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

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.

What is the best way of delivering virtual nature for improving mood? An experimental comparison of high definition TV, 360° video, and computer generated virtual reality

“…For example ( Anderson et al, 2017 ; Browning, Mimnaugh, et al, 2020 ) both showed stronger effects of nature 360-VR on negative than positive affect, and ( Chirico & Gaggioli, 2019 ) found that 360-VR reduced sadness to a greater extent than even real nature. A recent meta-analysis showed that positive affect only increased in real (but not simulated) natural settings, whereas negative affect improved to a similar extent in both contexts ( Browning et al, 2020 ). Browning and colleagues have explored possible reasons for this, including the idea that being “sealed in” to VR nature by way of a HMD may provide a greater opportunity to escape negative thoughts and excessive cognitive demands, allowing for faster and more complete recovery of attentional processes, and associated reduction in negative affect ( Browning, Mimnaugh, et al, 2020 ).…”

Editorial: Human-Nature Interactions: Perspectives on Conceptual and Methodological Issues

“…While we encourage researchers to make use of this technology in experimental design to enhance methodological rigor, we also warn about challenges associated with this technology. While VR and IVE technology can provide more vivid experiences of nature as compared to non-immersive virtual exposure (e.g., videos or pictures), recent analyses show that exposure to virtual nature provides psychological responses to a lesser extent than real nature (Browning et al, 2020). This needs to be taken into account when interpreting findings of experiments using environmental exposure via VR or IVE.…”

The Self and Its Nature: A Psychopathological Perspective on the Risk-Reducing Effects of Environmental Green Space for Psychosis

“…Some further evidence suggests that being exposed to real green and blue space induces psychophysiological and behavioral responses that can be differentiated from those induced by the same environments when reproduced by visual media (Huang, 2009;Huang et al, 2019). Similarly, a recent meta-analysis showed that real natural settings benefit mood to a greater degree than simulated settings (Browning et al, 2020).…”