Tutorial: Theoretical considerations when planning research on human factors in lighting

\u3cp\u3eResearch on human functioning is notoriously difficult. This particularly holds for the study of light effects, at least if one wants to go beyond establishing that changes in light “have an effect” and understand why this effect occurs—in other words, if one wants to make causal inferences about the mechanism behind it. The latter is, of course, crucial for generalizing insights and being able to use them effectively in other contexts. The culmination of many decades of research has taught us that light affects psychological functioning in numerous ways and through various pathways. This implies that, regardless of the investigator’s particular interests in either of those mechanisms, generally all will be at play, simultaneously, for participants in any lighting study. The present tutorial aims to address this complexity and how to deal with it by concisely describing the most important pathways that we currently are aware of. Such awareness is important both in contemplating the design and methodology of a study and in interpreting results from other studies and generalizing them to a particular application or light design.\u3c/p\u3

Thinking of nature:associations with natural versus urban environments and their relation to preference

\u3cp\u3ePeople generally prefer natural over urban environments, but little is known about what people think about when they see these environments. The aim of the present study was to investigate the associations with these scenes and their relation with preference. In a series of three studies 336 participants were asked to generate associations with photos. Study One manipulated naturalness of the environment as well as weather type. The data were analysed quantitatively by asking participants to rate the associations on valence, and qualitatively by a post hoc pile-sorting task on the associations. We found that associations with natural and sunny environments were more positive than those with urban and overcast environments. Natural scenes seem to elicit mainly positively valenced associations, whereas associations with urban environments were mixed. Content analyses confirmed these outcomes, indicating that how we experience an environment as well as its’ restorative potential are important for preference formation.\u3c/p\u3

Stopping the train of thought:A pilot study using an Ecological Momentary Intervention with twice-daily exposure to natural versus urban scenes to lower stress and rumination

\u3cp\u3eBackground: Stress, and specifically perseverative cognition, is considered to have considerable detrimental effects on mental and physical health. Interventions that can offer temporary stress relief could, therefore, bring considerable health benefits. Previous research has pointed to stress-reducing effects of exposure to nature after acute stressors, but has not yet investigated effects in the realm of everyday life. The present pilot study explores whether an ecological momentary intervention using exposure to natural images could be effective in lowering stress and improve mood. Methods: Fifteen participants (12 females) scoring above threshold on stress, depression, or anxiety completed two study periods of 6 days. They watched an urban (control) or natural slideshow twice daily. Using Ecological Momentary Assessment, effects on mood, and stress-related complaints were measured in everyday life. Results: Compliance to the study protocol was high, especially in the first week, with slightly more videos watched in the morning than in the evening. We found indications of improvements in mood, self-reported worrying (but not stress levels), and heart rate. Conclusions: The results suggest that twice-daily exposure to restorative visual content could be a viable Ecological Momentary Intervention, with the potential to reduce self-reported worry, lower autonomic activity, and increase positive affect.\u3c/p\u3