nature research studies

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Alzheimer's disease articles from across Nature Portfolio

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that impairs memory and cognitive judgment and is often accompanied by mood swings, disorientation and eventually delirium. It is the most common cause of dementia.

Five biomarkers from one cerebrospinal fluid sample to stage Alzheimer’s disease

Staging Alzheimer’s disease on the basis of the disease’s biological underpinnings might help with stratification and prognostication, both in the clinical setting and in clinical trials. We propose a staging model based on only five biomarkers, which are related to amyloid-β and tau pathologies in different ways and can be measured with a single sample of cerebrospinal fluid.

Latest Research and Reviews

Repurposing non-pharmacological interventions for Alzheimer's disease through link prediction on biomedical literature

• Yongkang Xiao

Endothelial DR6 in blood-brain barrier malfunction in Alzheimer’s disease

• Xiaomin Huang

Longitudinal markers of cerebral amyloid angiopathy and related inflammation in rTg-DI rats

• Joseph M. Schrader
• William E. Van Nostrand

Adenosine triphosphate induces amorphous aggregation of amyloid β by increasing Aβ dynamics

• Masahiro Kuramochi
• Momoka Nakamura
• Kazuaki Yoshimune

Multi-modal Neuroimaging Phenotyping of Mnemonic Anosognosia in the Aging Brain

Bueichekú et al. use multimodal in vivo neuroimaging to investigate the brain characteristics of individuals presenting unawareness of memory loss who are at risk of Alzheimer’s disease due to age. They find unawareness of memory decline is an early behavioral sign that a person might develop Alzheimer’s disease.

• Elisenda Bueichekú
• Patrizia Vannini

Plasma brain-derived tau is an amyloid-associated neurodegeneration biomarker in Alzheimer’s disease

The authors investigated associations of brain-derived-tau (BD-tau) with Aβ pathology, changes in cognition and MRI signatures. Staging Aβ-pathology according to neurodegeneration, using BD-tau, identifies individuals at risk of near-term cognitive decline and atrophy.

• Fernando Gonzalez-Ortiz
• Bjørn-Eivind Kirsebom
• Kaj Blennow

News and Comment

Neuronal activity drives glymphatic waste clearance.

Two new studies show that clearance of waste, including pathogenic amyloid, through the glymphatic system is driven by synchronized neuronal activity.

A test for Alzheimer’s-disease stage predicts dementia risk

Levels of a host of molecules in the cerebrospinal fluid reliably assess development of the disease.

A timeline of biomarker changes before Alzheimer’s disease

Longitudinal data from the China Cognition and Aging Study map the sequential biomarker changes that begin almost two decades before clinical onset of Alzheimer’s disease.

• Karen O’Leary

Hearing loss promotes Alzheimer’s disease

Epidemiological studies reveal a correlation between hearing loss and the development and progression of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but the underlying causal mechanisms remain unclear. A study now provides experimental evidence that hearing loss can promote AD via the growth differentiation factor 1 (GDF1) pathway, which may aid in developing potential AD therapeutic strategies.

• Hong-Bo Zhao

Ultrasound and antibodies — a potentially powerful combination for Alzheimer disease therapy

Success in a trial of low-intensity ultrasound combined with an amyloid-β antibody represents a major stride towards integrating pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches to reduce the amyloid-β load in patients with mild Alzheimer disease. This trial also highlights the potential of therapeutic ultrasound modalities to combat neurodegenerative diseases.

• Jürgen Götz
• Pranesh Padmanabhan

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Do Experiences With Nature Promote Learning? Converging Evidence of a Cause-and-Effect Relationship

1 Landscape and Human Health Laboratory, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States

Michael Barnes

2 Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States

Catherine Jordan

3 Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States

4 Children & Nature Network, Minneapolis, MN, United States

Associated Data

Do experiences with nature – from wilderness backpacking to plants in a preschool, to a wetland lesson on frogs—promote learning? Until recently, claims outstripped evidence on this question. But the field has matured, not only substantiating previously unwarranted claims but deepening our understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between nature and learning. Hundreds of studies now bear on this question, and converging evidence strongly suggests that experiences of nature boost academic learning, personal development, and environmental stewardship. This brief integrative review summarizes recent advances and the current state of our understanding. The research on personal development and environmental stewardship is compelling although not quantitative. Report after report – from independent observers as well as participants themselves – indicate shifts in perseverance, problem solving, critical thinking, leadership, teamwork, and resilience. Similarly, over fifty studies point to nature playing a key role in the development of pro-environmental behavior, particularly by fostering an emotional connection to nature. In academic contexts, nature-based instruction outperforms traditional instruction. The evidence here is particularly strong, including experimental evidence; evidence across a wide range of samples and instructional approaches; outcomes such as standardized test scores and graduation rates; and evidence for specific explanatory mechanisms and active ingredients. Nature may promote learning by improving learners’ attention, levels of stress, self-discipline, interest and enjoyment in learning, and physical activity and fitness. Nature also appears to provide a calmer, quieter, safer context for learning; a warmer, more cooperative context for learning; and a combination of “loose parts” and autonomy that fosters developmentally beneficial forms of play. It is time to take nature seriously as a resource for learning – particularly for students not effectively reached by traditional instruction.

Introduction

The intuition that “nature is good for children” is widely held, and yet, historically, the evidence for this intuition has been uncompelling, with a distressing number of weak studies and inflated claims. Now, however, an impressive body of work has accrued and converging lines of evidence paint a convincing picture.

This integrative mini-review (see Supplementary Material for methods) summarizes what we know about the role of nature experiences in learning and development. It draws on a wide array of peer-reviewed scientific evidence, ranging from research in the inner city, to the study of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, to neurocognitive and physiological explorations. Our overarching question was, “do nature experiences promote learning and child development?”

Throughout our review, we took care to distinguish between evidence for cause-and-effect relationships and evidence for associations; causal language (e.g., “affects,” “boosts,” “is reduced by”) is used only where justified by experimental evidence. Where converging, but not experimental, evidence points to a likely cause-and-effect relationship, our language is qualified accordingly (e.g., “seems to increase”). Table 1 summarizes recent advances in this area and explains how those advances contribute to our confidence in a cause-and-effect relationship between nature and learning and development.

Do nature experiences promote learning? Advances in methodology and evidence.

What emerged from this critical review was a coherent narrative ( Figure 1 ): experiences with nature do promote children’s academic learning and seem to promote children’s development as persons and as environmental stewards – and at least eight distinct pathways plausibly contribute to these outcomes. Below, we discuss the evidence for each of the eight pathways and then the evidence tying nature to learning, personal development, and the development of stewardship.

Nature-based learning: exposures, probable mechanisms, and outcomes. This Figure summarizes the state of the scientific literature on nature and learning. The items and pathways here emerged from our review as opposed to guiding our review; thus each item listed has been empirically associated with one or more other items in the figure. Relationships for which there is cause-and-effect evidence are indicated with an asterisk; for example, “more able to concentrate” is asterisked because experimental research has demonstrated that exposure to nature boosts concentration. Similarly, “increased retention of subject matter” is asterisked because experimental research has demonstrated that exposure to nature in the course of learning boosts retention of that material. Here and throughout this review, causal language (e.g., “affects,” “increases,” “boosts,” “is reduced by”) is used only where experimental evidence (the gold standard for assessing cause-and-effect) warrants. Where converging evidence suggests a causal relationship but no experimental evidence is available, we use qualified causal language (e.g., “seems to increase”). The green box lists forms of nature exposure that have been tied with learning, whether directly (nature -> learning) or indirectly, via one or more of the mechanisms listed (nature -> mechanism -> learning). In this review, “nature” includes experiences of nature not only in wilderness but also within largely human-made contexts. Thus a classroom with a view of trees offers an experience of nature not offered by its counterpart facing the school parking lot. This review encompassed experiences of nature regardless of context – whether through play, relaxation, or educational activities, and in informal, non-formal and formal settings. The blue boxes show probable mechanisms – intermediary variables which have been empirically tied to both nature and learning. For example, the ability to concentrate is rejuvenated by exposure to nature and plays an important role in learning. Natural settings may affect learning both by directly fostering a learner’s capacity to learn and by providing a more supportive context for learning. The purple box lists learning outcomes that have been tied to contact with nature. In this review, “learning” encompasses changes in knowledge, skills, behaviors, attitudes, and values. A database of articles found in the three phases of the review process (ending in 2018) is available at: https://goo.gl/FZ1CA9 .

Nature May Boost Learning Via Direct Effects on Learners

Five of the eight plausible pathways between nature and learning we identified are centered in the learner. Learning is likely to improve when a learner is more attentive ( Rowe and Rowe, 1992 ; Mantzicopoulos and Morrison, 1994 ); less stressed ( Grannis, 1992 ; Leppink et al., 2016 ); more self-disciplined ( Mischel et al., 1988 ; Duckworth and Seligman, 2005 ); more engaged and interested ( Taylor et al., 2014 for review); and more physically active and fit (for reviews, see Álvarez-Bueno et al., 2017 ; Santana et al., 2017 ). Evidence suggests that contact with nature contributes to each of these states or conditions in learners.

Nature Has Rejuvenating Effects on Attention

The rejuvenating effect of nature on mentally fatigued adults (e.g., Hartig et al., 1991 ; Kuo, 2001 ) and children has been demonstrated in a large body of studies, including field experiments ( Faber Taylor and Kuo, 2009 ) and large-scale longitudinal studies ( Dadvand et al., 2015 ). Students randomly assigned to classrooms with views of greenery perform better on concentration tests than those assigned to purely “built” views or windowless classrooms ( Li and Sullivan, 2016 ). Nature’s rejuvenating effects on attention have been found in students going on field trips ( van den Berg and van den Berg, 2011 ), Swedish preschoolers ( Mårtensson et al., 2009 ), children in Chicago public housing ( Faber Taylor et al., 2002 ), and 5 to 18-year-olds with ADHD (e.g., Kuo and Faber Taylor, 2004 ), using measures of attention ranging from parent and teacher ratings ( O’Haire et al., 2013 ) to neurocognitive tests ( Schutte et al., 2015 ).

Nature Relieves Stress

The stress-reducing effects of nature have been documented in adults in a large body of controlled experiments (see Kuo, 2015 ; Supplementary Material for review) and the available evidence points to a similar effect in children. Nature has been related to lower levels of both self-reported and physiological measures of stress in children ( Bell and Dyment, 2008 ; Chawla, 2015 ; Wiens et al., 2016 ). Recently, an experimental study showed that a window view of vegetation from a high school classroom yields systematic decreases in heart rate and self-reported stress, whereas built views do not ( Li and Sullivan, 2016 ). Further, students learning in a forest setting one day a week showed healthier diurnal rhythms in cortisol in that setting than a comparison group that learned indoors – cortisol dropped over the course of the school day when lessons were held in the forest but not in the classroom – and these effects could not be attributed to the physical activity associated with learning outdoors ( Dettweiler et al., 2017 ).

Contact With Nature Boosts Self-Discipline

In adults, the effects of viewing scenes of nature on self-discipline have been demonstrated experimentally using tests of impulse control ( Berry et al., 2014 ; Chow and Lau, 2015 ). In children, nature contact has been tied to greater self-discipline in children from inner city Chicago ( Faber Taylor et al., 2002 ) to residential Barcelona ( Amoly et al., 2014 ) and in experimental ( Sahoo and Senapati, 2014 ), longitudinal ( Ulset et al., 2017 ), and large-scale cross-sectional studies ( Amoly et al., 2014 ). These benefits have been shown for neurotypical children as well as for children with ADHD ( Sahoo and Senapati, 2014 ) and learning difficulties ( Ho et al., 2017 ). The types of self-discipline assessed include delay of gratification ( Faber Taylor et al., 2002 ) and parent ratings of hyperactivity ( Flouri et al., 2014 ), and the types of “nature” include not just “greenness” but contact with horses in animal-assisted learning ( Ho et al., 2017 ). Note that impulse control effects are not always statistically significant (e.g., Amoly et al., 2014 ; Schutte et al., 2015 ). Nonetheless, in general, impulse control is better during or after children’s contact with nature.

Student Motivation, Enjoyment, and Engagement Are Better in Natural Settings

Student motivation, enjoyment, and engagement are better in natural settings, perhaps because of nature’s reliably positive effects on mood (e.g., Takayama et al., 2014 ). In previous reviews ( Blair, 2009 ; Becker et al., 2017 ) and recent studies (e.g., Skinner and Chi, 2014 ; Alon and Tal, 2015 ; Lekies et al., 2015 ), students and teachers report strikingly high levels of student engagement and motivation, during both student-elected and school-mandated nature activities. Importantly, learning in and around nature is associated with intrinsic motivation ( Fägerstam and Blom, 2012 ; Hobbs, 2015 ), which, unlike extrinsic motivation, is crucial for student engagement and longevity of interest in learning. The positivity of learning in nature seem to ripple outward, as seen in learners’ engagement in subsequent, indoor lessons ( Kuo et al., 2018a ), ratings of course curriculum, materials, and resources ( Benfield et al., 2015 ) and interest in school in general ( Blair, 2009 ; Becker et al., 2017 ), as well as lower levels of chronic absenteeism ( MacNaughton et al., 2017 ). Encouragingly, learning in nature may improve motivation most in those students who are least motivated in traditional classrooms ( Dettweiler et al., 2015 ).

Time Outdoors Is Tied to Higher Levels of Physical Activity and Fitness

While the evidence tying green space to physical activity is extremely mixed (see Lachowitz and Jones, 2011 for review), children’s time outdoors is consistently tied to both higher levels of physical activity and physical fitness: the more time children spend outdoors, the greater their physical activity, the lesser their sedentary behavior, and the better their cardiorespiratory fitness ( Gray et al., 2015 ). Importantly, cardiorespiratory fitness is the component of physical fitness most clearly tied to academic performance ( Santana et al., 2017 ). Further, there is some indication greener school grounds can counter children’s trend toward decreasing physical activity as they approach adolescence: in one study, girls with access to more green space and woodlands, and boys with access to ball fields, were more likely to remain physically active as they got older ( Pagels et al., 2014 ). This pattern is echoed in later life: in older adults, physical activity declines with age – but among those living in greener neighborhoods the decline is smaller ( Dalton et al., 2016 ).

Nature May Boost Learning by Providing a More Supportive Context for Learning

In addition to its effects on learners, natural settings and features may provide a more supportive context for learning in at least three ways. Greener environments may foster learning because they are calmer and quieter, because they foster warmer relationships, and because the combination of “loose parts” and relative autonomy elicits particularly beneficial forms of play.

Vegetated Settings Tend to Provide Calmer, Quieter, Safer Contexts for Learning

Both formal and informal learning are associated with a greater sense of calmness or peace when conducted in greener settings ( Maynard et al., 2013 ; Nedovic and Morrissey, 2013 ; Chawla et al., 2014 ). Problematic and disruptive behaviors such as talking out of turn or pushing among children are less frequent in natural settings than in the classroom ( Bassette and Taber-Doughty, 2013 ; Nedovic and Morrissey, 2013 ; O’Haire et al., 2013 ; Chawla et al., 2014 ). Further, in greener learning environments, students who previously experienced difficulties in traditional classrooms are better able to remove themselves from conflicts and demonstrate better self-control ( Maynard et al., 2013 ; Ruiz-Gallardo et al., 2013 ; Swank et al., 2017 ). The social environment of the classroom has long been recognized as important for learning ( Rutter, 2000 ). Calmer environments have been tied to greater student engagement and academic success ( Wessler, 2003 ; McCormick et al., 2015 ).

Natural Settings Seem to Foster Warmer, More Cooperative Relations

Images of nature have prosocial effects in adults (e.g., Weinstein et al., 2009 ) and greener settings are tied to the development of meaningful and trusting friendships between peers ( White, 2012 ; Chawla et al., 2014 ; Warber et al., 2015 ). Maynard et al. (2013) theorize that natural settings provide a less restrictive context for learning than the traditional classroom, giving children more freedom to engage with one another and form ties. Indeed, learning in greener settings has been consistently tied to the bridging of both socio-cultural differences and interpersonal barriers (e.g., personality conflicts) that can interfere with group functioning in the classroom ( White, 2012 ; Cooley et al., 2014 ; Warber et al., 2015 ). Finally, learning in nature facilitates cooperation and comfort between students and teachers, perhaps by providing a more level playing-field wherein the teacher is seen as a partner in learning ( Scott and Colquhoun, 2013 ). More cooperative learning environments promote student engagement and academic performance ( Patrick et al., 2007 ; McCormick et al., 2015 ).

Natural Settings May Afford “Loose Parts,” Autonomy, and Distinctly Beneficial Forms of Play

In his “theory of loose parts,” Nicholson (1972) posited that the “stuff” of nature – sticks, stones, bugs, dirt, water – could promote child development by encouraging creative, self-directed play. Indeed, teachers’ and principals’ observations suggest children’s play becomes strikingly more creative, physically active, and more social in the presence of loose parts (e.g., Bundy et al., 2008 , 2009 ). Interestingly, it appears that nature, loose parts, and autonomy can each independently contribute to outcomes (see Bundy et al., 2009 ; Niemiec and Ryan, 2009 ; Studente et al., 2016 , respectively), raising the possibility of synergy among these factors. Although the effects of loose parts play on child development have yet to be quantitatively demonstrated ( Gibson et al., 2017 ), the potential contributions of more creative, more social, more physically active play to cognitive, social and physical development seem clear.

Outcomes for Learning and Development

In school settings, incorporating nature in instruction improves academic achievement over traditional instruction. In a randomized controlled trial of school garden-based instruction involving over 3,000 students, students gained more knowledge than waitlist control peers taking traditional classes; moreover, the more garden-based instruction, the larger the gains ( Wells et al., 2015 ). Further, among the over 200 other tests of nature-based instruction’s academic outcomes, the vast majority of findings are positive (for reviews, see Williams and Dixon, 2013 ; Becker et al., 2017 ) – and here, too, the most impressive findings come from studies employing the largest doses of nature-based instruction (e.g., Ernst and Stanek, 2006 ). Findings have been consistently positive across diverse student populations, academic subjects, instructors and instructional approaches, educational settings, and research designs.

Interestingly, both the pedagogy and setting of nature-based instruction may contribute to its effects. Hands-on, student-centered, activity-based and discussion-based instruction each outperform traditional instruction—even when conducted indoors ( Granger et al., 2012 ; Freeman et al., 2014 ; Kontra et al., 2015 ). And simply conducting traditional instruction in a more natural setting may boost outcomes. In multiple studies, the greener a school’s surroundings, the better its standardized test performance – even after accounting for poverty and other factors (e.g., Sivarajah et al., 2018 )—and classrooms with green views yield similar findings ( Benfield et al., 2015 ; although c.f. Doxey et al., 2009 ). The frequency of positive findings on nature-based instruction likely reflects the combination of a better pedagogy and a better educational setting.

In and outside the context of formal instruction, experiences of nature seem to contribute to additional outcomes. First, not only do experiences of nature enhance academic learning, but they seem to foster personal development – the acquisition of intrapersonal and interpersonal assets such as perseverance, critical thinking, leadership, and communication skills. While quantitative research on these outcomes is rare, the qualitative work is voluminous, striking, and near-unanimous (for reviews, see Cason and Gillis, 1994 ; Williams and Dixon, 2013 ; Becker et al., 2017 ). Teachers, parents, and students report that wilderness and other nature experiences boost self-confidence, critical thinking, and problem-solving (e.g., Kochanowski and Carr, 2014 ; Truong et al., 2016 ) as well as leadership and communication skills such as making important decisions, listening to others, and voicing opinions in a group (e.g., Jostad et al., 2012 ; Cooley et al., 2014 ). Students emerge more resilient, with a greater capacity to meet challenges and thrive in adverse situations ( Beightol et al., 2012 ; Cooley et al., 2014 ; Harun and Salamuddin, 2014 ; Warber et al., 2015 ; Richmond et al., 2017 ). Interestingly, greener everyday settings may also boost positive coping ( Kuo, 2001 ) and buffer children from the impacts of stressful life events ( Wells and Evans, 2003 ).

And second, spending time in nature appears to grow environmental stewards. Adults who care strongly for nature commonly attribute their caring to time, and particularly play, in nature as children – and a diverse body of studies backs them up (for review, see Chawla and Derr, 2012 ). Interestingly, the key ingredient in childhood nature experiences that leads to adult stewardship behavior does not seem to be conservation knowledge (knowledge of how and why to conserve). Although knowledge of how and why to conserve, which could presumably be taught in a classroom setting, has typically been assumed to drive stewardship behavior, it is relatively unimportant in predicting conservation behavior ( Otto and Pensini, 2017 ). By contrast, an emotional connection to nature, which may be more difficult to acquire in a classroom, is a powerful predictor of children’s conservation behavior, explaining 69% of the variance ( Otto and Pensini, 2017 ). Indeed, environmental attitudes may foster the acquisition of environmental knowledge ( Fremery and Bogner, 2014 ) rather than vice versa. As spending time in nature fosters an emotional connection to nature and, in turn, conservation attitudes and behavior, direct contact with nature may be the most effective way to grow environmental stewards ( Lekies et al., 2015 ).

Conclusion and Implications

Do experiences with nature really promote learning? A scientist sampling some of the studies in this area might well be dismayed initially – as we were – at the frequency of weak research designs and overly optimistic claims. But a thorough review reveals an evidence base stronger, deeper, and broader than this first impression might suggest: weak research designs are supplemented with strong ones; striking findings are replicated in multiple contexts; the research on nature and learning now includes evidence of mechanisms; and findings from entirely outside the study of nature and learning point to the same conclusions.

Robust phenomena are often robust because they are multiply determined. The eight likely pathways between exposure to nature and learning identified here may account for the consistency of the nature-learning connection. Certainly it seems likely that increasing a student’s ability to concentrate, interest in the material, and self-discipline simultaneously would enhance their learning more than any of these effects alone. Moreover, in a group setting, effects on individual learners improve the learning context; when Danika fidgets less, her seatmates Jamal and JiaYing experience fewer disruptions and concentrate better; when Danika, Jamal, and JiaYing are less disruptive, the whole class learns better. These synergies – within and between students – may help explain how relatively small differences in schoolyard green cover predict significant differences in end-of-year academic achievement performance (e.g., Matsuoka, 2010 ; Kuo et al., 2018b ).

An important question arose in the course of our review: is nature-based instruction effective for students for whom traditional instruction is ineffective? Although this review was not structured to systematically assess this question, the benefits of nature-based learning for disadvantaged students were a striking leitmotif in our reading. Not only can nature-based learning work better for disadvantaged students ( McCree et al., 2018 ; Sivarajah et al., 2018 ), but it appears to boost interest in uninterested students ( Dettweiler et al., 2015 ; Truong et al., 2016 ), improve some grades ( Camassao and Jagannathan, 2018 ), and reduce disruptive episodes and dropouts among “at risk” students ( Ruiz-Gallardo et al., 2013 ). Nature-based learning may sometimes even erase race- and income-related gaps (e.g., Taylor et al., 1998 ). Further, anecdotes abound in which students who ordinarily struggle in the classroom emerge as leaders in natural settings. If nature is equigenic, giving low-performing students a chance to succeed and even shine, the need to document this capacity is pressing. In the United States, where sixth graders in the richest school districts are four grade levels ahead of children in the poorest districts ( Reardon et al., 2017 ), this need is urgent.

Fully assessing and making use of the benefits of nature-based instruction can serve all children. The available evidence suggests that experiences of nature help children acquire some of the skills, attitudes, and behaviors most needed in the 21st century. “Non-cognitive factors” such as perseverance, self-efficacy, resilience, social skills, leadership, and communication skills – so important in life beyond school ( National Research Council, 2012 ) – are increasingly recognized by the business community and policy makers as essential in a rapidly changing world. And for generations growing up in the Anthropocene, environmental stewardship may be as important as any academic content knowledge.

We conclude it is time to take nature seriously as a resource for learning and development. It is time to bring nature and nature-based pedagogy into formal education – to expand existing, isolated efforts into increasingly mainstream practices. Action research should assess the benefits of school gardens, green schoolyards and green walls in classrooms. Principals and school boards should support, not discourage, teachers’ efforts to hold classes outdoors, take regular field trips, and partner with nearby nature centers, farms, and forest preserves. Teachers who have pioneered nature-based instruction should serve as models and coaches, helping others address its challenges and take full advantage of its benefits.

Author Contributions

All authors co-wrote and edited the manuscript. MK provided leadership for decisions of content, framing, and style and led the creation of the Figure and Table. MB created the SoNBL literature database on which this review is based. CJ serves as the principal investigator of the Science of Nature-Based Learning Collaborative Research Network project; in addition to initiating this project and substantially shaping the Figure and Table, she solicited feedback from Network members.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of the NBLR Network for their diverse contributions of expertise, skills, resources and passion for connecting children to nature: Marc Berman, Judy Braus, Greg Cajete, Cheryl Charles, Louise Chawla, Scott Chazdon, Angie Chen, Avery Cleary, Nilda Cosco, Andrea Faber Taylor, Megan Gunnar, Erin Hashimoto-Martell, Peter Kahn, Sarah Milligan Toffler, Robin Moore, Scott Sampson, David Sobel, David Strayer, Jason Watson, Sheila Williams Ridge, Dilafruz Williams, and Tamra Willis.

Funding. This literature review was conducted under the auspices of the Science of Nature-Based Learning Collaborative Research Network (NBLR Network) supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF 1540919. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305/full#supplementary-material

• Alon N. L., Tal T. (2015). Student self-reported learning outcomes of field trips: the pedagogical impact. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37 1279–1298. 10.1080/09500693.2015.1034797 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Álvarez-Bueno C., Pesce C., Cavero-Redondo I., Sánchez-López M., Garrido-Miguel M., Martínez-Vizcaíno V. (2017). Academic achievement and physical activity: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 140 : e20171498 . 10.1542/peds.2017-1498 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amoly E., Dadvand P., Forns J., López-Vicente M., Basagaña X., Julvez J., et al. (2014). Green and blue spaces and behavioral development in Barcelona schoolchildren: the breathe project. Environ. Health Perspect. 122 1351–1358. 10.1289/ehp.1408215 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassette L. A., Taber-Doughty T. (2013). The effects of a dog reading visitation program on academic engagement behavior in three elementary students with emotional and behavioral difficulties: a single case design. Child Youth Care Forum 42 239–256. 10.1007/s10566-013-9197-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker C., Lauterbach G., Spengler S., Dettweiler U., Mess F. (2017). Effects of regular classes in outdoor education settings: a systematic review on students’ learning, social and health dimensions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14 : E485 . 10.3390/ijerph14050485 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beightol J., Jevertson J., Gray S., Carter S., Gass M. A. (2012). Adventure education and resilience enhancement: a mixed methods study. J. Exp. Educ. 35 307–325. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell A. C., Dyment J. E. (2008). Grounds for health: the intersection of school grounds and health-promoting schools. Environ. Educ. Res. 14 77–90. 10.1080/13504620701843426 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benfield J. A., Rainbolt G. N., Bell P. A., Donovan G. H. (2015). Classrooms with nature views: evidence of different student perceptions and behaviors. Environ. Behav. 47 140–157. 10.1177/0013916513499583 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry M. S., Sweeney M. M., Morath J., Odum A. L., Jordan K. E. (2014). The nature of impulsivity: visual exposure to natural environments decreases impulsive decision-making in a delay discounting task. PLoS One 9 : e97915 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0097915 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blair D. (2009). The child in the garden: an evaluative review of the benefits of school gardening. J. Environ. Educ. 40 15–38. 10.3200/JOEE.40.2.15-38 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bundy A. C., Luckett T., Naughton G. A., Tranter P. J., Wyver S. R., Ragen J., et al. (2008). Playful interaction: occupational therapy for all children on the school playground. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 62 522–527. 10.5014/ajot.62.5.522 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bundy A. C., Luckett T., Tranter P. J., Naughten G. A., Wyver S. R., Ragen J., et al. (2009). The risk is that there is ”no risk”: a simple innovative intervention to increase children’s activity levels. Int. J. Early Years Educ. 17 33–45. 10.1080/09669760802699878 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Camassao M. J., Jagannathan R. (2018). Nature thru nature: creating natural science identities in populations of disadvantaged children through community education partnership. J. Environ. Educ. 49 30–42. 10.1080/00958964.2017.1357524 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cason D., Gillis H. L. (1994). A meta-analysis of outdoor adventure programming with adolescents. J. Exp. Educ. 17 40–47. 10.1177/105382599401700109 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chawla L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. J. Plan. Lit. 30 433–452. 10.1177/0885412215595441 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chawla L., Derr V. (2012). “The development of conservation behaviors in childhood and youth,” in The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology , ed. Clayton S. D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 527–555. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chawla L., Keena K., Pevec I., Stanley E. (2014). Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience in childhood and adolescence. Health Place 28 1–13. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.03.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chow J. T., Lau S. (2015). Nature gives us strength: exposure to nature counteracts ego-depletion. J. Soc. Psychol. 155 70–85. 10.1080/00224545.2014.972310 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooley S. J., Holland M. J. G., Cumming J., Novakovic E. G., Burns V. E. (2014). Introducing the use of a semi-structured video diary room to investigate students’ learning experiences during an outdoor adventure education groupwork skills course. High. Educ. 67 105–121. 10.1007/s10734-013-9645-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dadvand P., Niewenhuijsen M. J., Esnaola M., Forns J., Basagaña X., Alvarez-Pedrero M., et al. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.U.S.A. 112 7937–7942. 10.1073/pnas.1503402112 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalton A. M., Wareham N., Griffin S., Jones A. P. (2016). Neighbourhood greenspace is associated with a slower decline in physical activity in older adults: a prospective cohort study. SSM Popul. Health 2 683–691. 10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.09.006 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dettweiler U., Becker C., Auestad B. H., Simon P., Kirsch P. (2017). Stress in school. Some empirical hints on the circadian cortisol rhythm of children in outdoor and indoor classes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14 : 475 . 10.3390/ijerph14050475 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dettweiler U., Ünlü A., Lauterbach G., Becker C., Gschrey B. (2015). Investigating the motivational behavior of pupils during outdoor science teaching within self-determination theory. Front. Psychol. 6 : 125 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00125 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doxey J., Waliczek T. M., Zajicek J. M. (2009). The impact of interior plants in university classrooms on student course performance and on student perceptions of the course and instructor. Hortic. Sci. 44 384–391. 10.21273/HORTSCI.44.2.384 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duckworth A. L., Seligman M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychol. Sci. 16 939–944. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ernst J., Stanek D. (2006). The prairie science class: a model for re-visioning environmental education within the national wildlife refuge system. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 11 255–265. 10.1080/10871200600803010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faber Taylor A., Kuo F., Sullivan W. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence from inner city children. J. Environ. Psychol. 22 49–63. 10.1006/jevp.2001.0241 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faber Taylor A., Kuo F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. J. Atten. Disord. 12 402–409. 10.1177/1087054708323000 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fägerstam E., Blom J. (2012). Learning biology and mathematics outdoors: effects and attitudes in a Swedish high school context. J. Advent. Educ. Outdoor Learn. 13 56–75. 10.1080/14729679.2011.647432 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flouri E., Midouhas E., Joshi H. (2014). The role of urban neighbourhood green space in children’s emotional and behavioural resilience. J. Environ. Psychol. 40 179–186. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman S., Eddy S. L., McDonough M., Smith M. K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS 111 8410–8415. 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fremery C., Bogner F. X. (2014). Cognitive learning in authentic environments in relation to green attitude preferences. Stud. Educ. Eval. 44 9–15. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.11.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson J. L., Cornell M., Gill T. (2017). A systematic review of research into the impact of loose parts play on children’s cognitive, social and emotional development. School Ment. Health 9 295–309. 10.1007/s12310-017-9220-9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granger E. M., Bevis T. H., Saka Y., Southerland S. A., Sampson V., Tate R. L. (2012). The efficacy of student-centered instruction in supporting science learning. Science 338 105–108. 10.1126/science.1223709 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grannis J. C. (1992). Students’ stress, distress, and achievement in an urban intermediate school. J. Early Adolesc. 12 4–27. 10.1177/0272431692012001001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray C., Gibbons R., Larouche R., Sandseter E. B., Bienenstock A., Brussoni M., et al. (2015). What is the relationship between outdoor time and physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and physical fitness in children? A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12 6455–6474. 10.3390/ijerph120606455 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartig T., Mang M., Evans G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environmental experiences. Environ. Behav. 23 3–26. 10.1177/0013916591231001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harun M. T., Salamuddin N. (2014). Promoting social skills through outdoor education and assessing its effects. Asian Soc. Sci. 10 71–78. 10.5539/ass.v10n5p71 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill A. B. (1965). The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58 295–300. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ho N. F., Zhou J., Fung D. S. S., Kua P. H. J., Huang Y. X. (2017). Equine-assisted learning in youths at-risk for school or social failure. Cogent Educ. 4 : 1334430 10.1080/2331186X.2017.1334430 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hobbs L. K. (2015). Play-based science learning activities: engaging adults and children with informal science learning for preschoolers. Sci. Commun. 37 405–414. 10.1177/1075547015574017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jostad J., Paisley K., Gookin J. (2012). Wilderness-based semester learning: understanding the NOLS experience. J. Outdoor Recreat. Educ. Leadersh. 4 16–26. 10.7768/1948-5123.1115 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kochanowski L., Carr V. (2014). Nature playscapes as contexts for fostering self-determination. Chil. Youth Environ. 24 146–167. 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.2.0146 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kontra C., Lyons D. J., Fischer S. M., Beilock S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances learning. Psychol. Sci. 26 737–749. 10.1177/0956797615569355 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo F. E. (2001). Coping with poverty: impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environ. Behav. 33 5–34. 10.1177/00139160121972846 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo F. E., Faber Taylor A. (2004). A potential natural treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence from a national study. Am. J. Public Health 94 1580–1586. 10.2105/AJPH.94.9.1580 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Supplemental material. Front. Psychol. 6 : 1093 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo M., Browning M. H. E. M., Penner M. L. (2018a). Do lessons in nature boost subsequent classroom engagement? Refueling students in flight. Front. Psychol. 8 : 2253 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02253 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo M., Browning M. H. E. M., Sachdeva S., Westphal L., Lee K. (2018b). Might school performance grow on trees? Examining the link between “greenness” and academic achievement in urban, high-poverty schools. Front. Psychol. 9 : 1669 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01669 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lachowitz K., Jones A. P. (2011). Greenspace and obesity: a systematic review of the evidence. Obes. Rev. 12 e183–e189. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00827.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lekies K. S., Lost G., Rode J. (2015). Urban youth’s experiences of nature: implications for outdoor adventure education. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 9 1–10. 10.1016/j.jort.2015.03.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leppink E. W., Odlaug B. L., Lust K., Christenson G., Grant J. E. (2016). The young and the stressed: stress, impulse control, and health in college students. J. Nervous Ment. Disord. 204 931–938. 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000586 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li D., Sullivan W. C. (2016). Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landsc. Urban Plan. 148 149–158. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacNaughton P., Eitland E., Kloog I., Schwartz J., Allen J. (2017). Impact of particulate matter exposure and surrounding “greenness” on chronic absenteeism in Massachusetts public schools. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14 : E207 . 10.3390/ijerph14020207 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mantzicopoulos P. Y., Morrison D. (1994). A comparison of boys and girls with attention problems: kindergarten through second grade. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 64 522–533. 10.1037/h0079560 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mårtensson F., Boldemann C., Soderstrom M., Blennow M., Englund J.-E., Grahn P. (2009). Outdoor environmental assessment of attention promoting settings for preschool children. Health Place 15 1149–1157. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.07.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matsuoka R. H. (2010). Student performance and high school landscapes: examining the links. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97 273–282. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maynard T., Waters J., Clement C. (2013). Child-initiated learning, the outdoor environment and the “underachieving” child. Early Years 33 212–225. 10.1080/09575146.2013.771152 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCormick M. P., Cappella E., O’Conner E. E., McClowry S. G. (2015). Social-emotional learning and academic achievement: using causal methods to explore classroom-level mechanisms. AERA Open 1 1–26. 10.1177/2332858415603959 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCree M., Cutting R., Sherwin D. (2018). The hare and the tortoise go to forest school: taking the scenic route to academic attainment via emotional wellbeing outdoors. Early Child Dev. Care 188 980–996. 10.1080/03004430.2018.1446430 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mischel W., Shoda Y., Peake P. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54 687–696. 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.687 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nedovic S., Morrissey A. (2013). Calm, active and focused: children’s responses to an organic outdoor learning environment. Learn. Environ. Res. 16 281–295. 10.1007/s10984-013-9127-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicholson S. (1972). The theory of loose parts, an important principle for design methodology. Stud. Des. Educ. Craft Technol. 4 5–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Niemiec C. P., Ryan R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory Res. Educ. 7 133–144. 10.1177/1477878509104318 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Haire M. E., Mckenzie S. J., McCune S., Slaughter V. (2013). Effects of animal-assisted activities with guinea pigs in the primary school classroom. Anthrozoos 26 455–458. 10.2752/175303713X13697429463835 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Otto S., Pensini P. (2017). Nature-based environmental education of children: environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Glob. Environ. Change 47 88–94. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pagels P., Raustorp A., Ponce De Leon A., Mårtensson F., Kylin M., Boldemann C. (2014). A repeated measurement study investigating the impact of school outdoor environment upon physical activity across ages and seasons in Swedish second, fifth and eighth graders. Biomed Central Public Health 14 : 803 . 10.1186/1471-2458-14-803 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrick H., Ryan A. M., Kaplan A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. J. Educ. Psychol. 99 83–98. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reardon S. F., Kalogrides D., Shores K. (2017). The Geography of Racial/Ethnic Test Score Gaps (CEPA Working Paper No.16-10) . Available at: Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis: http://cepa.stanford.edu/wp16-10 [ Google Scholar ]
• Richmond D., Sibthorp J., Gookin J., Annorella S., Ferri S. (2017). Complementing classroom learning through outdoor adventure education: out-of-school-time experiences that make a difference. J. Advent. Educ. Outdoor Learn. 18 1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe K. J., Rowe K. S. (1992). The relationship between inattentiveness in the classroom and reading achievement: part B: an explanatory study. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 31 357–368. 10.1097/00004583-199203000-00026 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruiz-Gallardo J., Verde A., Valdes A. (2013). Garden-based learning: an experience with “at risk” secondary education students. J. Environ. Educ. 44 252–270. 10.1080/00958964.2013.786669 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutter M. (2000). “School effects on pupil progress: research findings and policy implications,” in Psychology of Education: Major Themes Vol. 1 eds Smith P. K., Pellegrini A. D. (London: Falmer Press; ), 3–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahoo S. K., Senapati A. (2014). Effect of sensory diet through outdoor play on functional behaviour in children with ADHD. Indian J. Occup. Ther. 46 49–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Santana C. C. A., Azevedo L. B., Cattuzzo M. T., Hill J. O., Andrade L. P., Prado W. L. (2017). Physical fitness and academic performance in youth: a systematic review. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 27 579–603. 10.1111/sms.12773 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schutte A. R., Torquati J. C., Beattie H. L. (2015). Impact of urban nature on executive functioning in early and middle childhood. Environ. Behav. 49 3–30. 10.1177/0013916515603095 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott G., Colquhoun D. (2013). Changing spaces, changing relationships: the positive impact of learning out of doors. Aust. J. Outdoor Educ. 17 47–53. 10.1007/BF03400955 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sivarajah S., Smith S. M., Thomas S. C. (2018). Tree cover and species composition effects on academic performance of primary school students. PLoS One 13 : e0193254 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0193254 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner E. A., Chi U. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and engagement as “active ingredients” in garden-based education: examining models and measures derived from self-determination theory. J. Environ. Educ. 43 16–36. 10.1080/00958964.2011.596856 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Studente S., Seppala N., Sadowska N. (2016). Facilitating creative thinking in the classroom: investigating the effects of plants and the colour green on visual and verbal creativity. Think. Skills Creat. 19 1–8. 10.1016/j.tsc.2015.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swank J. M., Cheung C., Prikhidko A., Su Y.-W. (2017). Nature-based child-centered play therapy and behavioral concerns: a single-case design. Int. J. Play Ther. 26 47–57. 10.1037/pla0000031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Takayama N., Korpela K., Lee J., Morikawa T., Tsunetsugu Y., Park B. J., et al. (2014). Emotional, restorative, and vitalizing effects of forest and urban environments at four sites in Japan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11 7207–7230. 10.3390/ijerph110707207 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor A. F., Wiley A., Kuo F. E., Sullivan W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: green spaces as places to grow. Environ. Behav. 30 3–27. 10.1177/0013916598301001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor G., Jungert T., Mageau G. A., Schattke K., Dedic H., Rosenfield S., et al. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: the unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 39 342–358. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.08.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Truong S., Gray T., Ward K. (2016). “Sowing and growing” life skills through garden-based learning to re-engage disengaged youth. Learn. Landsc. 10 361–385. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulset V., Vitaro F., Brendgren M., Bekkus M., Borge A. I. H. (2017). Time spent outdoors during preschool: links with children’s cognitive and behavioral development. J. Environ. Psychol. 52 69–80. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.05.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Berg A. E., van den Berg C. G. (2011). A comparison of children with ADHD in a natural and built setting. Child Care Health Dev. 37 430–439. 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01172.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warber S. L., DeHurdy A. A., Bialko M. F., Marselle M. R., Irvine K. N. (2015). Addressing “nature-deficit disorder”: a mixed methods pilot study of young adults attending a wilderness camp. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2015 1–13. 10.1155/2015/651827 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstein N., Przybylski A. K., Ryan R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35 1315–1329. 10.1177/0146167209341649 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wells N. M., Evans G. W. (2003). Nearby nature: a buffer of life stress among rural children. Environ. Behav. 25 : 311 10.1177/0013916503035003001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wells N. M., Myers B. M., Todd L. E., Barale K., Gaolach B., Ferenz G., et al. (2015). The effects of school gardens on children’s science knowledge: a randomized controlled trial of low-income elementary schools. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37 2858–2878. 10.1080/09500693.2015.1112048 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wessler S. L. (2003). Rebuilding classroom relationships – It’s hard to learn when you’re scared. Educ. Leadersh. 61 40–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• White R. (2012). A sociocultural investigation of the efficacy of outdoor education to improve learning engagement. Emot. Behav. Diffic. 17 13–23. 10.1080/13632752.2012.652422 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiens V., Kyngäs H., Pölkki T. (2016). The meaning of seasonal changes, nature, and animals for adolescent girls’ wellbeing in northern Finland. A qualitative descriptive study. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-being 11 : 30160 . 10.3402/qhw.v11.30160 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams D. R., Dixon P. S. (2013). Impact of garden-based learning on academic outcomes in schools: synthesis of research between 1990 and 2010. Rev. Educ. Res. 83 211–235. 10.3102/0034654313475824 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Search form

• Find Stories
• For Journalists

Stanford researchers find mental health prescription: Nature

Study finds that walking in nature yields measurable mental benefits and may reduce risk of depression.

Go to the web site to view the video.

A Stanford-led study finds quantifiable evidence that walking in nature could lead to a lower risk of depression

Feeling down? Take a hike.

A new study finds quantifiable evidence that walking in nature could lead to a lower risk of depression.

Specifically, the study , published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, found that people who walked for 90 minutes in a natural area, as opposed to participants who walked in a high-traffic urban setting, showed decreased activity in a region of the brain associated with a key factor in depression.

“These results suggest that accessible natural areas may be vital for mental health in our rapidly urbanizing world,” said co-author Gretchen Daily , the Bing Professor in Environmental Science and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment . “Our findings can help inform the growing movement worldwide to make cities more livable, and to make nature more accessible to all who live in them.”

More than half of the world’s population lives in urban settings, and that is forecast to rise to 70 percent within a few decades. Just as urbanization and disconnection from nature have grown dramatically, so have mental disorders such as depression.

In fact, city dwellers have a 20 percent higher risk of anxiety disorders and a 40 percent higher risk of mood disorders as compared to people in rural areas. People born and raised in cities are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia.

Is exposure to nature linked to mental health? If so, the researchers asked, what are nature’s impacts on emotion and mood? Can exposure to nature help “buffer” against depression? 

Natural vs. urban settings

In the study, two groups of participants walked for 90 minutes, one in a grassland area scattered with oak trees and shrubs, the other along a traffic-heavy four-lane roadway. Before and after, the researchers measured heart and respiration rates, performed brain scans and had participants fill out questionnaires.

The researchers found little difference in physiological conditions, but marked changes in the brain. Neural activity in the subgenual prefrontal cortex, a brain region active during rumination – repetitive thought focused on negative emotions – decreased among participants who walked in nature versus those who walked in an urban environment.                                                                                    

“This finding is exciting because it demonstrates the impact of nature experience on an aspect of emotion regulation – something that may help explain how nature makes us feel better,” said lead author Gregory Bratman , a graduate student in Stanford’s Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, the Stanford Psychophysiology Lab and the Center for Conservation Biology.

“These findings are important because they are consistent with, but do not yet prove, a causal link between increasing urbanization and increased rates of mental illness,” said co-author James Gross , a professor of psychology at Stanford.

Nature’s services

It is essential for urban planners and other policymakers to understand the relationship between exposure to nature and mental health, the study’s authors write. “We want to explore what elements of nature – how much of it and what types of experiences – offer the greatest benefits,” Daily said.

In a previous study , also led by Bratman, time in nature was found to have a positive effect on mood and aspects of cognitive function, including working memory, as well as a dampening effect on anxiety.

The studies are part of a growing body of research exploring the connection between nature and human well-being. The Natural Capital Project , led by Daily, has been at the forefront of this work. The project focuses on quantifying the value of natural resources to the public and predicting benefits from investments in nature. It is a joint venture of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, The Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund and the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment.

Coauthors of “Nature Experience Reduces Rumination and Subgenual Prefrontal Cortex Activation” include J. Paul Hamilton of the Laureate Institute for Brain Research and Kevin Hahn, a psychology research assistant at Stanford.

November 20, 2012

Scientists Probe Human Nature--and Discover We Are Good, After All

Recent studies find our first impulses are selfless

By Adrian F. Ward

When it really comes down to it—when the chips are down and the lights are off—are we naturally good? That is, are we predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it costs us? Or are we, in our hearts, selfish creatures?

This fundamental question about human nature has long provided fodder for discussion. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin proclaimed that all people were born broken and selfish, saved only through the power of divine intervention. Hobbes , too, argued that humans were savagely self-centered; however, he held that salvation came not through the divine, but through the social contract of civil law. On the other hand, philosophers such as Rousseau argued that people were born good, instinctively concerned with the welfare of others. More recently, these questions about human nature—selfishness and cooperation, defection and collaboration—have been brought to the public eye by game shows such as Survivor and the UK’s Golden Balls , which test the balance between selfishness and cooperation by pitting the strength of interpersonal bonds against the desire for large sums of money.

But even the most compelling televised collisions between selfishness and cooperation provide nothing but anecdotal evidence. And even the most eloquent philosophical arguments mean noting without empirical data.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory , a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist , and a biologist-cum-mathematician —interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct —is to act selfishly or cooperatively.

This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?

To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.

The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “ prisoner’s dilemma ” and a “ public goods game ”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all.

The researchers followed up these correlational studies with a set of experiments in which they directly manipulated both this apparent influence on the tendency to cooperate—processing speed—and the cognitive mechanism thought to be associated with this influence—intuitive, as opposed to reflective, decision-making. In the first of these studies, researchers gathered 891 participants (211 undergraduates and 680 participants from a nationwide sample) and had them play a public goods game with one key twist: these participants were forced to make their decisions either quickly (within 10 seconds) or slowly (after at least 10 seconds had passed). In the second, researchers had 343 participants from a nationwide sample play a public goods game after they had been primed to use either intuitive or reflective reasoning. Both studies showed the same pattern—whether people were forced to use intuition (by acting under time constraints) or simply encouraged to do so (through priming), they gave significantly more money to the common good than did participants who relied on reflection to make their choices. This again suggests that our intuitive impulse is to cooperate with others.

Taken together, these studies—7 total experiments, using a whopping 2,068 participants—suggest that we are not intuitively selfish creatures. But does this mean that we our naturally cooperative? Or could it be that cooperation is our first instinct simply because it is rewarded? After all, we live in a world where it pays to play well with others: cooperating helps us make friends, gain social capital, and find social success in a wide range of domains. As one way of addressing this possibility, the experimenters carried out yet another study. In this study, they asked 341 participants from a nationwide sample about their daily interactions—specifically, whether or not these interactions were mainly cooperative; they found that the relationship between processing speed (that is, intuition) and cooperation only existed for those who reported having primarily cooperative interactions in daily life. This suggests that cooperation is the intuitive response only for those who routinely engage in interactions where this behavior is rewarded—that human “goodness” may result from the acquisition of a regularly rewarded trait.

Throughout the ages, people have wondered about the basic state of human nature—whether we are good or bad, cooperative or selfish. This question—one that is central to who we are—has been tackled by theologians and philosophers, presented to the public eye by television programs, and dominated the sleepless nights of both guilt-stricken villains and bewildered victims; now, it has also been addressed by scientific research. Although no single set of studies can provide a definitive answer—no matter how many experiments were conducted or participants were involved—this research suggests that our intuitive responses, or first instincts , tend to lead to cooperation rather than selfishness.

Although this evidence does not definitely solve the puzzle of human nature, it does give us evidence we may use to solve this puzzle for ourselves—and our solutions will likely vary according to how we define “human nature.” If human nature is something we must be born with, then we may be neither good nor bad, cooperative nor selfish. But if human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense.

Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas .

• Português Br
• Journalist Pass

Study documents safety, improvements from stem cell therapy after spinal cord injury

Susan Barber Lindquist

Share this:

ROCHESTER, Minn. — A Mayo Clinic study shows stem cells derived from patients' own fat are safe and may improve sensation and movement after traumatic spinal cord injuries . The findings from the phase 1 clinical trial appear in Nature Communications . The results of this early research offer insights on the potential of cell therapy for people living with spinal cord injuries and paralysis for whom options to improve function are extremely limited.

In the study of 10 adults, the research team noted seven participants demonstrated improvements based on the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale. Improvements included increased sensation when tested with pinprick and light touch, increased strength in muscle motor groups, and recovery of voluntary anal contraction, which aids in bowel function. The scale has five levels, ranging from complete loss of function to normal function. The seven participants who improved each moved up at least one level on the ASIA scale. Three patients in the study had no response, meaning they did not improve but did not get worse.

"This study documents the safety and potential benefit of stem cells and regenerative medicine," says Mohamad Bydon, M.D. , a Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon and first author of the study. "Spinal cord injury is a complex condition. Future research may show whether stem cells in combination with other therapies could be part of a new paradigm of treatment to improve outcomes for patients."

No serious adverse events were reported after stem cell treatment. The most commonly reported side effects were headache and musculoskeletal pain that resolved with over-the-counter treatment.

In addition to evaluating safety, this phase 1 clinical trial had a secondary outcome of assessing changes in motor and sensory function. The authors note that motor and sensory results are to be interpreted with caution given limits of phase 1 trials. Additional research is underway among a larger group of participants to further assess risks and benefits.

The full data on the 10 patients follows a 2019 case report that highlighted the experience of the first study participant who demonstrated significant improvement in motor and sensory function.

Watch: Dr. Mohamad Bydon discusses improvements in research study

Journalists: Broadcast-quality sound bites are available in the downloads at the end of the post. Please courtesy: "Mayo Clinic News Network." Name super/CG: Mohamad Bydon, M.D./Neurosurgery/Mayo Clinic.

Stem cells' mechanism of action not fully understood

In the multidisciplinary clinical trial, participants had spinal cord injuries from motor vehicle accidents, falls and other causes. Six had neck injuries; four had back injuries. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 65.

Participants' stem cells were collected by taking a small amount of fat from a 1- to 2-inch incision in the abdomen or thigh. Over four weeks, the cells were expanded in the laboratory to 100 million cells and then injected into the patients' lumbar spine in the lower back. Over two years, each study participant was evaluated at Mayo Clinic 10 times.

Although it is understood that stem cells move toward areas of inflammation — in this case the location of the spinal cord injury — the cells' mechanism of interacting with the spinal cord is not fully understood, Dr. Bydon says. As part of the study, researchers analyzed changes in participants' MRIs and cerebrospinal fluid as well as in responses to pain, pressure and other sensation. The investigators are looking for clues to identify injury processes at a cellular level and avenues for potential regeneration and healing.

The spinal cord has limited ability to repair its cells or make new ones. Patients typically experience most of their recovery in the first six to 12 months after injuries occur. Improvement generally stops 12 to 24 months after injury. In the study, one patient with a cervical spine injury of the neck received stem cells 22 months after injury and improved one level on the ASIA scale after treatment.

Two of three patients with complete injuries of the thoracic spine — meaning they had no feeling or movement below their injury between the base of the neck and mid-back — moved up two ASIA levels after treatment. Each regained some sensation and some control of movement below the level of injury. Based on researchers' understanding of traumatic thoracic spinal cord injury, only 5% of people with a complete injury would be expected to regain any feeling or movement.

"In spinal cord injury, even a mild improvement can make a significant difference in that patient's quality of life," Dr. Bydon says.

Research continues into stem cells for spinal cord injuries

Stem cells are used mainly in research in the U.S., and fat-derived stem cell treatment for spinal cord injury is considered experimental by the Food and Drug Administration.

Between 250,000 and 500,000 people worldwide suffer a spinal cord injury each year, according to the  World Health Organization .

An important next step is assessing the effectiveness of stem cell therapies and subsets of patients who would most benefit, Dr. Bydon says. Research is continuing with a larger, controlled trial that randomly assigns patients to receive either the stem cell treatment or a placebo without stem cells.

"For years, treatment of spinal cord injury has been limited to supportive care, more specifically stabilization surgery and physical therapy," Dr. Bydon says. "Many historical textbooks state that this condition does not improve. In recent years, we have seen findings from the medical and scientific community that challenge prior assumptions. This research is a step forward toward the ultimate goal of improving treatments for patients."

Dr. Bydon is the Charles B. and Ann L. Johnson Professor of Neurosurgery. This research was made possible with support from Leonard A. Lauder, C and A Johnson Family Foundation, The Park Foundation, Sanger Family Foundation, Eileen R.B. and Steve D. Scheel, Schultz Family Foundation, and other generous Mayo Clinic benefactors. The research is funded in part by a Mayo Clinic Transform the Practice grant.

Review the study for a complete list of authors and funding.

About Mayo Clinic Mayo Clinic is a nonprofit organization committed to innovation in clinical practice, education and research, and providing compassion, expertise and answers to everyone who needs healing. Visit the  Mayo Clinic News Network  for additional Mayo Clinic news.

Media contact:

• Susan Barber Lindquist, Mayo Clinic Communications, [email protected]
• Personal journey shapes unique perspective Mayo Clinic scientists pioneer immunotherapy technique for autoimmune diseases

Related Articles

share this!

April 14, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

reputable news agency

Bad boys: Study finds aggressive bonobo males attract more mates

by Issam AHMED

Humankind's two closest primate relatives are often said to embody contrasting sides of our nature: peace-loving bonobos versus violence-prone chimpanzees.

But a new study out Friday in Current Biology says it's not that simple. Male bonobos in fact fight each other more often than male chimps do—and the bonobo "bad boys" who have more dust-ups also see greater mating success.

Lead author Maud Mouginot of Boston University told AFP she decided to investigate the question of aggression among bonobos after prior research revealed a "reproductive skew" among males, meaning some fathered far more offspring than others.

"So the question was, if bonobos are not that aggressive, how can they have such a high reproductive skew?" she said.

Since their recognition as a species distinct from chimpanzees, bonobos have been romanticized for their free-spirited nature.

Part of their reputation as "hippies" stems from how they use sex as a means of conflict resolution and often have same sex couplings, especially among females. They're also more likely to share food than chimps.

Researchers had previously attempted to compare aggression between the two species, which share 99.6 percent of their DNA with each other, but these studies were limited because they used differing methods in the field.

Mouginot and her colleagues focused on three communities at the Kokolopori Bonobo Reserve in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and two chimpanzee communities at Gombe National Park in Tanzania.

By tracking the individual behavior of 12 male bonobos and 14 male chimpanzees over two years, the team was able to compile data on how often each engaged in aggressive interactions, who these encounters involved, and whether there was physical contact such as biting and pushing or simply charging at a rival.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that male bonobos exhibited higher levels of aggression than chimpanzees. Specifically, bonobos engaged in 2.8 times as many aggressive encounters and three times as many physical altercations as did their chimpanzee counterparts.

"That's, I think, the big finding of the paper," said Mouginot. "And the other thing is, we actually found that more aggressive male bonobos win more copulation with what we call 'maximally tumescent females,'" meaning females whose genitals have swollen because they are ovulating.

More time with females?

Male bonobos almost exclusively reserved their aggression for other males, while male chimpanzees were more likely to become aggressive with females.

Both these findings aligned with expectations. Bonobo females are often leaders in their groups and form alliances to stop lone males who may attempt to coerce them sexually, so it makes little sense for males to challenge them.

Conversely, chimpanzees are strongly male-dominant societies, and it's the males that band together, coercing females into sex or punishing male adversaries that challenge their authority.

The fact that male bonobo disputes are overwhelmingly one-on-one, rather than one-against-many, might explain why they happen more often, said Mouginot, as the stakes are lower. Bonobos have never been reported to kill each other.

Chimpanzee altercations, on the other hand, involve multiple males and can result in fatalities—either within their own group, or in territorial battles against rival groups . The greater costs associated with chimp combat might therefore limit how often it occurs.

As for why "nicer" bonobo males fared worse with females—"it's possible that those aggressive males can also spend more time with females" by vanquishing rivals, said Mouginot, but this would require further confirmation.

But Mouginot, who now focuses her anthropological work on humans, is skeptical about whether "bad boy" tropes in people—the idea that men who are troublemakers tend to attract more women—map directly onto bonobos.

Female bonobos, she emphasized, wield significant power and won't hesitate to shut down male aggression when directed at them. But it's possible they might find it attractive when it is directed at others.

Journal information: Current Biology

Explore further

Feedback to editors

New research highlights effects of gentrification on urban wildlife populations across US cities

8 minutes ago

Machine learning could help reveal undiscovered particles within data from the Large Hadron Collider

2 hours ago

Hydrogen recombination found to be most plausible explanation for high levels of energy in stellar superflares

New catalyst allows energy-friendly ammonia production for fertilizers and alternative fuel

Scientists share single-cell atlas for the highly regenerative worm, Pristina leidyi

3 hours ago

Discovery of organic catalyst could lead to cheaper fuel cells

New colorful plastic films for versatile sensors and electronic displays

Millions of gamers advance biomedical research by helping to reconstruct microbial evolutionary histories

Astrophysicists solve mystery of heart-shaped feature on the surface of Pluto

How do trees survive dry and hot summers? Leaf lifespan and growth recovery are key

Relevant physicsforums posts, can four legged animals drink from beneath their feet, mold in plastic water bottles what does it eat.

Apr 14, 2024

Dolphins don't breathe through their esophagus

Is this egg-laying or something else.

Apr 13, 2024

Color Recognition: What we see vs animals with a larger color range

Apr 12, 2024

How to Implement Beamforming in Ultrasound Diffraction Tomography

Apr 10, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Bonobos are more aggressive than previously thought, study shows

In fathering, peace-loving bonobos don't spread the love

Jul 10, 2017

Good neighbors: Bonobo study offers clues into early human alliances

Nov 23, 2023

Bonobos and chimps: What our closest relatives tell us about humans

Apr 4, 2023

Bonobo: great ape with a tiny voice

Oct 23, 2018

Bonobo females found to protect and support a female giving birth

May 22, 2018

Recommended for you

Tropical forests can't recover naturally without fruit eating birds, carbon recovery study shows

10 hours ago

Heat and desiccation tolerances predict bee abundance under climate change

5 hours ago

Study unearths survival strategies of root systems

Digging up new species of Australia and New Guinea's giant fossil kangaroos

19 hours ago

New species of ant found pottering under the Pilbara named after Voldemort

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Nature vs. Nurture Debate In Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology concerns the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. While early theories favored one factor over the other, contemporary views recognize a complex interplay between genes and environment in shaping behavior and development.

Key Takeaways

• Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors.
• Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences, and learning on an individual.
• Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture concerning specific psychological traits.
• Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways.
• For example, epigenetics is an emerging area of research that shows how environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences make to human behavior, such as personality, cognitive traits, temperament and psychopathology.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. nurture in child development.

In child development, the nature vs. nurture debate is evident in the study of language acquisition . Researchers like Chomsky (1957) argue that humans are born with an innate capacity for language (nature), known as universal grammar, suggesting that genetics play a significant role in language development.

Conversely, the behaviorist perspective, exemplified by Skinner (1957), emphasizes the role of environmental reinforcement and learning (nurture) in language acquisition.

Twin studies have provided valuable insights into this debate, demonstrating that identical twins raised apart may share linguistic similarities despite different environments, suggesting a strong genetic influence (Bouchard, 1979)

However, environmental factors, such as exposure to language-rich environments, also play a crucial role in language development, highlighting the intricate interplay between nature and nurture in child development.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in personality psychology centers on the origins of personality traits. Twin studies have shown that identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins, indicating a genetic component to personality (Bouchard, 1994).

However, environmental factors, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences, also shape personality.

For example, research by Caspi et al. (2003) demonstrated that a particular gene (MAOA) can interact with childhood maltreatment to increase the risk of aggressive behavior in adulthood.

This highlights that genetic predispositions and environmental factors contribute to personality development, and their interaction is complex and multifaceted.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in mental health explores the etiology of depression. Genetic studies have identified specific genes associated with an increased vulnerability to depression, indicating a genetic component (Sullivan et al., 2000).

However, environmental factors, such as adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood, also play a significant role in the development of depressive disorders (Dube et al.., 2002; Keller et al., 2007)

The diathesis-stress model posits that individuals inherit a genetic predisposition (diathesis) to a disorder, which is then activated or exacerbated by environmental stressors (Monroe & Simons, 1991).

This model illustrates how nature and nurture interact to influence mental health outcomes.

Nature vs. Nurture of Intelligence

The nature vs. nurture debate in intelligence examines the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to cognitive abilities.

Intelligence is highly heritable, with about 50% of variance in IQ attributed to genetic factors, based on studies of twins, adoptees, and families (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Heritability of intelligence increases with age, from about 20% in infancy to as high as 80% in adulthood, suggesting amplifying effects of genes over time.

However, environmental influences, such as access to quality education and stimulating environments, also significantly impact intelligence.

Shared environmental influences like family background are more influential in childhood, whereas non-shared experiences are more important later in life.

Research by Flynn (1987) showed that average IQ scores have increased over generations, suggesting that environmental improvements, known as the Flynn effect , can lead to substantial gains in cognitive abilities.

Molecular genetics provides tools to identify specific genes and understand their pathways and interactions. However, progress has been slow for complex traits like intelligence. Identified genes have small effect sizes (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Overall, intelligence results from complex interplay between genes and environment over development. Molecular genetics offers promise to clarify these mechanisms. The nature vs nurture debate is outdated – both play key roles.

Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)

It has long been known that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetic inheritance.

Color of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin, and certain diseases (such as Huntingdon’s chorea) are all a function of the genes we inherit.

These facts have led many to speculate as to whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also “wired in” before we are even born.

Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists.  Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person’s unique genetic code.

In general, the earlier a particular ability appears, the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetic factors. Estimates of genetic influence are called heritability.

Examples of extreme nature positions in psychology include Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of nature is Freud’s theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).

Characteristics and differences that are not observable at birth, but which emerge later in life, are regarded as the product of maturation. That is to say, we all have an inner “biological clock” which switches on (or off) types of behavior in a pre-programmed way.

The classic example of the way this affects our physical development are the bodily changes that occur in early adolescence at puberty.

However, nativists also argue that maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy , language acquisition , and even cognitive development .

Empiricism (Extreme Nurture Position)

At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists – also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical/scientific  approach ).

Their basic assumption is that at birth, the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually “filled” as a result of experience (e.g., behaviorism ).

From this point of view, psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are the results of learning.  It is how you are brought up (nurture) that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological.

For example, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory states that aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. This is seen in his famous bobo doll experiment (Bandura, 1961).

Also, Skinner (1957) believed that language is learned from other people via behavior-shaping techniques.

Evidence for Nature

• Biological Approach
• Biology of Gender
• Medical Model

Freud (1905) stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality.

He thought that parenting is of primary importance to a child’s development , and the family as the most important feature of nurture was a common theme throughout twentieth-century psychology (which was dominated by environmentalists’ theories).

Behavioral Genetics

Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics study variation in behavior as it is affected by genes, which are the units of heredity passed down from parents to offspring.

“We now know that DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they are mostly random – unsystematic and unstable – which means that we cannot do much about them.” Plomin (2018, xii)

Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture with regard to specific psychological traits. One way to do this is to study relatives who share the same genes (nature) but a different environment (nurture). Adoption acts as a natural experiment which allows researchers to do this.

Empirical studies have consistently shown that adoptive children show greater resemblance to their biological parents, rather than their adoptive, or environmental parents (Plomin & DeFries, 1983; 1985).

Another way of studying heredity is by comparing the behavior of twins, who can either be identical (sharing the same genes) or non-identical (sharing 50% of genes). Like adoption studies, twin studies support the first rule of behavior genetics; that psychological traits are extremely heritable, about 50% on average.

The Twins in Early Development Study (TEDS) revealed correlations between twins on a range of behavioral traits, such as personality (empathy and hyperactivity) and components of reading such as phonetics (Haworth, Davis, Plomin, 2013; Oliver & Plomin, 2007; Trouton, Spinath, & Plomin, 2002).

Implications

Jenson (1969) found that the average I.Q. scores of black Americans were significantly lower than whites he went on to argue that genetic factors were mainly responsible – even going so far as to suggest that intelligence is 80% inherited.

The storm of controversy that developed around Jenson’s claims was not mainly due to logical and empirical weaknesses in his argument. It was more to do with the social and political implications that are often drawn from research that claims to demonstrate natural inequalities between social groups.

For many environmentalists, there is a barely disguised right-wing agenda behind the work of the behavioral geneticists.  In their view, part of the difference in the I.Q. scores of different ethnic groups are due to inbuilt biases in the methods of testing.

More fundamentally, they believe that differences in intellectual ability are a product of social inequalities in access to material resources and opportunities.  To put it simply children brought up in the ghetto tend to score lower on tests because they are denied the same life chances as more privileged members of society.

Now we can see why the nature-nurture debate has become such a hotly contested issue.  What begins as an attempt to understand the causes of behavioral differences often develops into a politically motivated dispute about distributive justice and power in society.

What’s more, this doesn’t only apply to the debate over I.Q.  It is equally relevant to the psychology of sex and gender , where the question of how much of the (alleged) differences in male and female behavior is due to biology and how much to culture is just as controversial.

Polygenic Inheritance

Rather than the presence or absence of single genes being the determining factor that accounts for psychological traits, behavioral genetics has demonstrated that multiple genes – often thousands, collectively contribute to specific behaviors.

Thus, psychological traits follow a polygenic mode of inheritance (as opposed to being determined by a single gene). Depression is a good example of a polygenic trait, which is thought to be influenced by around 1000 genes (Plomin, 2018).

This means a person with a lower number of these genes (under 500) would have a lower risk of experiencing depression than someone with a higher number.

The Nature of Nurture

Nurture assumes that correlations between environmental factors and psychological outcomes are caused environmentally. For example, how much parents read with their children and how well children learn to read appear to be related. Other examples include environmental stress and its effect on depression.

However, behavioral genetics argues that what look like environmental effects are to a large extent really a reflection of genetic differences (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991).

People select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic disposition. This means that what sometimes appears to be an environmental influence (nurture) is a genetic influence (nature).

So, children that are genetically predisposed to be competent readers, will be happy to listen to their parents read them stories, and be more likely to encourage this interaction.

Interaction Effects

However, in recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of “how much” behavior is due to heredity and “how much” to the environment may itself be the wrong question.

Take intelligence as an example. Like almost all types of human behavior, it is a complex, many-sided phenomenon which reveals itself (or not!) in a great variety of ways.

The “how much” question assumes that psychological traits can all be expressed numerically and that the issue can be resolved in a quantitative manner.

Heritability statistics revealed by behavioral genetic studies have been criticized as meaningless, mainly because biologists have established that genes cannot influence development independently of environmental factors; genetic and nongenetic factors always cooperate to build traits. The reality is that nature and culture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways (Gottlieb, 2007; Johnston & Edwards, 2002).

Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact.

For example, in psychopathology , this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. For example, epigenetics state that environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

What is Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is the term used to describe inheritance by mechanisms other than through the DNA sequence of genes. For example, features of a person’s physical and social environment can effect which genes are switched-on, or “expressed”, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves.

Stressors and memories can be passed through small RNA molecules to multiple generations of offspring in ways that meaningfully affect their behavior.

One such example is what is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter, during last year of the Second World War. What they found was that children who were in the womb during the famine experienced a life-long increase in their chances of developing various health problems compared to children conceived after the famine.

Epigenetic effects can sometimes be passed from one generation to the next, although the effects only seem to last for a few generations. There is some evidence that the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter affected grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the famine.

Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

This realization is especially important given the recent advances in genetics, such as polygenic testing.  The Human Genome Project, for example, has stimulated enormous interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes.

If these advances are not to be abused, then there will need to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives.

There is no neat and simple way of unraveling these qualitatively different and reciprocal influences on human behavior.

Epigenetics: Licking Rat Pups

Michael Meaney and his colleagues at McGill University in Montreal, Canada conducted the landmark epigenetic study on mother rats licking and grooming their pups.

This research found that the amount of licking and grooming received by rat pups during their early life could alter their epigenetic marks and influence their stress responses in adulthood.

Pups that received high levels of maternal care (i.e., more licking and grooming) had a reduced stress response compared to those that received low levels of maternal care.

Meaney’s work with rat maternal behavior and its epigenetic effects has provided significant insights into the understanding of early-life experiences, gene expression, and adult behavior.

It underscores the importance of the early-life environment and its long-term impacts on an individual’s mental health and stress resilience.

Epigenetics: The Agouti Mouse Study

Waterland and Jirtle’s 2003 study on the Agouti mouse is another foundational work in the field of epigenetics that demonstrated how nutritional factors during early development can result in epigenetic changes that have long-lasting effects on phenotype.

In this study, they focused on a specific gene in mice called the Agouti viable yellow (A^vy) gene. Mice with this gene can express a range of coat colors, from yellow to mottled to brown.

This variation in coat color is related to the methylation status of the A^vy gene: higher methylation is associated with the brown coat, and lower methylation with the yellow coat.

Importantly, the coat color is also associated with health outcomes, with yellow mice being more prone to obesity, diabetes, and tumorigenesis compared to brown mice.

Waterland and Jirtle set out to investigate whether maternal diet, specifically supplementation with methyl donors like folic acid, choline, betaine, and vitamin B12, during pregnancy could influence the methylation status of the A^vy gene in offspring.

Key findings from the study include:

Dietary Influence : When pregnant mice were fed a diet supplemented with methyl donors, their offspring had an increased likelihood of having the brown coat color. This indicated that the supplemented diet led to an increased methylation of the A^vy gene.

Health Outcomes : Along with the coat color change, these mice also had reduced risks of obesity and other health issues associated with the yellow phenotype.

Transgenerational Effects : The study showed that nutritional interventions could have effects that extend beyond the individual, affecting the phenotype of the offspring.

The implications of this research are profound. It highlights how maternal nutrition during critical developmental periods can have lasting effects on offspring through epigenetic modifications, potentially affecting health outcomes much later in life.

The study also offers insights into how dietary and environmental factors might contribute to disease susceptibility in humans.

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-582

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bouchard, T. J. (1994). Genes, Environment, and Personality. Science, 264 (5166), 1700-1701.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss . New York: Basic Books.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., … & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene.  Science ,  301 (5631), 386-389.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . MIT Press.

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult.  Addictive Behaviors ,  27 (5), 713-725.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.  Psychological Bulletin ,  101 (2), 171.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality . Se, 7.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development . London: J.M. Dent & Co.

Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis.   Developmental Science, 10 , 1–11.

Haworth, C. M., Davis, O. S., & Plomin, R. (2013). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16(1) , 117-125.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33 , 1-123.

Johnston, T. D., & Edwards, L. (2002). Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior . Psychological Review , 109, 26–34.

Keller, M. C., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2007). Association of different adverse life events with distinct patterns of depressive symptoms.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  164 (10), 1521-1529.

Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders.  Psychological Bulletin ,  110 (3), 406.

Oliver, B. R., & Plomin, R. (2007). Twins” Early Development Study (TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems from childhood through adolescence . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(1) , 96-105.

Petrill, S. A., Plomin, R., Berg, S., Johansson, B., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., & McClearn, G. E. (1998). The genetic and environmental relationship between general and specific cognitive abilities in twins age 80 and older.  Psychological Science ,  9 (3), 183-189.

Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What’s new?.  Intelligence ,  24 (1), 53-77.

Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are . MIT Press.

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures. behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3) , 373-386.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1983). The Colorado adoption project. Child Development , 276-289.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1985). The origins of individual differences in infancy; the Colorado adoption project. Science, 230 , 1369-1371.

Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics.  Journal of personality and social psychology ,  86 (1), 112.

Plomin, R., & Von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence.  Nature Reviews Genetics ,  19 (3), 148-159.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.

Sullivan, P. F., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2000). Genetic epidemiology of major depression: review and meta-analysis.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  157 (10), 1552-1562.

Szyf, M., Weaver, I. C., Champagne, F. A., Diorio, J., & Meaney, M. J. (2005). Maternal programming of steroid receptor expression and phenotype through DNA methylation in the rat .  Frontiers in neuroendocrinology ,  26 (3-4), 139-162.

Trouton, A., Spinath, F. M., & Plomin, R. (2002). Twins early development study (TEDS): a multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems in childhood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 5(5) , 444-448.

Waterland, R. A., & Jirtle, R. L. (2003). Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation . Molecular and cellular biology, 23 (15), 5293-5300.

Further Information

• Genetic & Environmental Influences on Human Psychological Differences

Evidence for Nurture

• Classical Conditioning
• Little Albert Experiment
• Operant Conditioning
• Behaviorism
• Social Learning Theory
• Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
• Social Roles
• Attachment Styles
• The Hidden Links Between Mental Disorders
• Visual Cliff Experiment
• Behavioral Genetics, Genetics, and Epigenetics
• Epigenetics
• Is Epigenetics Inherited?
• Physiological Psychology
• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis
• So is it nature not nurture after all?

Evidence for an Interaction

• Genes, Interactions, and the Development of Behavior
• Agouti Mouse Study
• Biological Psychology

What does nature refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nature” refers to the influence of genetics, innate qualities, and biological factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of hereditary factors in shaping who we are.

What does nurture refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nurture” refers to the influence of the environment, upbringing, experiences, and social factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of external factors in shaping who we are.

Why is it important to determine the contribution of heredity (nature) and environment (nurture) in human development?

Determining the contribution of heredity and environment in human development is crucial for understanding the complex interplay between genetic factors and environmental influences. It helps identify the relative significance of each factor, informing interventions, policies, and strategies to optimize human potential and address developmental challenges.

Call us directly: (877)77-TRIAL or (818)788-0747

5000 van nuys blvd.suite 216, sherman oaks, ca 91403 view map.

• About Dr.Schuster
• Alzheimer's Disease
• Bipolar Disorder
• Fibromyalgia
• Generalized Anxiety Disorder
• Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
• Panic Disorder
• Schizophrenia
• Current Studies
• Previous Studies
• Privacy Policy
• Community Involvement

Welcome to SMRI

Thank you for visiting SMRIonline.com, the official home page of Schuster Medical Research Institute. We are a full service clinical research facility, serving the Greater Los Angeles area from the heart of the San Fernando Valley. The SMRI staff is ready to help you learn more about clinical trials and whether or not they may suit your needs. SMRI is a reputable research center that has been consistently recognized for efficient and high quality clinical trial performance.

...or fill in the form on our Appointments page:

Our Main Clinical Trials

We invite you to browse through our site and fill out a free screening form.

Meet the Staff

Dr. Schuster and his staff of research professionals provide excellent patient care and compassion. As a Principal Investigator, he is deeply committed to the health of each patient and the success of each study. Following ICH guidelines he is involved in the progress of every patient at each and every visit.

One of our staff members will contact you promptly with answers to any questions or inquiries about our studies that you may have.

Patient Care

• Request Appointment
• Treatment & Diagnosis
• Plan Your Visit
• Find a Doctor

Health Info

• Diseases & Conditions
• Symptom Checker
• Drugs & Supplements
• Explore Research Areas
• Find Clinical Trials
• Research Faculty
• Online Services for Ref...
• Grand Rounds

5000 Van Nuys Blvd. Suite 216 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403