恢复性自然体验的目标差异描述

IF 6.1 1区 心理学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Yannick Joye , Massimo Köster , Florian Lange , Maja Fischer , Agnes Moors
{"title":"恢复性自然体验的目标差异描述","authors":"Yannick Joye ,&nbsp;Massimo Köster ,&nbsp;Florian Lange ,&nbsp;Maja Fischer ,&nbsp;Agnes Moors","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The role of nature in promoting both affective and cognitive benefits has been extensively studied in the field of environmental psychology. Two well-established theories, Stress Recovery Theory (SRT) and Attention Restoration Theory (ART), are commonly used to explain these restorative benefits. However, despite their popularity, both theories face important challenges. To address these challenges, in the current paper, we propose an alternative goal-discrepancy account of restorative nature experiences. In our account, we consider individuals as goal-directed agents and argue that the to-be-restored states that are central to SRT and ART – stress and negative affect (in SRT) and declines in cognitive performance (in ART) – can be interpreted as discrepancies between an individual’s goals and their current situation, instead of drained affective and/or cognitive resources. We propose that affective (see SRT) and cognitive nature benefits (see ART) both arise from a process of discrepancy reduction, where nature helps individuals to reduce discrepancies between their current situation and their goals. Nature can facilitate this discrepancy reduction process through three pathways: (a) by modifying goals (i.e., accommodation), (b) by modifying interpretations of the situation (i.e., immunization), or (c) by affording actions that can fulfill thwarted goals (i.e., assimilation). We compare our account to SRT and ART, highlighting similarities and differences between our proposal and the two theories, and illustrate how it can guide empirical studies and real-life interventions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48439,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 102192"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A goal-discrepancy account of restorative nature experiences\",\"authors\":\"Yannick Joye ,&nbsp;Massimo Köster ,&nbsp;Florian Lange ,&nbsp;Maja Fischer ,&nbsp;Agnes Moors\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102192\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The role of nature in promoting both affective and cognitive benefits has been extensively studied in the field of environmental psychology. Two well-established theories, Stress Recovery Theory (SRT) and Attention Restoration Theory (ART), are commonly used to explain these restorative benefits. However, despite their popularity, both theories face important challenges. To address these challenges, in the current paper, we propose an alternative goal-discrepancy account of restorative nature experiences. In our account, we consider individuals as goal-directed agents and argue that the to-be-restored states that are central to SRT and ART – stress and negative affect (in SRT) and declines in cognitive performance (in ART) – can be interpreted as discrepancies between an individual’s goals and their current situation, instead of drained affective and/or cognitive resources. We propose that affective (see SRT) and cognitive nature benefits (see ART) both arise from a process of discrepancy reduction, where nature helps individuals to reduce discrepancies between their current situation and their goals. Nature can facilitate this discrepancy reduction process through three pathways: (a) by modifying goals (i.e., accommodation), (b) by modifying interpretations of the situation (i.e., immunization), or (c) by affording actions that can fulfill thwarted goals (i.e., assimilation). We compare our account to SRT and ART, highlighting similarities and differences between our proposal and the two theories, and illustrate how it can guide empirical studies and real-life interventions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Psychology\",\"volume\":\"93 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102192\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494423002402\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494423002402","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自然在促进情感和认知利益方面的作用在环境心理学领域得到了广泛的研究。两个公认的理论,压力恢复理论(SRT)和注意力恢复理论(ART),通常被用来解释这些恢复的好处。然而,尽管它们很受欢迎,但这两种理论都面临着重要的挑战。为了解决这些挑战,在本文中,我们提出了恢复性自然体验的另一种目标差异解释。在我们的研究中,我们认为个体是目标导向的行为体,并认为SRT和ART的核心状态——压力和负面情绪(在SRT中)以及认知表现的下降(在ART中)——可以被解释为个体目标与现状之间的差异,而不是情感和/或认知资源的枯竭。我们认为,情感(见SRT)和认知自然利益(见ART)都源于差异减少的过程,在这个过程中,自然帮助个体减少当前状况与目标之间的差异。大自然可以通过三种途径促进这种差异减少过程:(a)通过修改目标(即迁就),(b)通过修改对情况的解释(即免疫),或(c)通过提供能够实现受挫目标的行动(即同化)。我们将我们的解释与SRT和ART进行了比较,强调了我们的建议与两种理论之间的异同,并说明了它如何指导实证研究和现实生活中的干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A goal-discrepancy account of restorative nature experiences

The role of nature in promoting both affective and cognitive benefits has been extensively studied in the field of environmental psychology. Two well-established theories, Stress Recovery Theory (SRT) and Attention Restoration Theory (ART), are commonly used to explain these restorative benefits. However, despite their popularity, both theories face important challenges. To address these challenges, in the current paper, we propose an alternative goal-discrepancy account of restorative nature experiences. In our account, we consider individuals as goal-directed agents and argue that the to-be-restored states that are central to SRT and ART – stress and negative affect (in SRT) and declines in cognitive performance (in ART) – can be interpreted as discrepancies between an individual’s goals and their current situation, instead of drained affective and/or cognitive resources. We propose that affective (see SRT) and cognitive nature benefits (see ART) both arise from a process of discrepancy reduction, where nature helps individuals to reduce discrepancies between their current situation and their goals. Nature can facilitate this discrepancy reduction process through three pathways: (a) by modifying goals (i.e., accommodation), (b) by modifying interpretations of the situation (i.e., immunization), or (c) by affording actions that can fulfill thwarted goals (i.e., assimilation). We compare our account to SRT and ART, highlighting similarities and differences between our proposal and the two theories, and illustrate how it can guide empirical studies and real-life interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
8.70%
发文量
140
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Psychology is the premier journal in the field, serving individuals in a wide range of disciplines who have an interest in the scientific study of the transactions and interrelationships between people and their surroundings (including built, social, natural and virtual environments, the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability-related behavior). The journal publishes internationally contributed empirical studies and reviews of research on these topics that advance new insights. As an important forum for the field, the journal publishes some of the most influential papers in the discipline that reflect the scientific development of environmental psychology. Contributions on theoretical, methodological, and practical aspects of all human-environment interactions are welcome, along with innovative or interdisciplinary approaches that have a psychological emphasis. Research areas include: •Psychological and behavioral aspects of people and nature •Cognitive mapping, spatial cognition and wayfinding •Ecological consequences of human actions •Theories of place, place attachment, and place identity •Environmental risks and hazards: perception, behavior, and management •Perception and evaluation of buildings and natural landscapes •Effects of physical and natural settings on human cognition and health •Theories of proenvironmental behavior, norms, attitudes, and personality •Psychology of sustainability and climate change •Psychological aspects of resource management and crises •Social use of space: crowding, privacy, territoriality, personal space •Design of, and experiences related to, the physical aspects of workplaces, schools, residences, public buildings and public space
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信