跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.23.193) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/24 13:46
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:彭淑芳
研究生(外文):Shu-Fang Peng
論文名稱:自然景觀對人之心理生理反應及偏好和注意力恢復、反省能力之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Psychophysiological Response and Preference, Recovery, Reflection Effects of Natural Landscape
指導教授:張俊彥
指導教授(外文):Chun-Yen Chang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:園藝學研究所
學門:農業科學學門
學類:園藝學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:90
中文關鍵詞:注意力恢復反省心理生理學注意力疲乏
外文關鍵詞:Recoveryreflectionpsychophysiologyattentionally fatigued
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:10
  • 點閱點閱:462
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
「仁者樂山,智者樂水」,大部分的人對山景和海景的偏好可能不同,如同過去學者曾經提出的,就外觀而言,具有高偏好和高恢復潛力的景觀(如山和湖)是自然的、具有顯著的地形變化,而較高的偏好和注意力恢復評估往往與水體是否存在有關。山景與海景各具不同的環境元素,這些因素是否會影響偏好,而不同的偏好又是否會影響觀賞者觀看景觀後所獲得之注意力恢復(Recovery)及反省(Reflection)能力的程度,是本研究亟欲探討的。此外,本研究亦探討不同的自然景觀類型對觀賞者之心理生理(Psychophysiology)效益。
研究中首先以預設的注意力疲乏情節使觀賞者有注意力疲乏或無注意力疲乏,在使之觀看自然景觀中的山景或海景,請受測者想像在該環境中漫步一小時,最後以問卷測量其偏好、注意力恢復(Recovery)和反省(Reflection)程度,並在過程中以生理回饋儀器記錄其肌電值(Electromyography, EMG)與心跳(Heart Rate, HR)。
結果顯示,山景與海景在偏好和注意力恢復上達顯著,皆以海景之效益較高,但在反省程度上的差異不顯著;而有無注意力疲乏之差異對心理方面的影響皆未顯著,可能原因為注意力疲乏情節的效果被景觀所分散;心理生理方面,有無景觀刺激和有無注意力疲乏的差異達顯著,表示有觀看景觀之心理生理情形較佳,且有注意力疲乏者觀看景觀所獲得之心理生理效益大。但山景與海景的差異僅對肌電值(EMG)達顯著影響,以海景的效果較佳。此外,偏好與觀賞者之注意力恢復及反省能力皆有關,表示環境中的偏好評估愈高,觀賞者之注意力恢復及反省情形愈好。
“The benevolent like mountains and the wise like the sea.” Most people’s preferences for mountain and sea views vary as the two include numerous elements. Researchers have discovered that the most highly preferred and restorative scenes (hills and lakes) are natural and include significant variations in topography, particularly the presence of water. This paper seeks to report on the effects of these elements in regards to people’s preferences after accessing such views as well as people’s psychophysiological responses to different natural landscapes. First, we asked participants to imagine themselves as either attentionally fatigued or fully refreshed. We then projected slides for the participants to view that simulated a walk through the mountains or by the sea for one hour. During the course of experiment, a biofeedback system recorded participants’ electromyogram (EMG) and heart rates (HR). Participants subsequently rated their preferences, recovery, and reflection on a questionnaire. The results indicate that people’s preferences and recovery for mountain and sea views differ significantly, although their reflection did not. Sea views had greater effects than mountain views. In regards to psychological responses, the influence of being attentionally fatigued did not indicate any significant differences; this may be due participants’ distraction by the landscape. In regards to psychophysiological responses, the stimuli of the landscape and being attentionally fatigued demonstrated significant differences, meaning people can achieve more health outcomes by viewing natural scenes. Moreover, those with attentional fatigue showed greater outcomes than those without attentional fatigue. Finally, the EMG data indicated that sea views provided better responses than mountain views. In addition, preference correlated closely with recovery and reflection, meaning the greater the preference, the better the recovery and reflection.
目 錄
口試委員會審定書…………………………………………………... i
誌謝………………………………………………………………….. ii
中文摘要…………………………………………………………… iii
英文摘要……………………………………………………………. iv
第一章 緒論………………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究緣起………………………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的………………………………………………… 2
第三節 研究範圍………………………………………………… 3
第二章 文獻回顧………………………………………………………5
第一節 景觀知覺………………………………………………… 5
第二節 環境偏好………………………………………………… 7
第三節 注意力恢復力………………………………………… 12
第四節 景觀心理生理學………………………………………. 20
第三章 研究方法………………………………………………….. 25
第一節 研究架構與假設……………………………………….. 25 第二節 研究變項及操作性定義……………………………... 32
第三節 研究操作方式………………………………………... 35
第四章 結果分析與討論……………………………….…………… 45

第一節 樣本特性分析………………………….………………. 45
第二節 景觀刺激對觀賞者之心理生理效益…………......…… 47
第三節 景觀類型對觀賞者之效益……….….…….….…….…. 48
第四節 注意力疲乏情形對景觀類型之效益的影響…….…..…51
第五節 觀賞者之偏好與注意力恢復情形之相關性……..….…56
第六節 討論…………………………………………….………. 57
第五章 結論與建議……………………………………….………… 67
第一節 研究結論…………………………………….…………. 67
第二節 研究建議………………………………….……………..69


參考文獻……………………………………………………….……... 71
附錄一 有注意力疲乏問卷…………………………………………76
附錄二 無注意力疲乏問卷…………………………………………79
附錄三 文獻引用之原文…………………………………………… 82
1.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2.Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259.
3.Blankson, E. J. & Green, B. H. (1991). Use of Landscape Classification as an Essential Prerequisite to Landscape Evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 21, 149-162.
4.de Kort, Y. A. W., Meijnders, A. L., Sponselee, A. A. G., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2006). What’s wrong with virtual trees? Restoring from stress in a mediated environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 309-320.
5.Ellsworth, J. C. (1982). Visual assessment of rivers and marshes: An examination of the relationships of visual units, perceptual variables, and preference. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature (1989 ed.) (pp. 220-222). Cambridge: Cam¬bridge University Press.
6.Grahn, P. (1991). Landscapes in our minds: people''s choice of recreative places in towns. Landscape Research, 16, 11-19.
7.Han, K. T. (2003). A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 209–232.
8.Hartig, T., & Evans G. W. (1993). Psychological Foundations of Nature Experience. In T. Gärling & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Behavior and Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches(pp. 427-457). Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland.
9.Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123.
10.Hartig, T., Staats, H. (2003). Guest Editors’ introduction: Restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 103–107.
11.Hartig, T., Staats, H. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 215–226.
12.Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 225-241.
13.Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as two distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165-170.
14.Herzog, T. R., Chen, H. C., & Primeau, J. S. (2002). Perception of the restorative potential of natural and other settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 295-306.
15.Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159-170.
16.Herzog, T. R., & Kropscott, L. T. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest setting without pathway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233.
17.Izard, C. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion activation:cognitive and noncognitive processes. Psychological Review. 100, 68-90.
18.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.Kaplan, R. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 193-201.
20.Kaplan, S (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 169-182.
21.Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233.
22.Korpela, K., Klemettilä, T., & Hietanen, J. K. (2002). Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 634-650.
23.Lacey, J. I., & Lacey, B. C. (1970). Some autonomic-central nervous system interrelationships. In P. Black (Ed.), Physiological correlates of emotion (pp. 205-207). New York: Academic Press.
24.Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 31-44.
25.Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2003). Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 125-134.
26.Leff, H. L. & Gordon, L. R. (1979). Environmental Cognitive Sets. Environment and Behavior, 11(3), 291-327.
27.Purcell, A. T. & Lamb, R. J. (1984). Landscape perception: an examination and empirical investigation of two central issues in the area. Journal of Environmental Management, 19, 31-63.
28.Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Peron, E. M., & Falchero, S. (2001). Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 195-209.
29.Purcell, A. T., Peron, E. M., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 93-106.
30.Schroeder, H. W. (1986). Estimating park tree densities to maximize landscape aesthetics. Journal of Environmental Management, 23, 325-333.
31.Scott, M. J., & Canter, D. V. (1997). Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 263-281.
32.Shibata, B. & Suzuki, N. (2002). Effects of the foliage plant on task performance and mood. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 265-272.
33.Staats, H., Gatersleben, B., & Hartig, T. (1997). Change in mood as a function of environmental design:Arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 283-300.
34.Staats, H., Kieviet, A., & Hartig, T. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147-157.
35.Staats, H., & Hartig, T. (2004). Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 199-211.
36.Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913.
37.Stamps, A. E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24, 1-16.
38.Tennessen, C. M. & Cimprich, B. (1995). View to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77-85.
39.Trent, R. B., Neumann, E., & Kvashny, A. (1987). Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landscape and Urban Planning , 14, 225-235.
40.Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban Scenes:Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior,13(5), 523-556.
41.Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum Press.
42.Ulrich, R. S. (1984).View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420-421.
43.Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.
44.Ulrich, R. S. & R. Parsons (1992). Influences of Passive Experiences with Plants on Individual Well-Being and Health. In D. Relf (Ed.), The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development. Portland(pp. 93-105), OR: Timber Press.
45.Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & Van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration : (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-146.
46.Winton, W. M., Putnam, L. E., & Krauss, R. M. (1984). Facial and autonomic manifestations of the dimensional structure of emotion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20(3), 195-216.
47.Wohlwill, J. F. (1983). The concept of nature. A psychologist’s view. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment, Vol. 6 (pp. 5- 37). New York: Plenum Press.
48.Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L. & J. G. Taylor.(1982).Landscape perception:research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9:1-33.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊