1. Attention restoration theory:
Sorting out the
inconsistencies and the
question of saliency.
By Emily Baird
Supervised by Dr. D.G. Pearson
University of Aberdeen

2. Introduction
• Attention Restoration Theory (ART; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).
• Based on Directed Attention (DA) and Involuntary Attention (IA).
• Kaplan & Berman, 2010: DA fatigue results in impaired perceptions, problem
solving, inhibition, emotions and actions.
• Kaplan, 1995: Natural environments contain features that invoke soft fascination
[or IA]; the need for DA is minimized thus it can be replenished.
• Kaplan, 1995: Urban environments’ features (e.g. traffic) dramatically capture
hard fascination [or DA]. To overcome these distractions one must employ more
DA; thus they are less restorative.

3. Introduction
• Berman, Jonides & Kaplan, 2008: Experimental evidence from field and
laboratory studies support ART.
• Pearson & Craig, 2014: ART literature is based on a false dichotomy
between natural and urban scene content.
• Van der Jagt, 2014: Investigated inconsistency and saliency in static
environments,
• Classification task yields set of inconsistent natural and urban images;
• High saliency images were detected significantly faster.
• Built elements make inconsistent urban scenes more salient and natural ones less so;
=> Scene content and saliency may be important variables in Attention Restoration.

4. Methodology
• 72 participants (M=26 F=46) recruited in exchange for course credit (n=33);
from a university intranet advert (n=13) or from their accessibility to the
researcher (n=26). Ages range from 18 – 43, mean age is 22.
• Materials & Procedure: Replication of Berman et al. (2008, Ex2) with
inconsistent stimuli of high and low saliency; Natural Inconsistent High
Salience, Natural Inconsistent Low Salience, Urban Inconsistent High
Salience and Urban Inconsistent Low Salience.
• Design: Between Subjects, IV = images participants seen, DV = restoration
derived from difference in scores between the first and second administrations
of BDS and effects on mood measured by comparing ratings of positive and
negative affect before and after looking at images.
• Hypotheses: Expect a restorative effect for natural conditions and an effect of
saliency.

5. • Add your first bullet point here
• Add your second bullet point here
• Add your third bullet point here
NIHS NILS
UIHS UILS

6. Results
• Analysed with Analysis of Variance (ANOVA’s) and corrected with LSD post hoc tests.
• No significant effects of gender on restoration.
• Condition has an effect on restoration; F(3, 68) = 12.84, p < 0.001, due to category [of
natural/urban]; F(1, 68) = 37.57, p < 0.001. Pairwise comparisons reveal natural
conditions produce larger restoration than urban conditions.
• No significant effects of salience or salience x category interaction on restoration.
• Condition had no effect on positive affect.
• Negative affect was influenced by condition; F(3, 68) = 4.047; p = 0.01. Due to
category; F(1, 68) = 9.57, p = 0.03. Natural conditions significantly reduce negative
affect.
• No significant effects of salience or salience x category interaction on negative affect.

7. Graphs of Results
• Add your first bullet point
here
• Add your second bullet point
here
• Add your third bullet point
here

8. Discussion
• Inconsistent natural images produce a restorative effect. Replicates Berman
et al. (2008) finding from Ex2 and adds more ecological validity.
• No effect of salience, contrary to Van der Jagt (2014).
• No effect on positive affect as per Berman et al. (2008, Ex 2).
• Negative affect reduced after natural inconsistent images mean scenes like
these can improve mood… could be used in waiting rooms!
• No control condition, would require an affectively neutral stimulus.
• ART interventions for studying (Felsten, 2009); working in offices (Raanaas,
Evensen, Rich, Sjostorm & Patil, 2013) and architectural planning (Kellert,
2005).

9. References
• Berman, C. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefit of interacting with
nature. Psychological Science, 19, (12), 1207-1212.
• Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: an attention
restoration perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, (1), 160-167.
• Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
• Kaplan, S., & Berman, C., G. (2010). Directed attention as a common resource for executive
functioning and self regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5. (1), 43-57.
• Raanaas, R. K., Evensen, K. H., Rich, D., Sjostorm, G., & Patil, G. (2010). Benefits of indoor
plants on attention capacity in an office setting, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 99-
105.
• Kellert, S. (2005). Building for life: understanding the human-nature connection. Washington:
Island Press.
• Van der Jagt, A. P. N. (2014). Restorative environments: why the saliency of natural and built
scenes matter. Thesis presented for PHD at University of Aberdeen.
• Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, (6), 1063-1070.

10. Acknowledgements
• Thank you to Dr Pearson at the University of Aberdeen for supervising
me during the course of this project.
• Thanks to Tony Craig at the James Hutton Institute for being an
inspiration!
• And to Sander Van der Jagt at the Forestry Research Centre, without
his work I wouldn’t have been able to fulfil this project.
• Lastly, thanks to Mrs Hodges at Stenhousemuir Primary School, who,
one day many moons ago, gave us no homework other than to look out
of the window.