Running head: PERCEIVED RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL 1 Appendix A Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables in Study 1 and Study 2 Study 1 Study 2 Measure n % n % Total Sample 722 281 Gender Male 294 40.7 115 40.9 Female 428 59.3 166 59.1 Not reported 0 0.0 0 0.0 Race/Ethnicity Caucasian/White 554 76.7 224 79.7 African American/Black 65 9.0 21 7.5 Hispanic or Latino 40 5.5 16 5.7 Asian 41 5.7 15 5.3 Middle Eastern 4 0.6 0 0.0 Other 17 2.4 5 1.8 Not reported 1 0.1 0 0.0 Native English speaker Yes 705 97.6 276 98.2 No 17 2.4 5 1.8 Annual income Under $35,000 274 38.0 119 42.3 $35,000 to $49,999 139 19.3 56 19.9 $50,000 to $64,999 87 12.0 36 12.8 $65,000 to $79,999 73 10.1 31 11.0 $80,000 to $94,999 37 5.1 8 2.8 $95,000 to $109,999 36 5.0 14 5.0 $110,000 to $124,999 19 2.6 9 3.2 $125,000 to $139,999 14 1.9 3 1.1 $140,000 to $154,999 5 0.7 3 1.1 $155,000 to $169,999 7 1.0 1 0.4 $170,000 to $184,999 6 0.8 0 0.0 $185,000 to $199,999 3 0.4 0 0.0 $200,000 to $214,999 5 0.7 0 0.0 $215,000 to $229,999 0 0.0 0 0.0 $230,000 to $249,999 4 0.6 0 0.0 More than $250,000 11 1.5 1 0.4 Not reported 2 0.3 0 0.0 Education
27
Embed
ars.els-cdn.com · Web viewParticipants rated how visually appealing each environment appeared, using a sliding continuous scale ranging from 0 (not at all visually appealing ) to
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Running head: PERCEIVED RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL 1
Appendix A
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables in Study 1 and Study 2
Study 1 Study 2Measure n % n %Total Sample 722 281Gender Male 294 40.7 115 40.9 Female 428 59.3 166 59.1 Not reported 0 0.0 0 0.0Race/Ethnicity Caucasian/White 554 76.7 224 79.7 African American/Black 65 9.0 21 7.5 Hispanic or Latino 40 5.5 16 5.7 Asian 41 5.7 15 5.3 Middle Eastern 4 0.6 0 0.0 Other 17 2.4 5 1.8 Not reported 1 0.1 0 0.0Native English speaker Yes 705 97.6 276 98.2 No 17 2.4 5 1.8Annual income Under $35,000 274 38.0 119 42.3 $35,000 to $49,999 139 19.3 56 19.9 $50,000 to $64,999 87 12.0 36 12.8 $65,000 to $79,999 73 10.1 31 11.0 $80,000 to $94,999 37 5.1 8 2.8 $95,000 to $109,999 36 5.0 14 5.0 $110,000 to $124,999 19 2.6 9 3.2 $125,000 to $139,999 14 1.9 3 1.1 $140,000 to $154,999 5 0.7 3 1.1 $155,000 to $169,999 7 1.0 1 0.4 $170,000 to $184,999 6 0.8 0 0.0 $185,000 to $199,999 3 0.4 0 0.0 $200,000 to $214,999 5 0.7 0 0.0 $215,000 to $229,999 0 0.0 0 0.0 $230,000 to $249,999 4 0.6 0 0.0 More than $250,000 11 1.5 1 0.4 Not reported 2 0.3 0 0.0Education < High school diploma 4 0.6 2 0.7 High school diploma 85 11.8 28 10.0 Some college or voc. 228 31.6 105 37.4 2-year college degree 77 10.7 29 10.3 4-year college degree 238 33.0 90 32.0 Post college degree 90 12.5 27 9.6
PERCEIVED RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL 2
Appendix B
Image Selection Procedure for Study 1
We selected 60 images from a larger database of 180 images (60 natural, 60 mixed, and
60 built). We sourced images from an online open-source image database (Wikimedia
Commons) and from two professors, one a landscape architect and the other an urban planner.
Our intention was to obtain a final image set for which average visual appeal did not
significantly differ among natural, built, and mixed categories, and for which a range of visual
appeal was represented in each image category. This would allow us to better control for the
potential influence of visual appeal on the relationship between naturalness and perceived
restoration.
To choose the final 60 images used in both experiments, a separate sample of 56
undergraduate students (30 men; Mage = 18.65, SDage = 0.91) rated the 180 images on visual
appeal as part of an online study for which they received course credit. Images were randomly
presented through the web-based survey program Qualtrics. Participants rated how visually
appealing each environment appeared, using a sliding continuous scale ranging from 0 (not at all
visually appealing) to 100 (very visually appealing). The values in between the numbered scale
anchors were not visible to participants. We decided to use a large ranged scale to capture more
precisely the potential variability across environments.
We calculated mean visual appeal for each image. Within each environment category
(natural, mixed, built), the 60 images were binned into 10 relatively equal ranges of visual appeal
ratings (average bin sizes: built = 5.28 visual appeal units; mixed = 6.39 visual appeal units;
natural = 5.92 visual appeal units). We created bins to ensure that the final image set included
images ranging from low to high visual appeal within each image category. Depending on the
PERCEIVED RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL 3
distribution of visual appeal ratings within each category, each bin contained between 1 and 12
images. To create the final image set for Study 1, two images were randomly selected from each
bin, which allowed the entire range of visual appeal ratings to be represented. The exceptions to
this rule were: 1) we always selected nature images containing people. This is because those
examples were rare but necessary, in order to make comparisons to the mixed and built images
that contained people; and, 2) if a bin only contained one image, then the next highest or lowest
rated image was moved into that bin so that at least two images were represented in every bin.
For the final image set, mean visual appeal still significantly differed among environment
categories, F(2,57) = 4.88, p = .01, but only when comparing natural to built environments, t(59)
= 3.12, d = 0.99, 95% CI on d [0.32, 1.64], p = .008. Natural environments did not differ from
mixed environments, t(59) = 1.45, d = 0.45, 95% CI on d [-0.17, 1.08], p = .32, and mixed
environments did not differ from built environments, t(59) = 1.67, d = 0.53, 95% CI on d [-0.11,
1.16], p = .22 (natural: M = 57.28, SD = 17.96; mixed: M = 49.33, SD = 18.55; built: M = 40.17,
SD = 15.33). Thus, we were able to use images ranging in visual appeal, but we could not
perfectly equate visual appeal across environment categories.
PERCEIVED RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL 4
Appendix C
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Individual Differences Questionnaire in Study 1 and Study 2
Study 1 Study 2Measure, Scale range range M SD alpha range M SD alphaShyness & Sociability Scales for Adults Sociability, 1 (low) to 5 (high) 1 – 5 2.63 0.88 .83 Shyness, 1 (low) to 5 (high) 1 – 5 3.09 1.00 .85Big Five Extraversion, -3 (low) to 3 (high) -3 – 3 -0.39 1.59 .67Number of hours spent indoors today, 0-24 hours 0 – 24 8.02 4.71Modified Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index .75 Hours of sleep last night 1 – 15 7.10 1.70 Sleep quality last night, 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good) 1 – 5 3.42
0.99
How rested do you feel?, 1 (not at all) to 5 (very) 1 – 5 3.22 1.18 Average hours of sleep past week 3 – 12 7.07 1.29 Sleep quality past week, 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good) 1 – 5 3.36
Note. Correlations are performed on the z-score transformed data. M and SD represent mean and standard deviation, respectively, and were calculated using the untransformed data for ease of interpretation. Fatigue and wakefulness are factor scores. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.Table 5 Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations
Note. Correlations are performed on the z-score transformed data. M and SD represent mean and standard deviation, respectively, and were calculated using the untransformed data for ease of interpretation. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.
PERCEIVED RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL 13
Appendix G
Distributions before and after logit transformation
Naturalness – Study 1
Perceived restorative potential – Study 1
PERCEIVED RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL 14
Visual appeal – Study 1
Presence of people – Study 1
PERCEIVED RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL 15
Perceived restorative potential – Study 2
PERCEIVED RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL 16
Appendix H
Table 6
Study 1 Variance Inflation Factors and Tolerance for Mixed Effects Model