Real Nature vs. Pictures of Nature

Naumkeag Orchard_5836

Is experiencing nature through a plasma display picture of nature as good as looking at the real thing? Not according to some new research.

Many have assumed that photographs of nature should produce the healing results that Ulrich first reported on in 1984. That was the ground-breaking research article called: View Through a Window May Influence Recovery From Surgery. This study did not confirm that; only views of real nature worked at reducing stress.

This study measured individuals' heart recovery rate from minor stress when exposed to a natural scene through a window, the same scene shown on a high-definition plasma screen, or a blank wall. The heart rate of people who looked at the scene through the window dropped more quickly than the others. In fact, the high-definition plasma screen had no more effect than the blank wall.

Perhaps hospitals should be investing in more windows and landscape gardening than in art for the walls of their patient rooms.

One of the Authors (Dr. Peter H. Kahn) reflects on what this might mean for our society:

We are losing direct experiences with nature. Instead, more and more we're experiencing nature represented technologically through television and other media. Children grow up watching Discovery Channel and Animal Planet. That's probably better than nothing. But as a species we need interaction with actual nature for our physical and psychological well-being.

The article "A plasma display window?—The shifting baseline problem in a technologically mediated natural world" was published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology Volume 28, Issue 2, (June 2008) Pages 192-199.

The researchers included: Peter H. Kahn Jr., Batya Friedman, Brian Gill, Jennifer Hagman, Rachel L. Severson, Nathan G. Freier, Erika N. Feldman, Sybil Carrère, Anna Stolyar

More information about the Human Interactions with Nature and Technological Systems Lab (where this was conducted) is available at http://depts.washington.edu/hints/

Thanks to Dr. Upali Nanda for letting me know about this study.

Comments

[Peter Kahn]

Hi Henry,

Nice blog!

I also think it's a nice pairing of our current study with the 1984 Ulrich study that you highlight. I remember talking with Roger Ulrich at the 1992 Biophilia Hypothesis meeting (hosted by E. O. Wilson and Steve Kellert), and we and others there all pondered a little together about whether a real-time display of nature would garner similar psychological effects as actual nature. It took me a while to get the funding for the study!

Our lab also conducted a complementary study (which is also highlighted as a pdf on the homepage of our website). Abstract below.
http://depts.washington.edu/hints

In this study, we found physical, psychological, and social-organizational benefits for people who used a real-time plasma display window of nature in their inside offices for a period of 6 weeks.

Taking both studies together, here’s our interpretation of this plasma window instantiation of “technological nature”: From the field study we learn that when compared to experiencing no nature (as in an inside office), the plasma window of nature can provide important benefits. Thus when people must work in an inside office, such technological representations of nature are probably good things. But from our experimental study we learn that when compared to actual nature, the plasma window of nature was not as good. This general pattern – that technological nature is better no nature but not as good as actual nature – is holding up across other forms of technological nature we’ve been investigating in our lab.

Thoughts?

Best wishes,

--Peter


Friedman, B., Freier, N. G., Kahn, P. H., Jr., Lin, P., & Sodeman, R. (2008). Office window of the future? -- Field-based analyses of a new use of a large display. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(6), 452-465.
http://faculty.washington.edu/pkahn/articles/friedman2008_owf.pdf

Abstract
We installed large plasma displays on the walls of seven inside offices of faculty and staff at a university, and displayed, as the default
image, real-time HDTV views of the immediate outside scene. Then, utilizing a field-study methodology, data were collected over a
16-week period to explore the user experience with these large display windows. Through the triangulation of data—652 pages of
interview transcripts, journal entries, and responses to email inquiries—results showed that users deeply appreciated many aspects of
their experience. Benefits included a reported increase in users’ connection to the wider social community, connection to the natural
world, psychological wellbeing, and cognitive functioning. Users also integrated the large display window into their workplace practice.
However, users expressed concerns particularly about the impacts on the privacy of people whose images were captured in the public
place by the HDTV camera. Discussion focuses on design challenges for future investigations into related uses of large displays.


_____________ ________

Peter H. Kahn, Jr.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Box 351525
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-1525
206-616-9395
pkahn@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/pkahn/
HINTS Lab Website: http://depts.washington.edu/hints

[hdomke]

I think your research is confirming some suspicions that many have had for a long time: there is no substitute for the real thing.

It is important to consider the implications of losing direct experiences with nature.

What is gained and lost as we become an increasingly urbanized world? Does it mater that fewer and fewer people ever experience true wilderness?

My wife believes that there are serious consequences for us and for the planet if we all end up spending our lives isolated from nature. She is trying to find ways to connect kids to nature again. Her inspiration comes from Richard Louv's book "Last Child in the Woods"

I think this may be rambling off your topic, but I think there may be a connection and I find it fascinating.

[Susan Mazer]

Henry and Peter, the studies are, indeed, informative and provocative. I say "provocative" because if the question is about static views of nature, clearly this opens the discussion of produced scenes of nature. In our production of the C.A.R.E. Channel, which has followed studies of Ulrich and others regarding the effect of imagery on patient outcomes, we have avoided static images and used, instead, a slowly produced series of images that avoids visual habituation and offers more variety and visual stimulation. At the same time, the Discovery Channel production, "Sunrise Earth" uses static imagery and the natural ambient sounds and it is great for one hour and as pure ambience.

In my reading of the original study, I found it to be a stretch (regardless of the argument) that would point to digital media causing further detachment from nature that would lead to justified neglect of the earth. For those living in our most densely populated cities, nature is always artificial (as opposed to wild and random) and is overwhelmed by concrete. The stunning views of nature offered by photography and videography bring to the child and parent experiences otherwise inaccessible.

When a patient whose acuity level is high enough to deserve hospitalization is in need of stimulation that is restorative rather than agitating, nature imagery has been shown to be effective.

Perhaps that next study to do is one that really looks at the impact of broadcast media on the confined patient...

A great discussion to continue...

Susan Mazer
President/CEO
Healing HealthCare Systems, Inc.
www.healinghealth.com
smazer@healinghealth.com

[hdomke]

Susan,
"I say "provocative" because if the question is about static views of nature, clearly this opens the discussion of produced scenes of nature."
I dug in deeper by reading Dr. Kahn's article. His work is NOT using static images. Heres is a quote on his methodology "a plasma window that afforded a real-time HDTV view of essentially the same scene"

I will forward your comment to Dr. Kahn to see if he would like do comment.

[Susan Mazer]

Henry, the HDTV literally looked out on the courtyard of the University...which was the look outside of the real window. So while the image was not fully non-changing, on a macro level, it was static. Some cruise ships have cameras on the helm which becomes a channel on the television...it was very boring...meaning, it did not do the job. I would say this was an upgraded equivalent.

I would define non-static imagery as one that moves through a variety of related images...not unlike how we all might glance into a park moving from object to object, view to view.

A different study is called for? Maybe for my dissertation?

Susan Mazer