ArticlePsychological research2024
Watching (natural) beauty boosts task performance: testing the nature-as-reward hypothesis.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chronic nature exposure does not moderate affective and attentional effects of acute nature exposure.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A minute can only be spent once: Validating a behavioral paradigm to study societally relevant time allocation conflicts.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- The scenicness of historic buildings rivals that of natural features: evidence from crowdsourced photographs of English urban areas.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In two online studies, we tested the "nature-as-reward hypothesis", which suggests that superior cognitive task performance following nature exposure reflects a general performance improvement, driven by the reward value of beautiful things. In both between-subjects experiments, participants viewed either beautiful or less beautiful images for 10 s, comprising beautiful mountain photos (vs. less beautiful mountain drawings) in Study 1 and beautiful fractals (vs. less beautiful pixelated images) in Study 2. Following image exposure, participants engaged in a ticking task requiring them to freely tick up to 200 boxes. Participants had to complete four (Study 1) or five (Study 2) of such ticking tasks, with each task being preceded by either a beautiful or less beautiful image. In Study 1, for a subset of participants the ticking task was framed as a game. We found that in Study 1, ticking declined over the ticking rounds when participants had viewed less beautiful line drawings of mountains, while ticking performance remained unchanged over the rounds after seeing beautiful mountain images. However, when the ticking task was framed as a game, there was no significant difference in ticking performance between the two beauty conditions over the four ticking rounds. In Study 2, participants ticked more boxes over all ticking rounds after viewing images of beautiful fractals compared to less beautiful pixelated images. In line with the nature-as-reward hypothesis, these findings show that brief exposures to beautiful (nature) images can motivate to work and that framing tasks as a game can attenuate this beauty advantage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38286855What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.