Personality predicts perceived potential for attention restoration of natural and urban scenes / La personalidad predice el potencial percibido de restauración atencional de los paisajes naturales y urbanos
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2014
Personality predicts perceived potential for attention restoration of natural and urban scenes / La personalidad predice el potencial percibido de restauración atencional de los paisajes naturales y urbanos
This study evaluated domains of personality in the five-factor model as predictors of perceived potential for attention restoration (PPAR) for attractive and moderately attractive natural and urban scenes. Students rated the attractive natural and urban scenes equally high in PPAR, the moderately attractive natural scene intermediate, and the moderately attractive urban scene, lowest. However, across natural and urban scenes, the personality domains of openness, agreeableness, and extraversion predicted higher ratings for PPAR, whereas neuroticism predicted lower PPAR ratings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Benet-MartinezV.JohnO. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.
2.
BertoR. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249–259.
3.
BertoR. (2007). Assessing the restorative value of the environment: A study on the elderly in comparison with young adults and adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 42, 331–341.
4.
CimprichB.RonisD. L. (2003). An environmental intervention to restore attention in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 26, 284–292.
5.
CostaP. T.McCraeP. R. (1992). Professional manual: revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
6.
CraikK. H. (1973). Environmental Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 403–422.
7.
DeYoungC. G. (press). Openness/Intellect: A Dimension of Personality Reflecting Cognitive Exploration. In CooperM. L.LarsenR. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Personality processes and individual differences (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
DigmanJ. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
9.
EysenckH. J. (1981). A model for personality. New York: Springer.
10.
FelstenG. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: An attention restoration theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 160–167.
11.
FornaraF. (2011). Are “attractive” built places as restorative and emotionally positive as natural places in the urban environment? In BonaiutoM.BonnesM.NenciA. M.CarrusG. (Eds.), Urban diversities: Environmental and social issues. Advances in people-environment studies (Vol. 2, pp. 159–170). Gottingen: Hogrefe & Huber.
12.
FriedmanH. S.KernM. L.ReynoldsC. A. (2010). Personality and health, subjective well-being, and longevity. Journal of Personality, 78, 179–215.
13.
HartigT.KorpelaK.EvansG. W.GärlingT. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, 14, 175–194.
14.
HartigT.MangM.EvansG. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experience. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3–26.
15.
HartigT.StaatsH. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 215–226.
16.
HerzogT. R.BlackA. M.FountaineK. A.KnottsD. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as two distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165–170.
17.
HerzogT. R.MaguireC. P.NebelM. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159–170.
18.
HidalgoM. C.BertoR.GalindoM. P.GetreviA. (2006). Identifying attractive and unattractive urban places: categories, restorativeness and aesthetic attributes. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 7, 115–133.
19.
HirshJ. B. (2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 245–248.
20.
HirshJ. B.DoldermanD. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1583–1593.
21.
JohnO. P.NaumannL. P.SotoC. J. (2008). Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
KaplanR. (1977). Patterns of environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 9, 195–216.
23.
KaplanR. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507–542.
24.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
KaplanS. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
26.
KaplanS.KaplanR.WendtJ. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity of natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 354–356.
27.
KarmanovD.HamelR. (2008). Assessing the restorative potential of urban environment(s): Beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 115–125.
28.
KorpelaK.HartigT. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221–233.
29.
LafortezzaR.CarrusG.SanesiG.DaviesC. (2009). Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8, 97–108.
30.
LaumannK.GärlingT.StormarkK. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 31–44.
31.
LewickaM. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207–230.
32.
LindalP. J.HartigT. (2013). Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 26–36.
33.
MayerF. S.FrantzC. M.Bruehlman-SenecalE.DolliverK. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643.
34.
McKechnieG. E. (1974). Manual for the Environmental Response Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
35.
McKechnieG. E. (1977). The Environmental Response Inventory in application. Environment and Behavior, 9, 255–276.
36.
MehlM. R.GoslingS. D.PennebakerJ. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 862–877.
37.
MilfontT. A.SibleyC. G. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 187–195.
38.
NasarJ. L.TerzanoK. (2010). The desirability of views of city skylines after dark. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 215–225.
39.
NettleD. (2006). The evolution of personality: variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631.
40.
NisbetE. K.ZelenskiJ. M.MurphyS. A. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individual’s connectedness with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.
41.
NordhH.HartigT.HagerhallC. M.FryG. (2009) Components of small urban parks predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8, 225–235.
42.
PortaS.RenneJ. L. (2005). Linking urban design to sustainability: formal indicators of social urban sustainability field research in Perth, Western Australia. Urban Design International, 10, 51–64.
43.
SchultzP. W.TabanicoJ. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1219–1247.
44.
ScopellitiM.GiulianiM. V. (2004). Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 423–437.
45.
StaatsH.KievietA.HartigT. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147–157.
46.
ThompsonC. W. (2011). Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99, 187–195.
47.
ThwaitesK.HelluerE.SimkinsI. M. (2005). Restorative urban open space: Exploring the spatial configuration of human emotional fulfillment in urban open space. Landscape Research, 30, 525–547.
48.
van den BergA. E.HartigT.StaatsH. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 79–96.
49.
VergesM.DuffyS. (2010). Connected to birds, but not bees: Valence moderates implicit associations with nature. Environment and Behavior, 42, 625–642.
50.
VölkerS.KistemannT. (2011). The impact of blue space on human health and well–being – Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 214, 449–460.
51.
WellsN. M. (2000). At home with nature: The effects of nearby nature on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32, 775–795.
52.
WisemanM.BognerF. X. (2003). A higher-order model of ecological values and its relationship to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 783–794.
