related green spaces in cities. In Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference. Syracuse, N.Y.: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and USDA Forest Service, 1978, pp. 98–111.Google Scholar
  31. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. Similarities and differences between cultures in expressive movements. In R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Nonverbal communication. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 297–314.Google Scholar
  32. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. C. Emotion in the human face. New York: Pergamon, 1972.Google Scholar
  33. Evans, G. W., & Wood, K. W. Assessment of environmental aesthetics in scenic highway corridors. Environment and Behavior, 1980, 12, 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gibson, J. J. Perception of distance and space in the open air. In D. Beardslee & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Readings in perception. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1958, pp. 415–431.Google Scholar
  35. Gustke, L. D., and Hodgson, R. W. Rate of travel along an interpretive trail: The effect of an environmental discontinuity. Environment and Behavior, 1980, 12, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hubbard, H. V., & Kimball, T. An introduction to the study of landscape design. Boston: Hubbard Educational Trust, 1967.Google Scholar
  37. Iltis, H., Loucks, O., & Andrews, J. Criteria for an optimum human environment. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1970, 26(1), 2–6.Google Scholar
  38. Ittelson, W. H. Environment perception and contemporary perceptual theory.. In W. H. Ittelson (Ed.), Environment and cognition. New York: Seminar, 1973, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  39. Ittelson, W. H., Franck, K. A., & O’Hanlon, T. J. The nature of environmental experience. In S. Wapner, S. B. Cohen, & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Experiencing the environment. New York: Plenum Press, 1976, pp. 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Izard, C. E. The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.Google Scholar
  41. Izard, C. E. Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  42. Izard, C. E., & Buechler, S. Aspects of consciousness and personality in terms of differential emotions theory. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience. New York: Academic Press, 1980, pp. 165–187.Google Scholar
  43. Janssens, J. Hur man betraktar och identifierar byggnadesexteriorer—methodstudie. LTH, Sektionen for Arkitektur, Rapport 2. School of Architecture, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden, 1976.Google Scholar
  44. Kaplan, R. Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and clients. In W. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1973, pp. 265–274.Google Scholar
  45. Kaplan, S. An informal model for the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, J. G. Fabos, & R. O. Brush (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975, pp. 92–101.Google Scholar
  46. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 354–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kennedy, J. M. A psychology of picture perception. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.Google Scholar
  48. Kuller, R. A semantic model for describing perceived environment. Stockholm: National Swedish Institute for Building Research, 1972.Google Scholar
  49. Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 1980, 207, 557–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kwok, K. Semantic evaluation of perceived environment: A cross-cultural replication. Man-Environment Systems, 1979, 9, 243–249.Google Scholar
  51. Lazarus, R. S. Emotions and adaptation: Conceptual and empirical relations. In W. J. Arnold (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1968, pp. 175–266.Google Scholar
  52. Lazarus, R. S., Kanner, A. D., & Folkman, S. Emotions: A cognitive-phenomenological analysis. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience. New York: Academic Press, 1980, pp. 189–217.Google Scholar
  53. Lowenthal, D. The American scene. Geographical Review, 1968, 58, 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lowenthal, D., & Prince, H. English landscape tastes. Geographical Review, 1965, 55, 186–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McDougall, W. An introduction to social psychology. London: Methuen, 1908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  57. Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 191–199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Osgood, C. E. Studies on the generality of affective meaning systems. American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Palmer, J. F. An investigation of the conceptual classification of landscapes and its application to landscape planning issues. In S. Weidemann & J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Priorities for environmental design research, Part I. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Design Research Association, 1978, pp. 92–103.Google Scholar
  60. Patterson, K. E., & Baddeley, A. D. When face recognition fails. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1977, 3, 406–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Penning-Roswell, E. C. The social value of English landscapes. In Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. Berkeley, Calif.: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, 1979, pp. 249–255.Google Scholar
  62. Plutchik, R. Emotions, evolution, and adaptive processes. In M. Arnold (Ed.), Feelings and emotions: The Loyola symposium. New York: Academic Press, 1970, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  63. Rabinowitz, C. B., & Coughlin, R. E. Analysis of landscape characteristics relevant to preference. Regional Science Research Institute Discussion Paper Series, No. 38. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute, 1970.Google Scholar
  64. Rossman, B. B., & Ulehla, Z. J. Psychological reward values associated with wilderness use: A functional-reinforcement approach. Environment and Behavior, 1977, 9, 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shafer, E. L., Jr., & Mietz, J. Aesthetic and emotional experiences rate high with northeast wilderness hikers. Environment and Behavior, 1969, 1, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shafer, E. L., & Tooby, M. Landscape preferences: An international replication. Journal of Leisure Research, 1973, 5, 60–65.Google Scholar
  67. Shafer, E. L., Hamilton, J. F., & Schmidt, E. A. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1969, 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
  68. Shuttleworth, S. The evaluation of landscape quality. Landscape Research (England), 1980, 5(1), 14–20.Google Scholar
  69. Singer, J. L. Daydreaming: An introduction to the experimental study of inner experience. New York: Random House, 1966.Google Scholar
  70. Sorte, G. J. Perception av landskap. Licentiates dissertation. As, Norway: Landbruksbokhandeln/Universitetsforlaget, 1971.Google Scholar
  71. Stainbrook, E. Human needs and the natural environment. In Man and nature in the city. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1968, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  72. Thayer, R. L., Jr., & Atwood, B. G. Plants, complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1978, 3, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tomkins, S. S. Affect, imagery, consciousness. Vol. I: The positive affects. New York: Springer, 1962.Google Scholar
  74. Tomkins, S. S. Affect, imagery, consciousness. Vol. II: The negative affects. New York: Springer, 1963.Google Scholar
  75. Tuan, Y.-F. Visual blight: Exercises in interpretation. In Visual blight in America (Commission on College Geography Resource Paper No. 23). Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1973.Google Scholar
  76. Tuan, Y.-F. Raw emotion to intellectual delight. Landscape Architecture, 1978, 68, 132–134.Google Scholar
  77. Tuan, Y.-F. Landscapes of fear. New York: Pantheon, 1979.Google Scholar
  78. Ulrich, R. S. Scenery and the shopping trip: The roadside environment as a factor in route choice. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1973. (Available as Michigan Geographical Publication No. 12, Department of Geography, 1973.)Google Scholar
  79. Ulrich, R. S. Visual landscape preference: A model and application. Man-Environment Systems, 1977, 7, 279–293.Google Scholar
  80. Ulrich, R. S. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research (England), 1979, 4(1), 17–23. (a)Google Scholar
  81. Ulrich, R. S. Psychophysiological approaches to visibility. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Visibility Values (USDA Forest Service Report WO-18). Fort Collins, Colo.: 1979, pp. 93–99. (b)Google Scholar
  82. Ulrich, R. S. Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 1981, 13, 523–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ulrich, R. S., & Zuckerman, M. Preference for landscape paintings: Differences as a function of sensation-seeking. Unpublished research, Departments of Geography and Psychology, University of Delaware, 1981.Google Scholar
  84. White, R. W. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 297–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilson, W. R. Feeling more than we can know: Exposure effects without learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wohlwill, J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wohlwill, J. F. Factors in the differential response to the natural and man-made environments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, August 1973.Google Scholar
  88. Wohlwill, J. F. Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altaian & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press, 1976, pp. 37–86.Google Scholar
  89. Wohlwill, J. F. What belongs where: Research on fittingness of man-made structures in natural settings. In T. C. Daniel, E. H. Zube, & B. L. Driver (Eds.), Assessing amenity resource values (USDA General Tech. Rep. RM-68). Fort Collins, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, 1979, pp. 48–57.Google Scholar
  90. Wohlwill, J. F. The place of order and uncertainty in art and environmental aesthetics. Motivation and Emotion, 1980, 4, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wohlwill, J. F., & Harris, G. Response to congruity or contrast for man-made features in natural-recreation settings. Leisure Sciences, 1980, 3, 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zajonc, R. B. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zube, E. H. Cross-disciplinary and inter-mode agreement on the description and evaluation of landscape resources. Environment and Behavior, 1974, 6, 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Anderson, T. W. Perception and measurements of scenic resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Amherst: Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, 1974.Google Scholar
  95. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Anderson, T. W. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1975, pp. 151–167.Google Scholar
  96. Zuckerman, M. Sensation seeking and anxiety, traits and states, as determinants of behavior in novel situations. In I. Sarason & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and Anxiety (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley, 1976, pp. 141–170.Google Scholar
  97. Zuckerman, M. The development of a situation specific trait-state test for the prediction and measurement of affective responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, 512–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zuckerman, M. Sensation-seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. New York: Wiley, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger S. Ulrich
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations