Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Walking and Being Outdoors in Nature Increase Positive Affect and Energy

2018; Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.; Volume: 10; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1089/eco.2017.0036

1942-9347

Kathleen Fuegen, Kimberly H. Breitenbecher,

Animal and Plant Science Education

EcopsychologyVol. 10, No. 1 Original ArticlesFree AccessWalking and Being Outdoors in Nature Increase Positive Affect and EnergyKathleen Fuegen and Kimberly H. BreitenbecherKathleen Fuegen and Kimberly H. BreitenbecherPublished Online:1 Mar 2018https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2017.0036AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AbstractThis study investigated the effect of outdoor exercise on measures of mood, energy, tiredness, and attention. One hundred eighty-one participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: (1) indoor exercise, (2) indoor rest, (3) outdoor exercise, or (4) outdoor rest. Outdoor conditions involved exposure to actual nature, and indoor conditions involved exposure to simulated nature. We hypothesized that there would be a main effect for activity such that participants who exercised (i.e., walked) would demonstrate more favorable pretest-to-posttest changes in mood, energy, tiredness, and attention than participants who rested (i.e., sat). We also expected to find a main effect for setting such that participants whose sessions took place outdoors (i.e., in actual nature) would demonstrate more favorable pretest-to-posttest changes in mood, energy, tiredness, and attention than participants whose sessions took place indoors (i.e., in simulated nature). Lastly, we expected activity and setting to interact such that participants who exercised outdoors would demonstrate the most favorable pretest-to-posttest changes, and participants who rested indoors would demonstrate the least favorable changes. We found partial support for all three hypotheses. Under conditions of rest, the benefits of exposure to actual nature are greater than the benefits of exposure to simulated nature. Under conditions of exercise, the benefits of exposure to actual nature are less clear. Key Words: Mood—Attention—Physical activity—Actual versus simulated nature—Outdoor exercise.Overworked and fatigued employees and students are often in search of effective, healthy ways to boost their mood, energy, and attention. If a person has only about 15 minutes to spare, is it better to take a short walk or sit and relax? Is it better to do these things indoors or outdoors? The present study addresses these questions. Within the past 20 years, research evidence has accumulated to suggest that exercising in natural environments (typically, outdoor environments characterized by abundant green space) is associated with improved mood, greater energy, and enhanced ability to focus attention (e.g., Barton & Pretty, 2010; Bowler, Buyung-Ali, Knight, & Pullin, 2010; Thompson Coon et al., 2011), findings consistent with Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995). Although such results seem to provide evidence for the benefits of outdoor exercise, few researchers have attempted to separate the effects of exercise from the effects of exposure to the natural environment. Our purpose was to investigate the effects of environment (either outdoor or indoor) and activity (either exercise or rest) on mood and attention in a fully crossed experimental design.Effects of actual and simulated nature on mood and attentionMultiple experiments have documented that exercising in an outdoor, natural environment, relative to exercising in an outdoor, urban environment, enhances positive affect (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; Berman et al., 2012; Bodin & Hartig, 2003; Focht, 2009; Geniole et al., 2016; Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis, & Gärling, 2003; Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, & Dolliver, 2009; Ryan et al., 2010). For example, Berman and colleagues (2008) found that college students who had been randomly assigned to walk through an arboretum demonstrated greater pretest-posttest changes in positive mood, as demonstrated on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), than students who had been assigned to walk through a busy downtown environment. Several experiments have provided evidence that even exposure to simulated nature (e.g., photos, videos, or virtual reality) improves mood (Cackowski & Nasar, 2003; Felsten, 2009; Gatersleben & Andrews, 2013; Hartig & Staats, 2006; Jahncke, Hygge, Halin, Green, & Dimberg, 2011; Kinnafick & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2014; Ryan et al., 2010; Ulrich et al., 1991; van den Berg, Koole, & van der Wulp, 2003). For example, van den Berg and colleagues (2003) instructed participants to view a 7-minute video of a walk through a forest or a city street. Those who viewed the nature video demonstrated greater pretest-posttest decreases in depression, anger, tension, and stress. Other researchers, using similar designs, have documented desirable changes in subjective vitality (Ryan et al., 2010), positive and negative affect (Kinnafick & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2014; Mayer et al., 2009; Ulrich et al., 1991), anger/aggression, and fear (Ulrich et al., 1991).The effects of nature exposure on attention are less definitive. Many experiments have provided evidence that exercising in nature improves attention relative to exercising in an urban or built environment (Berman et al., 2008, 2012; Hartig et al., 2003, 1991; Mayer et al., 2009; Taylor & Kuo, 2009). For example, Berman and colleagues (2008; Experiment 1) found that participants' attention improved (measured with a Digit Span Backward task) after walking in an arboretum but not after walking downtown. However, other studies have failed to find any benefit of exercising in nature on attention (Bodin & Hartig, 2003; Bratman, Daily, Levy, & Gross, 2015; Geniole et al., 2016; Johansson, Hartig, & Staats, 2011; Perkins, Searight, & Ratwik, 2011). For example, Bratman et al. (2015) found that participants who had walked through a park showed improved performance on an operation span task, but they did not differ from participants who walked in a busy downtown district on three other measures of attention: a Digit Span Backward (DSB) task, an attention network task measuring executive attention, or a change detection task. Similarly, findings regarding the effect of simulated nature on attention are mixed. At least two experiments have shown that exposure to simulated natural environments improved attention and/or working memory (Berto, 2005; Laumann, Gärling, & Stormark, 2001), though other studies have either failed to find such benefits (Berto, Baroni, Zainaghi, & Bettella, 2010; Jahncke et al., 2011; van den Berg et al., 2003) or have found that exposure to simulated nature affected one dependent variable (e.g., executive attention) but not others (e.g., alerting, orienting) (Berman et al., 2008; Experiment 2).Effects of exercise on mood and attentionJust as exposure to nature has been found to enhance positive affect and, in some cases, attention, research shows that exercise improves mood and cognitive performance. Meta-analyses suggest that acute bouts of exercise can have positive effects on cognitive performance (Chang, Labban, Gapin, & Etnier, 2012; Lambourne & Tomporowski, 2010; McMorris & Hale, 2011; McMorris, Sproule, Turner, & Hale, 2011) and mood (Reed & Ones, 2006). Specifically, acute bouts of exercise can improve memory and processing speed (Lambourne & Tomporowski, 2010) and boost executive function and crystalized intelligence (Chang et al., 2012). In a meta-analysis of 158 studies, Reed and Ones (2006) concluded that exercise conditions were associated with moderate increases in positive, energized (or activated) affect. The effect of acute exercise on mood and attention is moderated by several factors including exercise duration and exercise intensity (Chang et al., 2012; Reed & Ones, 2006).Comparing exercise and rest in actual and simulated natural environmentsResearch suggests that exposure to actual natural environments (e.g., parks, forests) can result in better mood and, in some cases, improved attention compared to exposure to actual urban environments (e.g., industrial areas, commercial districts). Additional research suggests that exposure to simulated natural environments (e.g., photos, videos, or virtual reality) can result in better mood and, in some cases, attention than exposure to simulated urban environments. A different research question is whether exposure to simulated natural environments produces different effects on mood and attention than exposure to actual natural environments.Although some contradictory findings exist (see Plante, Aldridge, Su, et al., 2003; Plante, Cage, Clements, & Stover, 2006), most studies examining this issue have found that exposure to actual natural environments is superior to exposure to simulated natural environments with respect to improvement in mood (Kahn, Severson, & Ruckert, 2009; Kjellgren & Buhrkall, 2010; Mayer et al., 2009). For example, Kjellgren and Buhrkall (2010) found that resting in an outdoor nature park increased energy relative to resting indoors while viewing slides of the nature park. Similarly, Kahn and colleagues (2009) reported that participants who had been exposed to a window view of nature showed better recovery from stress (as measured by heart rate) than participants who had been exposed to a plasma screen view of nature. These results are consistent with a recent meta-analysis showing that the effect of natural environments on mood was greater for exposure to actual nature than laboratory-based simulated nature (McMahan & Estes, 2015).Studies that have compared exposure to simulated nature and actual outdoor nature on measures of attention have yielded mixed results. Mayer and colleagues (2009) found that participants who had exercised outdoors in nature (i.e., by walking through an arboretum) performed similarly on a search task involving letters to participants who had watched a video of the walk through the arboretum. In contrast, Gatersleben and Andrews (2013) found that participants who walked through a park demonstrated greater improvements in attention/concentration than participants who watched a video of the walk. Unfortunately, these studies confounded activity (i.e., exercise) with environment: we cannot be sure whether the results are due to the salutogenic effects of exercise or actual nature exposure.Present studyOur purpose is to investigate the effects of activity and setting on measures of mood (positive affect, negative affect, energy, and tiredness) and attention in a fully crossed experimental design. We address methodological limitations in earlier studies by directly comparing exercise and rest in simulated (indoor) and actual (outdoor) nature.Hypothesis #1There will be a main effect for activity. Participants who exercise will demonstrate greater improvement in attention, increased positive mood, decreased negative mood, increased energy, and decreased tiredness than participants who rest.Hypothesis #2There will be a main effect for setting. Participants whose sessions take place outdoors (i.e., in the presence of actual nature) will demonstrate greater improvement in attention, increased positive mood, decreased negative mood, increased energy, and decreased tiredness than participants whose sessions take place indoors (i.e., in the presence of simulated nature).Hypothesis #3There will be an interaction between activity and setting such that participants who exercise outdoors will show the most favorable outcomes, participants who rest indoors will show the least favorable outcomes, and participants who exercise indoors or rest outdoors will show intermediate outcomes. A series of planned contrasts will test the following predictions: Participants who exercise outdoors will demonstrate more favorable outcomes than participants who exercise indoors (H3a) and participants who rest outdoors (H3b), and participants who exercise indoors (H3c) and participants who rest outdoors (H3d) will show more favorable outcomes than participants who rest indoors.MethodParticipantsParticipants were 108 (60%) women and 73 (40%) men enrolled in psychology courses at a mid-sized Midwestern university. Participants were predominantly Caucasian (79%) or African American (9%). Participants ranged in age from 17 to 75 years (M = 21.59 years, SD = 7.69).MeasuresDigit Span BackwardThe Digit Span Backward (DSB; Lezak, Howieson, Bigler, & Tranel, 2012) task requires participants to repeat a series of digits of increasing length in correct reverse order. In this study, digit sequences ranged in length from two to nine digits. There were two trials for each digit sequence length (i.e., two trials of a two-digit sequence, two trials of a three-digit sequence, etc.). The researcher presented digit sequences of increasing length until the participant made two consecutive errors (i.e., repeated two consecutive sequences incorrectly). A participant's score was the longest sequence that he or she repeated correctly. Thus, participants' scores on this measure could range from two to nine. Higher scores indicate better attention.Symbol Digit Modalities TestThe Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT; Smith, 1973) requires participants to substitute numbers for a series of geometric symbols according to a specified key, available at the top of the SDMT worksheet. The score is the number of correct substitutions within a 90-second interval. The SDMT is sensitive to reduced efficiency in cognitive function (Smith, 1973). Higher scores indicate more efficient cognitive functioning.Positive and Negative Affect ScheduleThe Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) consists of 20 adjectives (e.g., interested, scared). The participant is asked to indicate the extent to which he or she feels this way right now on a scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). The PANAS consists of two subscales: Positive Affect and Negative Affect. Internal consistency reliability coefficients range from .86 to .90 for the Positive Affect Scale and from .84 to .87 for the Negative Affect Scale (Watson et al., 1988). Eight-week test-retest reliability coefficients are .68 for Positive Affect and .71 for Negative Affect (Watson et al., 1988). Lastly, the PANAS has good validity; negative affect is positively correlated with well-established measures of psychological distress (Watson et al., 1988).Activation-Deactivation Adjective ChecklistThe Activation-Deactivation Adjective Checklist (AD-ACL; Thayer, 1986) consists of 20 adjectives (e.g., energetic, fearful). The participant is asked to indicate the extent to which he or she feels this way at this moment on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). According to the circumplex model of affect (Russell, 1980), the affective space is defined by two bipolar and orthogonal dimensions: valence and activation (see also Ekkekakis, Hall, VanLanduyt, & Petruzzello, 2000). These divisions yield four quadrants: deactivated pleasant affect (relaxation, calmness), deactivated unpleasant affect (boredom, fatigue, depression), activated unpleasant affect (tension, distress), and activated pleasant affect (energy, excitement, enthusiasm). The AD-ACL consists of four subscales related to these quadrants: energy, tiredness, tension, and calmness. Here we report analysis of the energy and tiredness subscales. Test-retest reliability coefficients between alternate forms were .89 for energy and .89 for tiredness (Thayer, 1978).WeatherDuring each session, the researcher obtained information about the outdoor temperature, wind speed, and the percentage of the sky covered in clouds from the website www.weather.gov.ProcedureRecruitmentParticipants were recruited through information posted on the university's online research management system. The study was described as "an investigation of the relationships among psychological wellbeing, cognitive processing, activity, and environment." Interested individuals scheduled individual, laboratory-based sessions. Participants received partial credit toward their psychology courses. The study was approved by the Northern Kentucky University Institutional Review Board.Introduction and consentA female researcher guided participants through the study. The researcher met the participant at the laboratory and provided him or her with an informed consent form. The participant read and signed the form.Attention depletionIn order to enhance our ability to detect effects of activity and setting on the attention measures, we asked participants to engage in a task designed to deplete attention. Specifically, the researcher gave the participant a sheet of paper containing 50 five-letter anagrams (e.g., t-r-i-e-h) and instructed the participant to solve as many anagrams as possible (e.g., their) in five minutes.1 In a previous study, 86 undergraduate students rated the ease/difficulty of this task on a 1 (very easy) to 10 (exceedingly difficult) scale. The task was perceived as moderately difficult (M = 6.62; SD = 1.98; Fugate, 2010).Administration of pretest measuresFollowing completion of the anagram task, the participant responded to the measures of attention (DSB and SDMT) and mood (PANAS and AD-ACL). The researcher presented these measures in random order.Experimental manipulationThe researcher used a modified, random strategy to assign the participant to experimental condition. Specifically, if at the time of the laboratory-based session, (1) the outdoor temperature was greater than or equal to 32°F (0°C) and (2) there was no precipitation, the participant was randomly assigned to one of the following four experimental conditions: outdoor exercise (OE), indoor exercise (IE), outdoor rest (OR), or indoor rest (IR). If, at the time of the laboratory-based session, (1) the outdoor temperature was less than 32°F (0°C) or (2) there was precipitation, the participant was randomly assigned to the indoor exercise (IE) or indoor rest (IR) condition.2We designed these conditions in such as a way as to control for the visual stimuli experienced by participants. Participants who were assigned to the IE condition watched a video or slideshow that contained images of the sights seen along the path walked by OE participants. Similarly, participants who were assigned to the IR condition watched a video or slideshow that contained images of the sights seen from the bench where OR participants rested.3 Thus, participants in both indoor conditions were exposed to simulated nature.Outdoor exercise (OE)The researcher escorted the participant to an outdoor location near the building in which the laboratory was located (Fig. 1). The researcher gave the participant a map of the campus on which a walking route had been highlighted. This walking route circled a lake and included views of both natural elements (i.e., trees, small plants, lake) and built elements (e.g., classroom buildings, parking lot). The researcher asked the participant to walk along the highlighted route at a comfortable pace for 15 minutes and to avoid conversation with others and the use of personal cellular devices during the walk. After giving these instructions, the researcher re-entered the building. After the participant had completed the exercise, the researcher escorted the participant back to the laboratory for completion of the posttest measures.Fig. 1. Outdoor exercise.Indoor exercise (IE)The researcher escorted the participant to an adjacent laboratory room equipped with a treadmill, computer, projector, and screen (Fig. 2). The researcher instructed the participant to walk on the treadmill at a comfortable, self-selected pace for 15 minutes. The researcher also informed the participant that, while he or she was walking on the treadmill, he or she would view a visual stimulus on the projector screen (140 cm tall × 147 cm wide). This visual stimulus represented the sights seen by a participant who had been assigned to the OE condition (specifically, the sights seen by an individual who was walking along the same path as an OE participant). The researcher set the timer on the treadmill for 15 minutes. After the participant began walking on the treadmill, the researcher left the laboratory and waited in an adjacent room. After the participant had completed the exercise, the researcher escorted the participant back to the original laboratory room for completion of the posttest measures.Fig. 2. Indoor exercise.Outdoor rest (OR)The researcher escorted the participant to an outdoor location near the building in which the laboratory was located. This location included a bench adjacent to a lake (Fig. 3). This bench provided a view of the same visual stimuli as seen by an OE participant. The view included both natural elements (e.g., trees, small plants, lake) and built elements (e.g., classroom buildings, parking lot). The researcher asked the participant to rest on this bench for 15 minutes and to avoid conversation with others and the use of personal cellular devices during the period of rest. After the participant had completed the rest, the researcher escorted the participant back to the laboratory for completion of the posttest measures.Fig. 3. Outdoor rest.Indoor rest (IR)The IR sessions took place in the laboratory room that was used to complete the pretest measures. This room was equipped with a desk and computer (Fig. 4). The researcher explained to the participant that he or she would view a visual stimulus on the computer screen (23 cm tall × 28 cm wide). This visual stimulus represented the sights seen by a participant who had been assigned to the OR condition (specifically, the sights seen by an individual who was resting on the same bench as an OR participant). After the participant had completed the rest, the researcher asked him or her to complete the posttest measures.Fig. 4. Indoor rest.Administration of posttest measuresFollowing the experimental manipulation, the participant completed the posttest measures of attention (DSB and SDMT) and mood (PANAS and AD-ACL). These measures were administered in the same order as in the pretest. Lastly, the participant responded to three demographic items assessing age, sex, and ethnicity.4ResultsPreliminary analysesWe conducted a series of 2 (Activity: exercise or rest) × 2 (Setting: indoors or outdoors) ANOVAs on pretest scores to check for differences between groups prior to the manipulation. All main effects and interactions were nonsignificant.To examine whether participants within each condition experienced significant pretest-to-posttest changes in mood and attention, we conducted a series of paired samples t tests (see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and significant differences).Table 1. Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Measures by Setting and Activity INDOORSOUTDOORS EXERCISERESTEXERCISEREST PRETESTPOSTTESTPRETESTPOSTTESTPRETESTPOSTTESTPRETESTPOSTTESTAttention DSB4.56 (1.23)4.79 (1.24)4.61 (1.20)4.96* (1.41)5.07 (1.40)5.15 (1.22)4.53 (0.84)4.97 (1.45) SDMT57.54 (9.33)68.21** (11.30)57.82 (8.70)67.23** (14.58)58.51 (10.55)67.51** (14.74)57.75 (7.46)66.13** (11.73)Mood Positive affect3.06 (0.81)3.10 (0.84)3.00 (0.73)2.24** (0.82)3.03 (0.66)3.17 (0.78)3.05 (0.88)2.91 (0.87) Negative affect1.38 (0.50)1.15** (0.23)1.44 (0.50)1.23** (0.36)1.42 (0.51)1.17** (0.27)1.43 (0.58)1.14** (0.23) Energy2.78 (0.82)2.89 (0.71)2.50 (0.90)1.85** (0.75)2.49 (0.73)2.96** (0.77)2.61 (0.95)2.51 (0.96) Tiredness2.62 (0.83)2.18** (0.85)2.79 (0.95)3.46** (0.76)2.71 (0.97)2.18** (0.78)2.73 (1.09)2.55 (0.96)Note. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. DSB = Digit Span Backward; SDMT = Symbol Digit Modalities Test.*Within condition, the posttest mean differs significantly from the pretest mean at p < .05.**Within condition, the posttest mean differs significantly from the pretest mean at p < .01.We examined correlations among each of the weather variables and pretest-to-posttest changes in mood and attention. No correlation coefficients approached statistical significance (rs = − .13 to .06). Thus, there was no evidence that variations in the weather were related to changes in mood or attention.Main analysesData analytic strategyWe performed a 2 (Activity: exercise or rest) × 2 (Setting: indoors or outdoors) ANOVA on the pretest-to-posttest change in each measure of attention (DSB and SDMT) and mood (positive affect, negative affect, energy, and tiredness). Means and standard deviations by condition can be found in Table 2. We conducted planned contrasts to follow up on significant interactions, and we controlled for Type 1 error by setting alpha at .025. The correlations between all dependent measures as well as scale reliability coefficients are presented in Table 3.Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Measures by Experimental Condition INDOOR EXERCISEINDOOR RESTOUTDOOR EXERCISEOUTDOOR REST n = 52n = 56n = 41n = 32 M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)Attention DSB0.24 (.88)0.36 (1.24)0.07 (1.03)0.44 (1.50) SDMT10.67 (7.20)9.41 (10.10)9.00 (8.39)8.38 (6.97)Mood Positive affect0.04 (.45)-0.76 (.53)0.14 (.53)-0.14 (.45) Negative affect-0.23 (.40)-0.21 (.30)-0.24 (.32)-0.29 (.44) Energy0.11 (.69)-0.64 (.60)0.47 (.72)-0.10 (.73) Tiredness-0.44 (.90)0.66 (.76)-0.53 (.82)-0.17 (1.04)Note. Means are change scores from pretest to posttest (i.e., posttest – pretest). DSB = Digit Span Backward; SDMT = Symbol Digit Modalities Test.Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations between Dependent Measures MEANSDDSBSDMTPOSITIVE AFFECTNEGATIVE AFFECTENERGYTIREDNESSDSB0.271.151.10.03.04−.09.09SDMT9.508.40 1.09−.12.02−.12Positive affect−0.220.62 .88/.93−.04.66**−.65**Negative affect−0.240.36 .84/.76−.03.01Energy−0.080.79 .87/.87−.75**Tiredness−0.071.00 .89/.91Note. Means are change scores (i.e., posttest – pretest). Values on the diagonal are internal consistency reliability coefficients at pretest and posttest. DSB = Digit Span Backward; SDMT = Symbol Digit Modalities Test.*p < .05. **p < .01.AttentionDigit Span Backward (DSB). Results of the ANOVA indicated that, contrary to hypotheses, neither the main effect of activity (H1), nor the main effect of setting (H2), nor the interaction (H3) between these two factors was statistically significant, ps > .17.Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Results of the ANOVA indicated that, contrary to hypotheses, neither the main effect of activity (H1), nor the main effect of setting (H2), nor the interaction (H3) between these two factors was statistically significant, ps > .29.MoodPositive affect. Results of the ANOVA indicated that the main effect for activity was significant, F(1, 171) = 49.42, p < .001, partial η2 = .22. Consistent with Hypothesis #1, participants who exercised experienced an increase in positive affect (M = 0.09, SD = 0.49). In contrast, participants who rested experienced a decrease in positive affect (M = −0.54, SD = 0.59).The main effect for setting was also significant, F(1, 171) = 22.54, p < .001, partial η2 = .12. Consistent with Hypothesis #2, participants whose sessions took place outdoors experienced a slight increase in positive affect (M = 0.02, SD = 0.51). In contrast, participants whose sessions took place indoors experienced a decrease in positive affect (M = −0.38, SD = 0.64).Lastly, the interaction between activity and setting was significant, F(1, 171) = 11.56, p = .001, partial η2 = .06. Planned contrasts revealed partial support for Hypothesis #3. As predicted, resting outdoors (H3d) and exercising indoors (H3c) each resulted in a more favorable change in positive affect compared to resting indoors, ps < .001. In addition, exercising outdoors resulted in a greater increase in positive affect than resting outdoors (H3b), p = .021. However, exercising outdoors did not result in a greater increase in positive affect than exercising indoors (H3a) (p = .33).Negative affect. Results of the ANOVA indicated that, contrary to hypotheses, neither the main effect of activity (H1), the main effect of setting (H2), nor the interaction (H3) was significant, ps > .40.Energy. Results of the ANOVA indicated that the main effect for activity was significant, F(1, 174) = 40.95, p < .001, partial η2 = .19. Consistent with Hypothesis #1, participants who exercised experienced an increase in energy (M = 0.27, SD = 0.72). In contrast, participants who rested experienced a decrease in energy (M = −0.44, SD = 0.70).The main effect for setting was also significant, F(1, 174) = 18.99, p < .001, partial η2 = .10. Consistent with Hypothesis #2, participants whose sessions took place outdoors experienced an increase in energy (M = 0.22, SD = 0.78). In contrast, participants whose sessions took place indoors experienced a decrease in energy (M = −0.28, SD = 0.74).Contrary to Hypothesis #3, the interaction between activity and setting was not significant, F(1, 174) = 0.77, p = 0.38.Tiredness. Results of the ANOVA indicated that the main effect for activity was significant, F(1, 175) = 30.14, p < .001, partial η2 = .15. Consistent with Hypothesis #1, participants who exercised experienced a decrease in tiredness (M = −0.47, SD = 0.87). In contrast, participants who rested experienced an increase in tiredness (M = 0.37, SD = 0.96).The main effect for setting was also significant, F(1, 175) = 12.10, p = .001, partial η2 = .07. Consistent with Hypothesis #2, participants whose sessions took place outside experienced a decrease in tiredness (M = −0.38, SD = 0.93). In contrast, participants whose sessions took place inside experienced an increase in tiredness (M = 0.13, SD = 1.00).Lastly, the interaction between activity and setting was significant, F(1, 175) = 8.10, p = .005, partial η2 = .04. In partial support of Hypothesis #3, planned contrasts revealed that resting outdoors (H3d) and exercising indoors (H3c) each resulted in a significantly greater decrease in tiredness compared to resting indo