(photo by Jason Weisberger)
Recent research suggests that spending time in nature actually makes people "more caring." The studies, by University of Rochester psychologists Netta Weinstein, Andrew Przybylski, and Richard Ryan, showed that people exposed to nature (well, mostly slideshows of nature) put a higher value on intrinsic aspirations, such as doing good in the world or having meaningful relationships, and lower value on extrinsic aspirations, like making a lot of cash or admired by many people. Now as I mentioned, the participants didn't actually live outdoors for a while or anything as part of the study. Rather, in three of the studies, they looked at images of either the built environment or landscapes and such. And in the fourth, some participants were assigned to work in a laboratory either with or without plants around them. Then they answered a series of questions or were given tests of generosity. "The result? People who were in contact with nature were more willing to open their wallets and share. As with aspirations, the higher the immersion in nature, the more likely subjects were to be generous with their winnings."
More info and a video interview with one of the researchers after the jump.
From the University of Rochester:
Why should nature make us more charitable and concerned about others? One answer, says coauthor Andrew Przybylski, is that nature helps to connect people to their authentic selves. For example, study participants who focused on landscapes and plants reported a greater sense of personal autonomy ("Right now, I feel like I can be myself"). For humans, says Przybylski, our authentic selves are inherently communal because humans evolved in hunter and gatherer societies that depended on mutuality for survival."Nature Makes Us More Caring, Study Says" (University of Rochester)In addition, write the authors, the richness and complexity of natural environments may encourage introspection and the lack of man-made structures provide a safe haven from the man-made pressures of society. "Nature in a way strips away the artifices of society that alienate us from one another," says Przybylski.
"Can Nature Make Us More Caring? Effects of Immersion in Nature on Intrinsic Aspirations and Generosity" (paper abstract)
"The Moral Call of the Wild" (Scientific American, thanks Marina Gorbis!)
RSS Feed
Wow, that photo is... pretty much exactly the view from my apartment.
Very weird to see the same thing out the window as I'm typing this!
The thing is, that's the sunrise view from Sausalito of San Francisco Bay, Alcatraz, Angel Island, Richmond, and Berkeley. I don't disagree that nature makes us more caring, but the greater Bay are isn't exactly in, um, a pristine natural condition...
A very interesting piece. I'm confused, though, about the meaning of intrinsic and extrinsic as their used here. I thought that an extrinsic aspiration would be an aspiration that originates from outside one's self, ie. a kid going to college because her parents want her to. Conversely, an intrinsic aspiration would be one that an individual personally holds.
However, as it's used here, extrinsic means "concerned with others" and intrinsic means "concerned with yourself." Any thoughts on this?
@Anonymous#1, Yeah, but it's a pretty beautiful image of (mostly) nature isn't it?
Hmm. This is all a bit vague, professor.
Time spent watching worms eat your granny's corpse would also be time spent with nature.
Would you be more likely to 'share your winnings' after that?
Time spent looking at nice classical sculpture on the other hand might have a nice effect on you even though art != nature.
Can you reverse the effect? How many times?
@ Peter H.: Your understanding of it sounds to be related to the "source" of the aspiration, while it appears their usage is related to the "destination" of the person's concern, so it may just be a semantic difference based upon the frame of reference.
---
"Nature in a way strips away the artifices of society that alienate us from one another"
I can't find a reference to the article, but I remember reading a few years back about therapists who were exploring therapy wherein they'd have their sessions with clients while walking in nature. Their theory was that the physical motion, removal from built environments with certain social associations, and highly random / fractal-like complexity of visual patterns helped the clients to break through cognitive patterns and establish new contextual frames for their issues. This newer research seems to support that conclusion.
The dadaists would disagree. They argued that the captains of industry and high political figures were the ones who could afford to surround themselves with the beauty of nature, yet they were the ones that pushed WWI to happen.
My guess is yes. Confronting one's mortality is a really good way on increasing one's feeling of connection to your fellow, mortal creatures.
I dunno, I know plenty of serious hunters and fishermen who spend most of their free time outdoors and couldn't give a rat's ass about their fellow man unless they have something to gain.
Seems to me this conclusion is more insightful if the terms of the equation are reversed: "Time out of nature makes us less caring."
I know I have greater empathy with my fellow human beings when I am far, far away from them and their annoying ways.
I wonder if the difference depends on whether people view nature as work or as relaxation.
A fisherman or a park ranger both see nature constantly, and they see it as part of their job. When a ranger looks at a mountain, he's probably more interested in looking to see if there is smoke or a stranded hiker. It may not make him a more generous person. (Or it might -- without a study, it's hard to generalize from a few ornery fishermen.)
Whereas the participants in the study, almost certainly first-year college students, most likely live and work in the city. They are programmed to recognize sunsets as something relaxing, something to spend time looking at and not doing anything else. So viewing the images (or going out and looking at a real sunset) would naturally make them more relaxed, more at ease, and apparently more willing to open their wallets.
good post. I agree. would upvote.
In grad school, some of my cohort were studying "Ecological Psychology". One of the things I've wondered though with studies like this are "Are they only showing pleasant nature scenes? Are they only showing scenes that seem totally absent of humans?". If the first, well, not all of nature is equally pretty/calming. If the second, well, yeah, if we see the signs of being isolated it would make sense that we'd then put more effort into our relationships to try to make sure we don't lose them (humans are incredibly social critters). Also, in the end, "nature" is ... a gross over-simplification? Does it have to be "natural" to work? Or would a few less straight lines and few more greens in the color scheme be enough?
Which isn't to say there aren't valid findings here, but keep in mind that with these kind of studies, the researchers have a lot more reason to be biased in their interpretations because they have a specific goal somewhere in their minds "save nature". You're always going to get at least a little bit of a positive skew.
Time spent in nature makes me more caring and aware. Towards nature.