As we discussed last time, exposure to particularly beautiful scenes of nature leads us to feel more positive (e.g., happy and joyful), and influences our willingness to help others. If this is true, why don’t we just eliminate all human greed and corruption by simply imploring people to more frequently seek out these beautiful natural environments? Alright, perhaps a tad idealistic. But, assuming there is a correspondence between picturesque nature scenes and helping behavior, why can't this approach be one possible way to create a bit more cheer in the world?

One roadblock is that people must believe that exposure to nature is worthwhile and desirable. As it turns out, humans aren’t very good at estimating just how wonderful they will feel after spending time in nature. Research by Elizabeth Nisbet and John Zelenski speaks directly to this notion that people underestimate the positive effects of time spent in nature.

In an experimental study, Nisbet and Zelenski randomly assigned students to either go for a walk indoors or go for a walk outdoors in nature. All students predicted how positive the walk would make them feel, and after the walk they reported their emotional state.

What did the researchers find? Well, there were three discoveries of note. First, a walk outdoors led people to feel stronger positive emotions (e.g., happiness), and also led to stronger feelings of fascination and relaxation. Second, people underestimated just how good it would feel to go for a walk outdoors. This error is what scientists call an affective forecasting error (affective as in pertaining to emotions). Affective forecasting errors are just what they sound like – humans aren’t always very good at predicting how future social situations or physical environments will make them feel. Bottom line: it might be deceivingly easy to write off spending time outdoors in favor of remaining indoors.

Third, the researchers also discovered that when you go for a walk outdoors, you not only end up feeling those stronger positive emotions, but you also tend to feel more connected to nature. This is potentially important, as past research suggests that feeling connected to nature can spur people on to engage in behaviors that are beneficial to the natural environment (e.g., conserving gas and signing environmental petitions; Nisbet, Zelenski, & Murphy, 2009; Schultz, 2001).

This research provides some evidence that going for a walk outdoors will make you feel better as compared to going for a walk indoors, even if you don’t predict that the walk outdoors will make you feel better. However, the social sciences are complex, and additional questions always remain. How do we help people more accurately assess the positive emotional effects of going for a walk outdoors? How do we create these walking opportunities for individuals who might not have access to safe walking paths in natural settings? Would using other forms of transportation, such as biking or driving, also lead to more positive emotions if they are conducted in more natural environments, as compared to a bike ride or drive through a bustling city?

What do you think?

Imagine that you are sitting beneath a large oak tree adjacent to a sparkling blue lake, the cool shade and light breeze relaxing your mind and warming your spirit. You hear the sound of birds in the distance. Then, out of the corner of your eye, you spot a stranger slowly approaching you. She explains that her vehicle is nearly out of gas, and that she is in need of a bit of money to make it back to the city.

Now envision a similar scenario, but instead of that beautiful oak tree with branches extended overhead, there now only remains a scarred, broken oak tree, torn asunder by a past lightning strike. The lake is a greenish-brown, and the afternoon sun blinds your eyes. The wind blows stiff and strong off of the lake, chilling you to the core. The same stranger approaches, with the same appeal. Would finding yourself in one of these two nature settings influence your chances of donating money to the stranger?

Recent research by Jia Wei Zhand and colleagues (link) suggests that the difference between experiencing a particularly beautiful nature scene, as compared to a less idyllic nature scene, does actually translate into differences in one’s willingness to help other people.

In this research, people were randomly assigned to view either pictures of particularly beautiful nature scenes, or pictures of comparable but less picturesque nature scenes. The researchers found that individuals who viewed the especially beautiful nature scenes were more trusting of others, and also more likely to share a nominal amount of money with strangers. In one version of the study, individuals even came into the research lab and were unknowingly randomized to being in a room with numerous beautiful plants, or instead numerous ugly plants. The researchers found that the people placed in the room with the beautiful plants were willing to donate more time to provide earthquake survivors with emotional support.

Why did simple differences between types of pictures or types of plants influence individuals’ tendencies to help others? The beautiful nature scenes made people feel stronger positive emotions (e.g., happiness, joy, delight). A theory called ”broaden-and-build theory” (Fredrickson, 2001) proposes that when humans experience positive emotions, they broaden their perspective and focus more on long-term goals, including goals relevant to building a positive and healthy community. This orientation can lead to increases in a person’s willingness to help others.

In addition, the researchers also considered how people differ in their ability to be whisked away by beautiful experiences, including beautiful scenes of nature. What they actually found was that only these individuals, those who are particularly influenced by beauty, became more willing to trust and help others after experiencing beautiful nature scenes.

This research provides some evidence that the beauty of your surroundings can influence your willingness to help others. However, the social sciences are complex, and additional questions always remain. What specific features of a beautiful nature setting (e.g., tall trees, a cloudless sky, distant mountains) increase a person’s positive emotions and helping behavior? Would spending actual time outdoors in these disparate settings more drastically influence trust and rates of helping behavior? Finally, would experiencing a terrifying nature scene, such as a raging storm or a forest fire, decrease a person’s positive emotions, thus decreasing helping behaviors?

What do you think? Let me know below.