ArticleJournal of global health2025
Stress reduction from landscape painting and live nature viewing: a comparative experimental study.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Societal trends indicate a decreasing frequency of visits to natural settings and an increasing withdrawal from such environments. Separation from natural environments may lead individuals to miss out on the health benefits associated with direct exposure to nature, including stress reduction and positive mood enhancement. Given these trends, surrogate exposures to live nature exposure might comparably reduce stress and are worth exploring. This experimental study contrasts stress reduction from viewing landscape paintings vs. live nature in situ. Methods: We used sensor-monitored skin conductance and survey instruments on 37 older adults who are regular museum visitors to measure individual stress recovery and improvements in mood indicators for each nature viewing treatment, outdoor park and indoor landscape paintings, conducted during a museum-based educational programme in May 2022 in the Northeastern USA. Results: Difference-in-difference analyses on survey data identified stress reduction of comparable statistical magnitude following both viewing types. However, significantly lower average levels of physiological arousal as measured by skin conductance were observed among park viewers (α = 0.126 for park viewing vs. α = 1.172 for gallery viewing). Regression analysis comparing slopes and rates of change in stress reduction during the calming events revealed a faster rate of stress reduction during the gallery viewing (β = -0.217 for the gallery vs. β = -0.066 for the park). Conclusions: Findings from this research could be relevant for populations without live nature access or disinclined to go outdoors by offering alternatives to first-person nature contact that reduce stress and enhance positive affect as observed following nature viewing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.