Five-Day Rustic Nature Retreat with Guided Visual Imagery Enhances Cognitive Flexibility and Well-Being in College Faculty and Staff

Abstract

There exists a wealth of empirical evidence suggesting that immersive experiences in Nature can promote health and healing. Kaufman argued that there exists a continuum of intervention bolstered by Nature along with meditative practices that can facilitate improved human functioning. Lenartz’s model of Nature connection further provides actionable guidance regarding how one might intentionally leverage the benefits of such a perspective through engaging in a range of simple to immersive activities in a non-clinical ecotherapeutic manner. Informed by the extant research and guided by theory, we sought to explore the potential of a rustic Nature-based intervention to promote cognitive and emotional functioning among a sample of community college faculty and staff interested in pursuing professional development opportunities. The results were statistically robust across all measures and contextually supported by the responses to a brief set of open-ended questions. Specifically, we found that the field experience of guided visual imagery within Nature resulted in (a) improved thinking, (b) more positive mood, (c) less negative mood, (d) greater flourishing, and (e) deepened connection with Nature. We provide a set of recommendations for future research to deepen our understanding of the relevant factors and broaden the generalizability of future findings. Key Words: Guided visual imagery—Nature—Meditation—Attention restoration theory—Stress reduction theory

Introduction

As the world is healing both literally and metaphorically from the long-term effects of the COVID-19 global pandemic, many in academia find themselves under heightened pressure. College faculty and staff were required to pivot to a largely online provision of education and student services (Peterson et al., 2021). Even among those college professionals who successfully coped with the changes (e.g., Peterson & Kaufman, 2022), a widely recognized fatigue often resulted from the digital challenges of the pivot. Alternatively, there is well-documented literature demonstrating the curative potential of exposure to Nature to counter the effects of stress, fatigue, and related psychophysiological ailments.

We sought to test whether such an intervention could be leveraged to improve functioning among college faculty and staff. We leveraged a focus on professional development to recruit college professionals and help them better recognize the relevance of such healing as it is related to their work on campus. The Nature-based intervention was focused upon the instruction and practice of guided visual imagery within a rustic setting removed from the daily stressors of work and home. It was supplemented by regular engagement in activities intended to promote exposure to Nature (e.g., hiking, forest bathing, sitting by a pond) and reflection on professional development (e.g., how to “bring back” the experience to the office).

Literature Review

Living in a city offers myriad affordances such as schools, museums, universities, theaters, health care, and public transportation. Yet, living in a city also can be stressful because of its pace and pollution (Kellert & Calabrese, 2015; Lambert et al., 2015) as humanity becomes characterized by those who “live on the land, but not by the land” (Leopold, 1949, p. 34). The urban environment poses deleterious effects on both the brain and the body (Lederbogen et al., 2011) resultant of exposure to air pollution (Samet et al., 2000), artificial illumination (Stevens & Zhu, 2015), and the fervent consumption of digitally mediated information (Barnett et al., 2018; Larson et al., 2018). The reality is that humanity now finds itself “beyond a very potent vis medicatrix” (Thomson, 1914, p. 278), the healing potential of Nature that appears vital to human wellness, as each subsequent generation experiences a shifting baseline (Pauly, 1995) away from the benefits of the natural environment (Daily, 1997).

Yet, there exists a wealth of empirical evidence grounded in a widely recognized theory demonstrating that experiences in Nature can promote health and healing. Attention restoration theory posits that natural environments provide reprieve for the attentional resources that are often burdened by modern life (Kaplan, 1995). The work of Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) suggests that such benefits are in large part a result of a “softening” of attention toward a more effortless, indirect observation of the natural environs. Complementarily, stress reduction theory indicates that exposure to natural environments can promote a relaxation response and further mind–body wellness (Ulrich et al., 1991). For example, Ulrich (1984) found in his seminal study that hospital patients with window views to a stand of trees took lower doses of postoperative analgesics and had short hospital stays relative to their peers in hospital rooms with windows out to brick walls. In other words, Nature can be used as an intervention for well-being.

Multiple lines of evidence support the synergistic ideas of attention restoration and stress reduction. For example, Taylor et al. (2005) revealed salutogenic effects from visual stimuli characteristic of elements from natural environments. Along the olfactory front, Li (2010) observed that naturally occurring aerosols from trees can facilitate enhanced immune functioning. Birdsong can improve mood recovery (Benfield et al., 2014), and evidence suggests that naturally occurring light has the potential to help alleviate the development of myopia (Morgan & Rose, 2019). Of course, it will surprise few that walks in Nature, including in urban parks, can foster peace of mind and settle ruminative thinking (Bratman et al., 2015a). Although the question remains regarding the appropriate “dosing” necessary to enhance well-being (Kaufman, 2015), research clearly demonstrates the potential of Nature to promote health and wellness (Berman et al., 2008, 2012; Bratman et al., 2015b; Zhang et al., 2014). Nature-based experiences, coupled with meditative practice (Zeidan et al., 2010), might possess a significant ability to promote human growth and improved functioning (Kaufman, 2018) that can help people pursue “the process of being and becoming” themselves (Rogers, 1963, p. 22).

Kaufman (2014, 2018) proposed a continuum of intervention that begins to functionally integrate the therapeutic potential of Nature in concert with meditative practices to facilitate improved human functioning. Central to the model is the recognition that much mind–body effort is expended daily and automatically to defend against the real and perceived threats (Cacioppo et al., 2015) so characteristic of the work-a-day events of modern urban life (Vanhaudenhuyse et al., 2010). By teaching meditative practices, such as guided visual imagery, within the metaphorical embrace of Nature, the model suggests a potentially potent shift in our daily concerns away from the egocentric self toward a more allocentric frame of reference (Austin, 2013).

Lenartz’s (2020) model of Nature connection goes further by providing actionable guidance on how one might intentionally leverage the benefits of a Nature–mind–body perspective through engaging in a range of activities, from simple to immersive, in a nonclinical ecotherapeutic manner. Although an ecopsychological approach to clinical practice might be ideal (Floyd et al., 2020), Lenartz’s model reminds us that one need not engage in activities beyond normal daily life to benefit from exposure to natural environments.

Toward this end, we sought to test five hypotheses regarding the potential intervention of guided visual imagery within a rustic Nature setting. First, it was hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would promote cognitive flexibility. It is long recognized that meditative practice can promote more flexible thinking (Moore & Malinowski, 2009). Second, it was hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would increase positive affect (Berman et al., 2012). Third, it was hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would decrease negative affect. Evidence suggests that exposure to Nature can improve, at the least, short-term mood (Beute & de Kort, 2014; Holden & Mercer, 2014). Fourth, it was hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would improve connectedness with Nature. Indeed, studies repeatedly demonstrate such an improvement (Baxter & Pelletier, 2019). Fifth, it was hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would promote flourishing. Although this remains an open question, logic suggests that improvements to cognition and affect ought to advance human functioning on a fairly broad scale. Cognizant of the local clinical scientist model (Stricker & Trierweiler, 1995), we also posed open-ended questions to provide context for the collected data.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were recruited from the faculty and staff of two community colleges in a major metropolitan area of the American Southwest. The resultant sample of 22 subjects (13 faculty, 5 staff, 4 both faculty and staff) represented a diverse spectrum of age (mean [M] = 46 years, range = 29–70 years), gender (13 females, 9 males), and race/ethnicity (11 white professionals, 11 professionals of color). No experience was required to participate in the study, and the subjects reported levels of prior outdoor activity ranging from urban walks in parks to solo remote backpacking. Subjects were treated in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines (American Psychological Association, 2017) subsequent to approval by Minnesota State University, Mankato, and GateWay Community College institutional review boards.

Measures

To test our hypotheses, subjects were measured with a suite of paper-and-pencil scales in the field during Day 1 (pretest) and Day 4 (posttest) to determine whether the field experience had a meaningful effect on overall psychological functioning. There are some evidence of a 3-day effect (Atchley et al., 2012), which aligns with our own previous fieldwork and experience, that many people require up to 3 days “away” in Nature before they begin to experience changes to their cognitive and affective status. With this caveat in mind, we measured the effects of the rustic intervention in Nature via five vectors of inquiry: (a) cognition, (b) affect, (c) environment, (d) growth, and (e) reflection. We also sought to elucidate the imaginal content subjects experienced during the practice of guided visual imagery when immersed in the field.

Cognition

The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (CFI; Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010) was used to measure self-reported cognitive flexibility as an indicator of how subjects processed information and approached decisions. The CFI is a 20-item scale that measures those “aspects of cognitive flexibility that enable individuals to think adaptively rather than maladaptively when encountering stressful life events” (p. 243). The validation study for the CFI found test–retest reliability from 0.84 to 0.91 (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010).

Affect

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988) is a well-recognized self-report scale that allows subjects to indicate their current or recent emotional status by responding to two 10-item series of words. Internal consistency during the validation study was found to be high (α = 0.84–0.90) for both series. Importantly, the PANAS was designed to simultaneously measure both positive and negative moods in recognition that their concurrent presence is normal amid healthy human functioning.

Environment

The Nature Relatedness Scale (NRS; Nisbet et al., 2009), a well-established metric, was used to evaluate subjects’ perceived connection to Nature. The NRS is a 21-item, self-report scale designed to measure “the affective, cognitive, and experiential aspects of individuals’ connection to nature” (p. 715). Internal-consistency reliability was found to be high (α = 0.87) during instrument development (Nisbet et al., 2009).

Subjects were also queried about their experience of Nature and time away from technology in the field through a series of additional items: (a) “How much exposure to Nature did you experience during the time we were in the field?” (b) “How many of the five days did you use technology?” (c) “On average, how many times per day did you use technology?” and (d) “How did your use of technology affect your experience?”

Growth

The Human Flourishing Scale (HFS; VanderWeele, 2017) is a 10-item self-report scale designed to capture a composite score of well-being by considering six broad factors of human functioning: (a) happiness and life satisfaction, (b) mental and physical health, (c) meaning and purpose, (d) character and virtue, (e) close social relationships, and (f) financial and material stability. Although the factors remain conceptually amorphous and the research supporting the scale is modest at best, the HFS nonetheless provides a potential functional snapshot of an individual’s current psychological status within the broader context of the various threads of their life.

Reflection

We also asked subjects to reflect on their experience when immersed in the field and then at follow-up. Specifically, subjects were asked two open-ended questions. We first sought to understand the subject experience by asking, “What did this experience in Nature personally mean to you?” We then inquired more broadly about the implications of the field experience for subject perceptions of Nature: “How did this experience affect your connection to Nature?” To assess the content of their responses, we used the Evaluative Lexicon 2.0 (EL 2.0; Rockladge et al., 2017), part of the Lexical Suite (Rockladge, n.d.). The EL 2.0 is a tool that provides “insight into whether an individual has an evaluation that is more emotional in nature versus one that is less emotional and more cognitive” (Rockladge et al., 2017, p. 1328) by rating the mean valence, emotionality, and extremity of emotionality of subjects’ verbatim responses.

Imagery

The central point around which the entire intervention pivoted was the nightly practice of guided visual imagery within the immersive context of Nature. Although much has been anecdotally suggested in clinical circles regarding the experience of guided visual imagery, to our knowledge no empirical study has sought to explicate the experience in detail. We attempted to offer a first approximation of such discovery by posing an open-ended question to the subjects after a few days of practice: “If you are willing to share, what was the content of your imagery during the guided meditations? What came to mind when you were meditating?” We again used the EL 2.0 (Rockladge et al., 2017) to interrogate the responses.

Procedure

Subjects were recruited primarily via email and secondarily via word of mouth and encouraged to share the invitation with their colleagues, among the faculty and staff of two metropolitan community colleges in the American Southwest to participate in a 5-day, all-expenses-paid rustic Nature experience. Two of the authors (A.L. and L.S.) have been longtime faculty members at one of the recruitment colleges and personally knew numerous participants. The faculty and staff at the two colleges also had previous professional and personal connections. After compiling a roster of interested individuals and a short waitlist, we hosted both in-person and online information sessions so that potential subjects could learn more about the study, inquire about the specifics of the experience, and, most importantly, allay potential anxieties regarding expectations of physical activity and sleeping arrangements. These information sessions also afforded us an opportunity to promote team-building while also gaining insight into the potential social makeup of the group of subjects who would join us in the field. This was especially important as two of the authors (T.E.F. and J.A.K.) were known only to one of the subjects from a previous pilot study.

With its focus on professional development, the field experience was considered part of the standard workweek by the college administrations similar to any other professional development training or conference. This was a key to success of the subject recruitment. We focused the field experience broadly as an opportunity for professional development by offering daily relevant activities beyond the scope of the study itself that could inform and support their professional work back on their campuses. These activities included semi-formal chats about teaching, working in an office, and, of course, attending meetings.

The rustic field experience for the 5-day period was intended to help subjects psychologically unplug from the responsibilities and associations of their daily lives. Through the easing of attention (cf. attention restoration theory) and fostering of relaxation (cf. stress reduction theory), we aimed to facilitate a state of openness and receptivity with which to commence the process toward healing and improved human functioning. Providing a means to let Nature get under the skin of subjects and permeate into the mind–body, a camp near Prescott, Arizona, set the stage for the field study. The camp provided a rustic site with access to hiking trails for daily forays, a multipurpose room for group activities, numerous bunk rooms with a plethora of space, separate cabins for investigators and document storage, and, most importantly, a large campfire ring for nightly guided visual imagery and open group discussion.

It was crucial that there were as few barriers to access as possible to ensure the most diverse range of subjects. Toward that end, the camp provided us with their large, heated bunkhouse, three hot meals per day at the semi-rustic cafeteria, and the ability to spend the days and evenings outdoors with minimal effort. By group consensus before departure, subjects individually identified a 1-h period each day during which they could access their smartphones to check in with loved ones at home. However, by mutual agreement among the subjects and with the knowledge of their college administrators, this was limited to personal communications only. No work functions could be performed during the time in the field. Finally, meals were provided in regular opportunities for the entire group of subjects to come together for an hour three times per day. We leveraged these moments to provide space for socialization as well as transition between activities and to provide instruction on the structure of each day. Indeed, the group dynamic evolved most positively over the course of 5 days. Tuckman (1965) wrote that most successful workgroups evolve. We observed how the subjects, with minimal guidance from us, came to work together as a group. This social evolution ostensibly served to strengthen personal and professional relationships among the subjects, resulting in a social milieu that appeared to facilitate individual growth and mutual support.

We organized the daily camp schedule into three approximate stretches, each with its own focus. Mornings began with an early communal breakfast in the cafeteria, followed by an invitation to engage in a low-exertion group activity (e.g., going for a walk in the woods), a high-exertion group activity (e.g., going for a vigorous hike in the nearby national forest), or spending time alone or in a small group engaged in a spontaneous activity (e.g., sitting in the campfire ring under the sun and reading or writing). Afternoons began with regrouping for a communal lunch followed by semi-structured professional development activities and free time. The semi-structured activities included a range of opportunities intended to assist subjects to more intentionally engage with Nature. For example, one activity guided subjects in the collection of small objects from their proximal surroundings (e.g., stones, sticks, flowers) and then share with the group how those objects represented them as a child and now as an adult. Another activity focused on having subjects write a letter of gratitude to a loved one back home. The goal of this activity was to deepen a metacognitive awareness of what being in Nature meant to the subjects and how the experience could be carried back to home and to work.

Subjects were also instructed during these free times to write in the journals we provided them. Although we did not specify the focus of the journaling, we encouraged the subjects to use their journals as opportunities for reflecting upon what being part of the rustic field experience meant for them. Evenings began with a communal supper followed by the lighting of a campfire. After the group had settled into quieter conversation as the flames danced, they were led through a 15-min session of guided visual imagery followed by a guided reflective discussion on their experience with it that evening. As the week progressed, the subjects as a group settled quickly into a pattern and specific roles with regard to the structure. Unprompted, they took on specific roles. Several subjects cleaned up the dining room after meals, a couple of subjects organized the chairs around the fire, two subjects gathered the group, and one subject took the responsibility of igniting the fire each evening. This all occurred rather spontaneously and with little in the way of discussion or pushback among the group.

As noted earlier, evenings focused on the practice of guided visual imagery around the campfire and under the starry sky. Truly, the core of the rustic field experience in the guided visual imagery included somatic and cognitive components. The goal of the somatic component was to position the mind–body for improved functioning, healing, and receptivity to Nature. To do so, the guided visual imagery script (see Fig. 1) incorporated elements of progressive muscle relaxation in which subjects scanned the body from head to toe to commence the relaxation response. It also included elements of autogenic training via recognition of and response to somatic cues of relaxation to reinforce the body’s relaxation response by attending to signals coming from the body. Finally, the language was tuned to encourage receptivity to Nature through imagined and actual sensory modalities to facilitate relaxation (Ulrich et al., 1991) and a gentle focusing of attention (Kaplan, 1995).

Fig. 1.

Samples from the guided imagery script used for guided visual imagery.

To promote growth through the invocation of a relaxation response, the cognitive component of the guided visual imagery was designed to promote attentional training (cf. Samatha meditation) and insight training (cf. vipassana meditation). This was done to improve attention regulation that might foster introspection regarding the self and teaching. Importantly, the guided visual imagery included a progressive series of post-hypnotic suggestions featuring comments made during a deep state of relaxation to guide subjects’ expectations of its effects. Over the course of the evenings, the language of the guided visual imagery was subtly altered to provide an increasingly focused posthypnotic suggestion of being receptive to the Nature immersion experience. This was performed to prepare, deepen, and maintain improved functioning among the subjects after return from the field. Immediately subsequent to “coming out” of guided visual imagery, we engaged in an around-the-campfire check to assess paresthesia, the frequently perceived changes in temperature or other sensory impressions in the extremities, to reinforce expectations of a positive relaxation response during the meditative sessions.

Results

Cognition

We hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would promote cognitive flexibility. Per self-report on the CFI (Dennis & Vander Wal, 2010), subjects reported that the field experience yielded a major positive effect on their ability to think dynamically (Cohen’s d = −1.09, t[21] = −5.10, p < 0.001).

Affect

We hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would increase positive affect. We similarly hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would decrease negative affect. Per self-report on the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988), subjects indicated that the field experience yielded predicted effects on their mood, one that greatly enhanced positive affect (Cohen’s d = −0.88, t[21] = −4.12, p < 0.001) and majorly diminished negative affect (Cohen’s d = 1.21, t[21] = 5.67, p < 0.001).

Environment

We hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would improve Nature connectedness. Per self-report on the NRS (Nisbet et al., 2009), subjects revealed that the field experience yielded a large positive effect on their connection to Nature (Cohen’s d = −0.97, t[21] = −4.56, p < 0.001).

We relatedly asked subjects at posttesting to report their interactions with Nature versus technology over the course of the field experience across four times. First, subjects reported having spent considerable time interacting with Nature on a daily basis (M = 4.78, standard deviation [SD] = 0.53, range = 1–5 perceived interaction). Second, subjects revealed having used technology (i.e., their smartphones) almost daily (M = 3.59, SD = 1.79, range = 0–5 days). This was something we had allowed and even encouraged so as to minimize anxiety regarding marital and familial responsibilities, as part of the field experience. Third, subjects indicated that they had rarely used technology during their daily “tech times” (M = 1.68, SD = 1.32, range = 0–10 times per day). Fifth and supportive of this logic, on a scale from “disruptive” (1) to “facilitative” (5), subjects reported that their use of technology during the field study was neither overly positive nor negative but “okay” (M = 3.64, SD = 1.22).

Growth

We hypothesized that the Nature-based intervention would promote flourishing. Per self-report on the HFS (VanderWeele, 2017), subjects demonstrated that the field experience yielded a large positive effect on their sense of flourishing (Cohen’s d = −0.86, t[21] = −4.03, p < 0.001).

Reflection

We inquired more broadly about the extent to which subjects perceived the field experience to be meaningful through two open-ended items that prompted reflection about (a) what the field experience meant to the subjects and (b) how it affected their perceived connection with Nature. The EL 2.0 (Rockladge et al., 2017) revealed that the field experience was experienced positively (M_valence = 7.61, SD_valence = 0.48) but not extremely so (M_extremity = 3.11, SD_extremity = 0.48) and with moderate emotional content (M_emotionality = 4.89, SD_emotionality = 0.78). In other words, subjects described the experience in language that was resolutely positive yet calm as would be expected in response to a positive effect of the field experience. For example, one subject wrote that:

I felt something … larger than me if that makes sense? I felt like the wind and the sun were extensions of myself. I did tear up a couple of times. This experience meant a whole bunch to me, and I hope to take this appreciation of life and the outdoors home with me.

Another subject shared that “[i]t was powerful, because of ‘disconnecting’ while being in nature. I am in nature A LOT, & always connected. This was a drastically more powerful experience.”

We also inquired about the extent to which subjects perceived the field experience to affect their sense of connection with Nature. The EL 2.0 (Rockladge et al., 2017) revealed that the field experience was experienced positively (M_valence = 6.67, SD_valence = 1.46) but not extremely so (M_extremity = 2.28, SD_extremity = 1.27) and with high emotional content (M_emotionality = 5.72, SD_emotionality = 1.59). Once again, subjects described the experience in language that was very positive yet calm, as would be expected in response to a positive effect of the field experience. For example, one subject wrote that “I feel more connected to nature than ever before. I have a [sense] of passion for nature now more than ever before,” whereas another subject shared that “I felt a oneness with nature and other people. During the [camp]fire I felt most connected with nature, the stars, nature’s soundscape.”

Imagery

We additionally explored the content of the guided visual imagery generated by subjects over the course of the field experience. The EL 2.0 (Rockladge et al., 2017) revealed that the imagery content was experienced positively (M_valence = 7.08, SD_valence = 1.48) but not extremely so (M_extremity = 2.82, SD_extremity = 0.93) and with much emotional content (M_emotionality = 5.09, SD_emotionality = 1.72). These results suggest that subjects might have experienced meaningful imagery content during the practice. To our knowledge, this report is the first instance in the empirical literature in which an analysis of the content of potentially salutogenic visual imagery has been described.

Discussion

Attention restoration theory (Kaplan, 1995) and stress reduction theory (Ulrich et al., 1991) predict that exposure to Nature can promote improved human functioning as a potential antidote to the challenges of modern life (Lederbogen et al., 2011). Albeit with uncertain potency, the inclusion of guided visual imagery amid Nature exposure was intended to increase the potency of the experience. The results were statistically unequivocal across all measures and contextually supported by the responses to a brief set of open-ended questions. Specifically, we found that the rustic field experience of guided visual imagery within Nature resulted in (a) improved thinking, (b) more positive mood, (c) less negative mood, (d) greater flourishing, and (e) deepened connection with Nature. To our knowledge, this study presents the first report of successfully using guided visual imagery to promote the psychophysiological benefits of exposure to Nature. Moreover, it uniquely does so in application to college faculty and staff.

Naturally, the current study demonstrates strengths and weaknesses. First, the study used a novel integration of Nature immersion and guided visual imagery. Although both these elements are supported by respectively impressive empirical literatures, scant attention until now has been afforded to their intentional integration as an intervention to promote wellness. Second, although we used a logistically complex field design, the statistical analysis was intentionally kept simple so as to be readily replicated and is potentially scalable. For example, with the availability of additional support staff, a considerably larger sample could be brought to the field. Nonetheless, the generalizability of our findings is necessarily limited to faculty and staff at other community colleges and perhaps other academic institutions more broadly.

We thus offer a brief set of recommendations for future research. First, anecdotal feedback from the subjects subsequent to returning from the rustic field study revealed a strong indication that future iterations of the project should continue with an initial immersion experience consisting of a 5-day stretch of weekdays followed by opportunities for maintenance events or activities in the months subsequent to return. Second, the current study largely neglected the inclusion of expressive activities such as arts and crafts in the field. This could be an appropriate alternative for some individuals to daily journaling as a mechanism of experiential reflection. Third, the addition of psychophysiological measures (e.g., electrodermal activity, immunoglobulin levels, and heart-rate variability) would be warranted so long as their assay could be integrated in a manner that does not distract from the Nature immersion. Fourth, the current study focused exclusively on college faculty and staff. There could be value in testing whether the Nature-based intervention might be equivalently beneficial among individuals in other professions.

The current study found meaningfully positive effects of immersion in Nature coupled with the practice of guided visual imagery while still allowing subjects to briefly access technology while in the field. It also provided potentially the first descriptions of imaginal content during the practice of guided visual imagery in a natural setting. Nonetheless, many questions remain. How “much” Nature is sufficient to promote health and healing? Might meditative practices adjacent to guided visual imagery yield similarly potent benefits? Is there a way to meaningfully bring such a rustic field experience “back home” to those who for reasons such as those of physical mobility or emotional comfort cannot spend time in the field? Addressing these and other questions will help bring about the potential for the discipline of ecopsychology to promote a bright green future for everyone (Kaufman & McNay, 2017).

Footnotes

Authors’ Contributions

Conceptualization: J.A.K., A.L., and T.E.F.; Design: J.A.K. and A.L.; Writing: J.A.K., A.L., T.E.F., and L.S.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors declare no financial interests in any aspect of the study.

Funding Information

This work received financial support from GateWay Community College Grant and Minnesota State University, Mankato Faculty Research Grant.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017, January, 1). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Available from: https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Atchley

R. A.

, Strayer

D. L.

, & Atchley

. (2012). Creativity in the wild: Improving creative reasoning through immersion in natural settings. PloS One, 7, e51474; doi: https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0051474

Austin

J. H

. (2013). Zen and the brain: Mutually illuminating topics. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 784–789; doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00784

Barnett

T. A.

, Kelly

A. S.

, Young

D. R.

, et al. (2018). Sedentary behaviors in today’s youth: Management of childhood obesity: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 138, e142–e159; doi: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR0000000000000591

Baxter

D. E.

, & Pelletier

L. G

. (2019). Is nature relatedness a basic human psychological need? A critical examination of the extant literature. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 60, 21–34; doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000145

Benfield

J. A.

, Taff

B. D.

, Newman

, & Smyth

. (2014). Natural sound facilitates mood recovery. Ecopsychology, 6, 183–188; doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2014.0028

Berman

M. G.

, Jonides

, & Kaplan

. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212.

Berman

M. G.

, Kross

, Krpan

K. M

, et al. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 300–305; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012

Beute

, & de Kort

Y. A. W

. (2014). Natural resistance: Exposure to nature and self-regulation, mood, and physiology after ego-depletion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 167–178; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.004

10.

Bratman

G. N.

, Daily

G. C.

, Levy

B. J.

, & Gross

J. J

. (2015b). The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41–50; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005

11.

Bratman

G. N.

, Hamilton

J. P.

, Hahn

K. S.

, Daily

G. C.

, & Gross

J. J

. (2015a). Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 8567–8572; doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459

12.

Cacioppo

J. T.

, Cacioppo

, Capitanio

J. P.

, & Cole

S. W

. (2015). The neuroendocrinology of social isolation. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 733–767; doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015240

13.

Daily

G. C

. (1997). Introduction: What are ecosystem services? In Daily

G.C.

.(Ed.), Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press; pp. 1-10.

14.

Dennis

J. P.

, & Vander Wal

J. S

. (2010). The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 241–253.

15.

Floyd

T. E.

, Johnson

, & Kaufman

J. A

. (2020). The nature of clinical hypnosis. Ecopsychology, 12, 203–208; doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2019.0046

16.

Holden

L. J.

, & Mercer

. (2014). Nature in the learning environment: Exploring the relationship between nature, memory, and mood. Ecopsychology, 6, 234–240.

17.

Kaplan

. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.

18.

Kaplan

, & Kaplan

. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.

19.

Kaufman

J. A

. (2014). Our contemplative nature. Ecopsychology, 6, 19–20; doi: https://doi.org/org/10/1089/eco.2013.0051

20.

Kaufman

J. A

. (2015). A model of our contemplative nature. Ecopsychology, 7, 137–144; doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2015.0014

21.

Kaufman

J. A

. (2018). Nature, mind and medicine: A model for mind-body healing. EXPLORE, 14, 268–276; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2018.01.001

22.

Kaufman

J. A.

, & McNay

G. D

. (2017). At the intersection of technology and nature: The potential for a bright green future. Ecopsychology, 9, 253–259; doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2017.0022

23.

Kellert

S. R.

, & Calabrese

E. F

. (2015). The practice of biophilic design. Available from: http://www.biophilic-design.com

24.

Lambert

K. G.

, Nelson

R. J.

, Jovanovic

, & Cerda

. (2015). Brains in the city: Neurobiological effects of urbanization. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 58, 107–122; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.04.007

25.

Larson

L. R.

, Szczytko

, Bowers

E. P

, et al. (2018). Outdoor time, screen time, and connection to nature: Troubling trends among rural youth. Environment and Behavior, 51, 966–991; doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518806686

26.

Lederbogen

, Kirsch

, Haddad

, et al. (2011). City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans. Nature, 474, 498–501.

27.

Lenartz

. (2020, January 4). Take it outside: Incorporating outdoor time and nature connection into your lessons [Conference session]. National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology 2020: St. Petersburg Beach, FL, United States.

28.

Leopold

. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.

29.

. (2010). Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15, 9–17; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-008-0068-3

30.

Moore

, & Malinowski

. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness, and cognitive flexibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 176–186.

31.

Morgan

I. G.

, & Rose

K. A

. (2019). Myopia: Is the nature-nurture debate finally over? Clinical & Experimental Optometry, 102, 3–17; doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12845

32.

Nisbet

E. K. L.

, Zelenski

J. M.

, & Murphy

S. A

. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and. Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.

33.

Pauly

. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10, 430.

34.

Peterson

A. M.

, & Kaufman

J. A

. (2022). Meh: Faculty life after the pandemic. Innovation Abstracts, 44. https://www.nisod.org/2022/01/18/xliv_1/

35.

Peterson

A. M.

, LeDuc

, Tate

, & Kaufman

J. A

. (2021). Pivoting in a time of pandemic: The faculty experience. Innovation Abstracts, 43. https://www.nisod.org/2021/01/26/xliii_2/

36.

Rockladge

M. D.

, Rucker

D. D.

, & Nordgren

L. F

. (2017). The Evaluative Lexicon 2.0: The measurement of emotionality, extremity, and valence in language. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1327–1344.

37.

Rockladge

M. D

. (n.d.). The Lexical Suite. Available from: http://www.lexicalsuite.com

38.

Rogers

C. R

. (1963). The concept of the fully functioning person. Psychotherapy, 1, 17–26.

39.

Samet

J. M.

, Dominici

, Curriero

F. C.

, Coursac

, & Zeger

S. L

. (2000). Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities, 1987-1994. The New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 1742–1749.

40.

Stevens

R. G.

, & Zhu

. (2015). Electric light, particularly at night, disrupts human circadian rhythmicity: Is it a problem? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370, 1–9; doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0120

41.

Stricker

, & Trierweiler

S. J

. (1995). The local clinical scientist: A bridge between science and practice. The American Psychologist, 50, 995–1002; doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.12.995

42.

Taylor

R. P.

, Spehar

, Wise

J. A

, et al. (2005). Perceptual and physiological responses to the complexity of fractal patterns. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 9, 89–114.

43.

Thomson

J. A

. (1914). The popular lecture delivered at the eighty-second annual meeting of the British medical association. BMJ, 2, 277–279; doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.2797.277

44.

Tuckman

B. W

. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399; doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

45.

Ulrich

R. S

. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science (New York, N.Y.), 224, 420–421.

46.

Ulrich

R. S.

, Simons

R. F.

, Losito

B. D

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

47.

VanderWeele

T. J

. (2017). On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 8148–8156; doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702996114

48.

Vanhaudenhuyse

, Demertzi

, Schabus

, et al. (2010). Two distinct neuronal networks mediate the awareness of environment and of self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 570–578; doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21488

49.

Watson

, Clark

L. A.

, & Tellegen

. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070; doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

50.

Zeidan

, Johnson

S. K.

, Diamond

B. J.

, David

, & Goolkasian

. (2010). Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: Evidence of brief mental training. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 597–605; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.03.014

51.

Zhang

J. W.

, Piff

P. K.

, Iyer

, Koleva

, & Keltner

. (2014). An occasion for unselfing: Beautiful nature leads to prosociality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 61–72; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.008