rts the development and evaluation of a perceived restorative components scale for children.
Attention Restoration TheoryThe capacity to direct attention (CDA) is a crucial component in the performance of specific everyday tasks as well as in overall life effectiveness for both adults and children (Driver 2001; Kuo 2001; Kuo and Sullivan 2001; Piontkowski and Calfee 1979; Rockstroh and Schweizer 2001; Ruff and Rothbart 1996; Wells and Matthews 1994). For example, children with severe attentional deficits (e.g., Attention Deficit Disorder, or ADD) as well as those with less attentional capacity loss demonstrate reduced effectiveness in both academic performance and interpersonal relationships. For all individuals, CDA inhibits distracting, irrelevant stimuli while allowing appropriate information to be extracted from the environment. As CDA requires effort, however, the ability to continue directing attention can be diminished. This reduces the efficacy of the inhibitory mechanism for irrelevant stimuli, in turn resulting in reduced effectiveness. For example, attentionally fatigued individuals (both adults and children) may experience irritability, difficulty with concentrating, problem solving or planning (Kaplan 1995). The restoration of attentional capacity is therefore crucial for both adults and children alike.
Drawing on James' (1950) distinction between “voluntary attention” (i.e., requires effort) and “involuntary attention” (i.e., effortless), Kaplan’s (1995) ART is based on direct and indirect attention respectively (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Kaplan 1995). Direct attention, like voluntary attention, requires effort to maintain. As such, the ability to maintain the effort of directing attention can be weakened, which is experienced as directed attention fatigue (DAF). Conversely, indirect attention is effortless. As the two types of attention are experienced one at one time, ART proposes that involuntary or indirect attention leads to the restoration of directed attention. Different environments vary in their support of the experience of involuntary attention; that is, some environments are experienced as more restorative than others (Kaplan 1995).
ART proposes there are four components required for an environment to be restorative: Being Away, Extent, Fascination and Compatibility (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). The level of any of these components varies across environments, including those distinguished by the amount of natural or built elements. Although some restoration could occur when only one component is met- for example, physically being away from one’s work environment- ART suggests that greater restoration would be yielded in an environment comprising all four. Further, because these components are considered to be products of person-environment interactions (Kaplan 2001), a determination of whether a specific environment is restorative can differ across people and across time (Hartig, Korpela, Evans, and Garling 1997b; Hartig et al. 1991; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). It is argued, however, that restorative environments are more likely to be comprised of natural elements such as trees and grassy spaces, than built elements such as brick buildings and concrete surfaces (Hartig, Kaiser, and Bowler 1997a; Hartig et al. 1997b; Hartig et al. 1991; Herzog, Chen, and Primeau 2002; Herzog, Maguire, and Nebel 2003; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Kaplan 1995; Korpela, Kytta, and Hartig 2002; Kuo 2001; Kuo, Bacaicoa, and Sullivan 1998; Kuo and Sullivan 2001; Laumann, Garling, and Stormark 2001).
Being AwayOne of the key components of a restorative environment is that of Being Away from the attentionally fatiguing features of daily life. This component is further divided into two different types of being away– that of being away physically, i.e., in a different geographical location, and that of being away psychologically, i.e., a conceptual shift (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Kaplan 1995, 2001b). The phrase “wanting to get away from it all” in conjunction with a holiday destination is reminiscent of the physical Being Away component o