100% agree! In 2013, we set out to replicate the Kaplan-Berman study. We didn't get the same results. Some urban images had the same effect as some nature ones. One hypothesis was that because we had an architecture student photograph urban scenes for our urban stimuli, the urban photos were "too good". Certainly the urban photos were more complex than the stimuli used in the original study. Captured through the eye of a design student, maybe the buildings in those urban images were too interesting, perhaps "beautiful", and even potentially restorative. A low level features analysis of the images revealed many common properties between the nature and urban images. The points you make resonate with me. When we set up the dialogue as a categorical contrast between nature and urban, as opposing forces, as good versus evil, we miss out exploring the complex and rich spectrum of how humans perceive environments. Thank you for starting this conversation!
Hi Meredith and thanks for reading and commenting. Your experience trying to replicate Kaplan-Berman is exactly parallel to some findings of my graduate student Emily Grant. And informal discussions with at least one other group suggests that this may be even more widespread. I think that one problem with something like this is that the culture of science makes it difficult to publish negative results (though this is now slowly changing with pre-registered reports). Unless you're in with the in-crowd you may not know what has been tried and found wanting (nothing new here -- I remember chronic complaining about this when I was a grad student in the last century). If you keep reading here you'll see that I'm heading off in a slightly different direction, not focusing on the technical stuff in this realm of research and more on big-picture speculative ideas. But I suspect that you and I and perhaps a few others will be pursuing the specific questions you've raised about this post!
Also, while I'm at it, the overly simplistic dichotomizing that we like to do with big ideas like this doesn't just happen in science. I'm working on a book that pursues this tendency and the problems that it causes for all human life and activity. The one small issue we are talking about here unfolds into a massive hornet's nest of problems. At least in part I think this is what has landed us in our current messy global travails.
I really appreciate the inquisitive approach to this question. I have always struggled with the basic Savannah hypothesis. For thousands of generations many humans no longer inhabit savannahs - we lived in forests, tundra, mountains ..... and some of us in villages, towns and cities. I think a big clue is in our social lives. Perhaps humans felt drawn to their natural environments AND their social environments. The warmth of the fire in cave shared with a family band on a cold night has a strong pull. Perhaps the clue is in the restaurant scene you started with. I wonder if we are drawn to visuals that connect to human-centric spaces in which we can imagine ourselves. These can run a wide range of natural and urban spaces, but the important aspect is that we can see our own reflection as happy inhabitants of that environment.
Hi Paul. I like this idea of understanding the form of a place as a set of possibilities for what might happen in it. Some might call it an affordance!
100% agree! In 2013, we set out to replicate the Kaplan-Berman study. We didn't get the same results. Some urban images had the same effect as some nature ones. One hypothesis was that because we had an architecture student photograph urban scenes for our urban stimuli, the urban photos were "too good". Certainly the urban photos were more complex than the stimuli used in the original study. Captured through the eye of a design student, maybe the buildings in those urban images were too interesting, perhaps "beautiful", and even potentially restorative. A low level features analysis of the images revealed many common properties between the nature and urban images. The points you make resonate with me. When we set up the dialogue as a categorical contrast between nature and urban, as opposing forces, as good versus evil, we miss out exploring the complex and rich spectrum of how humans perceive environments. Thank you for starting this conversation!
Hi Meredith and thanks for reading and commenting. Your experience trying to replicate Kaplan-Berman is exactly parallel to some findings of my graduate student Emily Grant. And informal discussions with at least one other group suggests that this may be even more widespread. I think that one problem with something like this is that the culture of science makes it difficult to publish negative results (though this is now slowly changing with pre-registered reports). Unless you're in with the in-crowd you may not know what has been tried and found wanting (nothing new here -- I remember chronic complaining about this when I was a grad student in the last century). If you keep reading here you'll see that I'm heading off in a slightly different direction, not focusing on the technical stuff in this realm of research and more on big-picture speculative ideas. But I suspect that you and I and perhaps a few others will be pursuing the specific questions you've raised about this post!
Also, while I'm at it, the overly simplistic dichotomizing that we like to do with big ideas like this doesn't just happen in science. I'm working on a book that pursues this tendency and the problems that it causes for all human life and activity. The one small issue we are talking about here unfolds into a massive hornet's nest of problems. At least in part I think this is what has landed us in our current messy global travails.
I really appreciate the inquisitive approach to this question. I have always struggled with the basic Savannah hypothesis. For thousands of generations many humans no longer inhabit savannahs - we lived in forests, tundra, mountains ..... and some of us in villages, towns and cities. I think a big clue is in our social lives. Perhaps humans felt drawn to their natural environments AND their social environments. The warmth of the fire in cave shared with a family band on a cold night has a strong pull. Perhaps the clue is in the restaurant scene you started with. I wonder if we are drawn to visuals that connect to human-centric spaces in which we can imagine ourselves. These can run a wide range of natural and urban spaces, but the important aspect is that we can see our own reflection as happy inhabitants of that environment.
Hi Paul. I like this idea of understanding the form of a place as a set of possibilities for what might happen in it. Some might call it an affordance!