Environmental effects on creative thinking and the role of affect, arousal, and person-environment fit

Abstract

Natural and built physical environments have been shown to differentially affect individuals' emotional states, levels of physiological and cognitive arousal, and performance on a variety of cognitive tasks (Kaplan, 1995; Parsons, Tassinary, Ulrich, Hebl, & Grossman-Alexander, 1998; Ulrich et ah, 1991). Previous research has also indicated that creativity may be influenced by positive affect, negative affect, and arousal (James, Brodersen, & Eisenberg, 2004). Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that the degree of fit between the individual and the environment may affect creativity (Kaplan, 1995; Wohlwill, 1974). The present study examined differential responses to built and natural environments on indices of affect, arousal, and two measures of creative thinking (divergent and convergent thinking; Guilford, 1968; James et al., 2004). It was hypothesized that naturalistic environments would elicit more favorable evaluations and result in decreased negative affect and arousal, and improved positive affect, as compared to exposure to environments containing more built features. These changes in affect and arousal were then expected to impact performance on the creative thinking tasks, such that positive affect would promote creative thinking whereas negative affect and arousal would hinder it. Adding natural elements (e.g., green grass & trees) to a built environment scene was hypothesized to reduce the negative reactions otherwise expected for built environments. A good degree of fit between the individual and the environment, as determined by environmental attitudes and preference ratings, was also hypothesized to result in a positive emotional state and improved performance. Participants were exposed to one of five 10-minute videotapes showing either an urban traffic scene, an urban park scene, a forested mountain trail with people present, the same natural trail without people, or a control condition of people interacting in the same laboratory room where the study was conducted. Prior to exposure, participants completed a measure assessing environmental attitudes. Additionally, pre- and post-manipulation measures of affect and arousal were taken. After the experimental manipulation, participants completed a landscape assessment scale and the two creative thinking tasks. As expected, participant responses to the environmental simulations were influenced by the features present in the settings. Landscape assessment and preference ratings were generally more positive as the environments evidenced more natural features and fewer built features. Negative affect was highest for the control and urban conditions while positive affect and arousal did not vary between the experimental conditions. Affective and arousal responses did not influence performance on the creative thinking tasks, nor did exposure to the different environmental scenes. Person-environment fit influenced affect such that participants with a good fit reported more positive affect and less negative affect than those with a poor fit. Again, affective responses failed to influence creative thinking. The pattern of results suggests that the relationship between affect, arousal, and creativity may be more complicated than was previously believed. Theoretical implications and possible effects of the current operationalizations are discussed.