An Actual Natural Setting Improves Mood Better Than Its Virtual Counterpart: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Data

Matthew H E M Browning; Nathan Shipley; Olivia McAnirlin; Douglas Becker; Chia-Pin Yu; Terry Hartig; Angel M Dzhambov

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02200

An Actual Natural Setting Improves Mood Better Than Its Virtual Counterpart: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Data

Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 30:11:2200. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02200. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Matthew H E M Browning¹, Nathan Shipley², Olivia McAnirlin¹, Douglas Becker², Chia-Pin Yu^{3

4}, Terry Hartig^{5

6}, Angel M Dzhambov⁷

Affiliations

¹ Virtual Reality and Nature Lab, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.
² Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, United States.
³ Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
⁴ School of Forestry and Resource Conservation, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
⁵ Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
⁶ Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
⁷ Department of Hygiene and Ecomedicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

Abstract

Accumulating evidence indicates that simulated natural settings can engage mechanisms that promote health. Simulations offer alternatives to actual natural settings for populations unable to travel outdoors safely; however, few studies have contrasted the effects of simulations of natural settings to their actual outdoor counterparts. We compared the impacts of simulated and actual natural settings on positive and negative affect (mood) levels using a pooled sample of participants enrolled in extant experimental studies. Relevant articles were identified from a review of research published/in press by March 2020 and updated during the peer review of the current study. Of 16 articles identified, 6 met the inclusion criteria and administered a single cross-cutting, standardized instrument [the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)] before and after exposure. Random effects meta-analysis of pooled effects showed that positive affect increased in the actual settings but not in their simulated counterparts (Hedge's g = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.54, 1.20). We observed little difference in effects on negative affect change scores (g = -0.28; 95% CI, -0.62, 0.06), with studies generally showing reductions in negative affect in both settings. Further research with additional populations, settings, antecedent conditions, and durations would provide a more robust understanding of differences in effects between these two ways to enhance mood by viewing nature.

Keywords: emotion; environmental simulations; green space; mental health; restorative environments; systematic review; virtual reality.

Publication types

Systematic Review