Emotional Response to a Static Visual Stimulus of Nature Across Lower and Higher Anxiety-Depression Symptom Groups

Technical Summary: Emotional Response to a Static Visual Stimulus of Nature Across Lower and Higher Anxiety-Depression Symptom Groups

Problem Statement
While visual nature stimuli are well-documented to elicit emotional and physiological benefits in psychologically healthy populations (e.g., reduced heart rate, increased relaxation), it remains unclear whether these responses generalize to individuals with elevated anxiety and depression symptom burdens. Existing literature presents mixed evidence: some studies suggest that individuals with internalizing disorders may still experience mood improvements from nature imagery, while others indicate that high anxiety may blunt positive responses or that symptom severity moderates benefits. Theoretical frameworks such as Ulrich's Stress Reduction Theory, the Biophilia Hypothesis, and Attention Restoration Theory suggest mechanisms for positive engagement, yet it is uncertain if these mechanisms function effectively in the presence of chronic negative affectivity, rumination, and attentional biases associated with anxiety and depression. This study addresses the gap by examining whether emotional responses to a single, digitally presented forest photograph differ between adults with lower versus higher anxiety-depression symptom levels.

Methodology
The study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional online survey design with a convenience sample of 222 adults (Mean age = 25.42; 66 men, 155 women). The procedure involved:

1. Symptom Assessment: Participants completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to measure anxiety and depression severity.
2. Emotional Baseline: Recent emotional experiences (past two weeks) were assessed using the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE), focusing on negative affect indicators.
3. Stimulus Exposure: Participants viewed a single color photograph of a forest landscape.
4. Emotional Response Measurement: Following the image, participants indicated via a binary (yes/no) checklist whether specific emotions from Cowen and Keltner's (2017) taxonomy were evoked.
5. Statistical Analysis:
   • Latent Profile Analysis (LPA): Used GAD-7 and PHQ-7 total scores to identify participant subgroups. A two-class solution was retained based on interpretability and severity differentiation.
   • Group Comparisons: Welch's t-tests compared the lower-symptom and higher-symptom groups on SPANE negative affect scores and image-evoked emotion endorsements.
   • Corrections: False Discovery Rate (FDR) correction was applied to image-response comparisons to address multiple testing.

Key Results

• Grouping (H1): The LPA successfully identified two severity-based groups: a lower-symptom group (n = 93) and a higher-symptom group (n = 129). The higher-symptom group exhibited significantly elevated scores on both GAD-7 (M = 10.04) and PHQ-9 (M = 13.41) compared to the lower-symptom group. The classification showed moderate precision (Entropy = .61) and high agreement with simpler median-split and clinical cut-off rules, suggesting the groups represented overall symptom severity rather than qualitatively distinct latent profiles.
• Baseline Negative Affect (H2): The higher-symptom group reported significantly greater negative affect across all SPANE indicators during the previous two weeks (e.g., sadness, fear, anxiety, shame) compared to the lower-symptom group. All differences remained significant after FDR correction, with effect sizes ranging from d = -0.32 to -0.71.
• Image-Evoked Responses (H3): The forest image elicited predominantly positive and calming reactions (e.g., calmness, relaxation, inspiration) across the entire sample.
  • Positive Engagement: Both groups reported high endorsement of positive emotions, indicating that positive emotional engagement with nature imagery remains accessible even for those with elevated symptoms.
  • Negative Differentiation: The only emotion that remained significantly higher in the higher-symptom group after FDR correction was anxiety/worry (10.85% vs. 1.08% in the lower group, p = .035). Other negative emotions (e.g., sadness, doubt, helplessness) showed trends but did not survive FDR correction.
  • Demographics: No significant differences in age or gender composition were found between the two groups, ruling out these variables as confounders for the affective findings.

Significance and Claims
The paper claims that its findings are preliminary and stimulus-specific, cautioning against generalization to all nature imagery or real-world exposure due to the reliance on a single static image and binary response measures.

• Challenge to Deficit Models: The study suggests that positive emotional engagement with nature imagery is not uniformly dampened by anxiety and depression; individuals with high symptom burdens can still experience positive affective responses (e.g., calmness, relaxation) to a forest scene.
• Symptom-Specific Reactivity: While positive engagement is possible, the study identifies a specific vulnerability: individuals with higher anxiety-depression burdens are significantly more likely to report anxiety/worry in response to the same static nature stimulus. This supports the notion that internalizing symptoms may heighten vigilance or ambiguity sensitivity even when viewing restorative cues.
• Theoretical Contribution: The results contribute to the dialogue between communication science, affective psychology, and neuroaesthetics by demonstrating that visual cues can trigger affective meaning independent of verbal narrative. However, the authors emphasize that individual psychological factors (e.g., rumination, trauma history, baseline severity) and specific image characteristics modulate these responses.
• Clinical Implication: The findings suggest that while nature-based interventions may hold potential for individuals with internalizing disorders, clinicians must consider that these interventions are not universally benign; specific imagery may inadvertently trigger anxiety in vulnerable subgroups.

The authors conclude that the study should be viewed as exploratory, highlighting the need for future research utilizing multiple stimuli, graded emotion ratings, and psychophysiological measures to better understand the mechanisms of nature-induced emotional regulation in clinical populations.