Environment and Behavior http://eab.sagepub.com/
Does Anthropogenic Noise in National Parks Impair Memory? Jacob A. Benfield, Paul A. Bell, Lucy J. Troup and Nick Soderstrom Environment and Behavior 2010 42: 693 originally published online 2 December 2009 DOI: 10.1177/0013916509351219 The online version of this article can be found at: http://eab.sagepub.com/content/42/5/693
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of: Environmental Design Research Association
Additional services and information for Environment and Behavior can be found at: Email Alerts: http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eab.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://eab.sagepub.com/content/42/5/693.refs.html
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
Article
Does Anthropogenic Noise in National Parks Impair Memory?
Environment and Behavior 42(5) 693–706 © 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0013916509351219 http://eab.sagepub.com
Jacob A. Benfield1, Paul A. Bell1, Lucy J.Troup1, and Nick Soderstrom1
Abstract Research on noise shows that a variety of effects including stress, annoyance, and performance decrements exist for certain types of sounds. Noise interferes with cognitive ability by overloading the attentional system or simply distracting from efficient encoding or rehearsal, but very little research has extended those findings to recreation or natural environments such as those found in national parks. By exposing participants to one of four soundscape conditions—control, natural, natural with voices, and natural with ground traffic—the current project tested the effect of sound conditions on the recognition and recall of factual information presented whereas viewing scenes of national parks. Both the natural with voices and natural with ground traffic conditions caused significant decreases in memory scores while the natural condition showed no differences from the control condition. Implications for sound management strategies are discussed in the context of current legislation and recent field research. Avenues for future research to clarify the mode of memory interference are discussed. Keywords noise, memory, environment, parks, overflight
1
Colorado State University
Corresponding Author: Jacob A. Benfield, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1876 USA Email:
[email protected]
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
694
Environment and Behavior 42(5)
Noise, or unwanted sound, has been a topic of interest for several decades for environmental psychologists and other researchers alike. Because of its subjective nature, defining what type of sound is or is not unwanted and therefore problematic has been difficult. In general, sounds that are loud, unpredictable, or uncontrollable are more likely to be considered noise (Glass & Singer, 1972; Kryter, 1994), and other factors can increase noise annoyance. Sounds that are perceived as unnecessary or detrimental to something we value are more annoying as are noises that are considered hazardous to our health (Green & Fidell, 1991). The same is true of noises generated by someone seemingly unconcerned with the listener’s well-being (Miedema & Vos, 1999). Aside from the noise itself, evidence exists that some people are just more sensitive than others when it comes to noise (Ellermeier, Eigenstetter, & Zimmer, 2001; Staples, 1996; Weinstein, 1978; Zimmer & Ellermeier, 1999). As a stable trait, higher noise sensitivity has been shown to be related to higher annoyance ratings, some psychological disorders, and stronger negative responses to sources of noise (Stansfield, Sharp, Gallacher, & Babisch, 1993; Taylor, 1984 Weinstein, 1978). In sum, the perception of a sound as unwanted or undesirable is dependent on several factors including volume, the situation, and individual attributions about both the sound and source along with individual differences in noise sensitivity.
The Effects of Noise Despite difficulties in creating absolute distinctions between sounds and noises, researchers have spent considerable effort classifying both the psychological and physiological effects of noise on humans (e.g., Aydin & Kaltenbach, 2007; Babisch, 2003; Beaman, 2005; Maschke, Rupp, & Hecht, 2000). These effects run a wide range and are explained using several different perspectives such as stress response models and the optimization of arousal. Of most importance to the current project are findings and explanations that center on the effect of sound or noise on cognitive abilities. Environmental load theory (Broadbent, 1958; Milgram, 1970) is often used to explain reactions to novel or unwanted environmental stimuli such as noise because it focuses on sensory overstimulation and the associated attentional and cognitive deficits that occur. In its simplest form, environmental load states that the physical environment provides more information than humans can reasonably process so our attentional resources are prioritized for important or novel stimuli. Prolonged usage of those attentional resources or exposure to an overwhelming amount of environmental stimuli depletes
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
Benfield et al.
695
our attentional capacity and causes an increase in attentional and/or cognitive errors. In the context of noise, environments that are louder or richer in auditory stimuli require more selective attention compared to quieter or more benign soundscapes. That use of selective attention can result in deficits in cognitive abilities if the demands placed on attention by the sound are particularly high and/or the task is sufficiently complex. Using an environmental load paradigm often implies a dual processing problem in which resources are used up quickly because of a split between two distinct attentional needs vying for cognitive resources. An example of this occurs when driving a car (visual attentional needs) and trying to hold a cell phone conversation (auditory attentional needs). In essence, environmental load theory centers on the idea that the amount of needed cognitive resources can exceed the amount of available cognitive resources; the discrepancy between the two creates performance errors. However, research on irrelevant speech or sound effects shows that environmental stimuli can interfere with memory without necessarily overtaxing the individual’s selective attention (Beaman, 2005; Beaman & Jones, 1997; Colle & Welsh, 1976; Jones & Morris, 1992; Salame´ & Baddeley, 1982). For example, Bell et al. (1984) found that the presence of white noise interfered with both encoding and retrieval processes with a complete absence of context-dependent memory effects. Such irrelevant sound effects show that low intensity background sounds such as speech have a detrimental effect on serial recall tasks in which a series of words or other stimuli are supposed to be recalled in correct order. In this paradigm, the background sounds are irrelevant to the task at hand and in most cases the participants are even directed to ignore the sounds and focus on the task relevant stimuli. In addition, the irrelevant sounds are low intensity and predictable suggesting that they have very little impact on overall cognitive load. Because of their low intensity and irrelevant status the sounds used in these studies are likely interfering with cognitive performance through some means other than dividing and depleting attentional resources. Several explanations have been proposed and tested including involuntary distraction (Cowan, 1995) and contamination of the encoded material (Salame´ & Baddeley, 1982). Several studies have attempted to classify the types of tasks, sounds, and participant characteristics responsible for irrelevant sounds effects (see Beaman, 2005 for a review) and the general consensus is that tasks requiring semantic processing show semantic effects of irrelevant sounds. Episodic-oriented processes and tasks show irrelevant sounds effects but not in relation to the semantic content. Sounds that have some variability or contain task-similar information interfere more. Persons
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
696
Environment and Behavior 42(5)
who are more sensitive to noise show larger decrements in the presence of irrelevant sounds or speech.
Noise in Natural Environments Noise researchers often recognize the importance of their work in applied settings. Research focusing on performance decrements oftentimes discusses the importance of understanding these decrements in the context of schools, homes, and the workplace. Errors in accounting or safe driving or academic placement have direct impact on both individuals and society at large. However, it is seldom that these applied psychological scenarios and implications are extended to recreation or naturalistic settings, although there is growing concern that anthropogenic noise in natural settings is problematic. For example, Horonjeff et al. (1993) found aircraft sound levels as high as 76 dB(A) in Grand Canyon National Park. By way of comparison, 35 dB(A) is typical of a quiet residential neighborhood at night, the crater at Haleakala National Park is 10 dB(A) in the absence of external sounds, crickets at 5 m in Zion National Park are 40 dB(A), and a snowcoach at 30 m in Yellowstone National Park is 80 dB(A) (Ambrose & Burson, 2004). Legislation has attempted to address concerns about noise in national parks (Henry, Ernenwein, Thompson, & Opperman, 2000). For example, the National Park Air Tour Management Act of 2000 requires the NPS and Federal Aviation Administration to produce management plans for each park where air tours occur, but the issue is much more complex than aircraft overflights. Ground traffic (buses, private automobiles) can be considerable with some parks such as Bryce Canyon incorporating shuttle systems because of large amounts of traffic. At Muir Woods the major complaint by adult visitors there to hear birds is talking and screaming by school children on a field trip (Pilcher, Newman, & Manning, 2009), yet families eagerly visit Fort McHenry to hear cannon fire. Updates on park noise assessment and regulations can be found on the NPS Natural Sounds Program Web site at http://www.nature.nps.gov/ naturalsounds/. Psychological research involving noise in these settings (e.g., Aasvang & Engdahl, 2003; Anderek & Knopf, 2007; Mace, Bell, & Loomis, 1999; Oh, Park, & Hammitt, 2007) has focused almost exclusively on scene preference, annoyance ratings, and other aesthetic or affective dimensions. To date, the cognitive effects of sounds in outdoor leisure and recreation settings such as national parks seem to be largely neglected. Given the considerable amount of legislation, debate, and conflict that arises from sound and resource management in national parks (Bell, Mace, & Benfield, 2009) it is of value to
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
Benfield et al.
697
quantify both the affective and cognitive effects of various soundscapes within these types of settings and situations. Since considerable effort has been spent on affective responses in relation to sound, the current project focused entirely on the effects of realistic national park soundscapes on a situation-relevant cognitive task. Specifically, this project exposed participants to one of four soundscapes as well as visual conditions that exist within national parks while also presenting them with auditory information consistent with an interpretative talk given by an educator in the park. Memory for the information presented was tested to assess any detriments caused by the different natural and anthropogenic sound exposures. Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that memory deficits would occur in the anthropogenic sound conditions because they represent sounds that are more variable and more often associated with noise annoyance. A natural sound condition was expected to show no decrements because of its less annoying qualities and existing research on attention restoration and nature (e.g., Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008).
Method Participants A total of 149 undergraduate students (71 females; 78 males) participated in this project as partial fulfillment of a research requirement in their Introductory Psychology course. The average participant was nearly 20 years old (M = 19.76; SD = 2.10; Range = 18-36) and had visited five or six national parks in his or her lifetime (M = 5.84; SD = 3.45; Range = 0-15).
Materials/Measures The Weinstein Noise Sensitivity Scale (WNS) is designed to measure individual differences in sensitivity to unwanted sounds or noises (Weinstein, 1978). The WNS has 21 items with each rated on a 6-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scores are summed to create a single score for overall noise sensitivity (a = .84). Given the nature of the stimuli presented and previous research on the importance of individual noise sensitivity, the WNS was included to control for individual differences in sensitivity to the IV. The Need for Cognition scale (NC) is an 18-item scale (a = .90) designed to test individual desires, or needs, related to cognitive activities, effortful thinking, and information seeking (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Responses range from strongly disagree to strongly agree along a 7-point scale, and
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
698
Environment and Behavior 42(5)
scores are summed to give a total NC score. Due to the nature of the experimental stimuli and dependent measure, the NC scale was used to control for individual differences that could account for variability in memory of the information presented. Motivation for Sensory Pleasure (MSP) relates to an individual’s tendency to seek out and enjoy sensory experiences (Eisenberger et al., 2009). This 15-item scale (a = .90) is rated along the same 7-item scale as the NC scale and its total score is also calculated using summation. Included as a control variable, this scale was added to account for variability in memory scores possibly caused by individual preferences for the visually presented stimuli that could be distracting from encoding. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Expanded Form (PANAS-X) consists of 60 emotion adjectives rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from very slightly or not at all to extremely based on the participant’s current emotional or affective state (Watson & Clark, 1994). The PANAS-X is broken up into the four broad emotional dimensions of general, negative, positive, and other affective types with each dimension having individual subscales (e.g., the general dimension consists of the original PANAS positive and negative affect scales). While important to a separate component of a larger project, the pre-post PANAS-X measures were irrelevant to the memory study reported here and only served as a distractor task between the demographic scales and narratives or between the narratives and the final memory test. Three different sound recordings taken directly from an acoustics database maintained by the National Park Service were used for the auditory manipulation. A control condition consisted of no extraneous sounds. The natural sound condition contained a variety of bird calls along with wind rustling through foliage; it served as the base for all other sound conditions. The remaining two conditions—natural with voices and natural with ground traffic—were created by playing the natural sound recording with another clip containing only the added element being played alongside it. A set of nine interpretive narratives was created based on information obtained directly from Web sites operated by the National Park Service and the parks being shown in the scenic evaluation slides (Yellowstone, Saguaro, Great Smoky Mountains). The average narrative was 258 words in length (SD = 39.7 words; Range = 203-309 words), contained 23% passive voice language (SD = 14.2%; Range = 0%-45%), and was rated at an 11.5 grade reading level (Range = 10-12th grades). Each narrative was randomly assigned to be recorded by one of three presenters; the final narrative sound recordings averaged 91 s in length (SD = 12.6 s; Range = 75-116 s).
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
Benfield et al.
699
Twelve scenic landscape slides were selected to serve as experimental stimuli for the evaluation component of this project. Three of the slides were practice slides and were chosen arbitrarily from a large set of scenes representing forested areas. The remaining nine slides were chosen based on two specific criteria. Each slide had to be of a scene within the national park of interest (Yellowstone, Saguaro, and Great Smokey) and had to contain visual elements related to an interpretative narrative that would accompany it. For example, one slide had to be a scene of Yellowstone National Park’s Grand Canyon and another had to depict the wide range of fall colors in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Each park had three slides accompanied by the three related interpretive narratives. Scenic evaluation scales were used for the measurement of participant reactions to the experimental stimuli. The scales used in this project consisted of the same measure used by Mace et al. (1999; adapted from Herzog & Bosley, 1992) with the addition of two items measuring serenity and appropriateness. Similar to the PANAS-X measure, these evaluations were irrelevant to the memory study reported here and served to facilitate a break between narratives and to occupy the participant during that time period. A 38-item memory test was created based on the interpretive narratives created for this project. The test contained at least two questions from each narrative (one recall and one recognition question each) along with a set of general questions aimed at assessing overall attention (e.g., “how many of the nine narratives included information on animals or wildlife?”). The individual scoring for the test consisted of a total score (percentage correct out of the total 38 items; M = 46.6%; SD = 14.5%; Range = 0%-84.2%), a recognition score (percentage correct out of the 15 multiple choice questions; M = 56.7%; SD = 17.4%; Range = 0%-93.3%), and a recall score (percentage correct out of the 20 fill-in-the-blank questions; M = 40.2%; SD = 16.0%; Range = 0-80.0).
Procedure Participants enrolled in the study for partial fulfillment of a course research requirement and completed an informed consent form prior to participation. The experimental sessions were conducted in an 18 × 18 ft room with participants seated 10 ft away from a 6 × 6 ft screen. Sounds were presented using a 4-channel surround sound system placed in the corners of the room. The interpretative narratives were presented through a separate speaker located 4 ft behind the participants at head level. Participants were run in groups of four.
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
700
Environment and Behavior 42(5)
Participants were given a research packet consisting of the WNS, NC, MSP, demographic survey, and PANAS-X along with a set of 12 scenic evaluation scales. They were instructed to complete the packet and then to wait for further instructions (following the PANAS-X). Participants were then told they would be evaluating a series of scenes based on both visual and auditory stimuli while imagining they were actually in those environments. They were also told that some scenes would have interpretative narratives to accompany the scenes. The 12 scenic stimuli slides were then presented to the participants whereas one of the four auditory conditions was present. Each auditory condition—control, natural, natural with voices, and natural with ground traffic—was played at the same 45-50 dBA range except for the control condition which measured at 40 dBA. The first three slides served as practice slides to familiarize the participants with the procedure, rating sheet, and slide timings; each practice slide was shown for 30 s. The remaining nine slides were the target slides with narratives and were presented in one of six randomly assigned orders. Each slide was presented for a 30 s evaluation period before the interpretative narrative began. The ambient sounds from the auditory condition played continuously during the evaluation task and narratives. Following the evaluation task, participants were instructed to once again complete the PANAS-X mood rating sheet and then wait for instructions. After completing the sheet, participants were given a memory test over the interpretative narratives that were presented during the evaluation task. Participants were then debriefed regarding the purpose and method of the project.
Results Three separate memory test scores were calculated as percentage correct for (1) the total test, (2) the recognition memory items, and (3) the recall memory items. Those test scores were then used as outcome variables for three separate hierarchical regressions with scores for the WNS, NC, and MSP scales entered in block one and dummy coded variables for each of the three sound conditions entered in block two (i.e., the no sound control condition was the reference group). The complete results for those regressions are summarized in Table 1. In all three analyses, the variables in block one explained significant amounts of variance (R2 = .046-.113) with NC and WNS scale scores as a significant predictor of test scores in the final model. As expected, higher NC
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
701
Benfield et al. Table 1. Regression Analyses for the Three Memory Tests
Model 1 R2
b
Model 2 R2
b
DR2
Total score .084*** .172*** .088 Summary Constant 33.12*** 37.12*** –.15 –.17** WNS .24*** .31*** NC .07 .02 MSP –.53 Natural –5.84* Voice Ground traffic –11.20*** Recognition score Summary .046* .130*** .084 Constant 52.03*** 55.14*** –.19 –.20* WNS .20** .28*** NC –.03 –.02 MSP 2.17 Natural –7.67* Voice –11.13** Ground traffic Recall score .113*** .181*** .069 Summary Constant 21.95* 27.02** WNS –.18* –.20** .29*** .35** NC .12 .07 MSP –3.09 Natural –4.60 Voice –11.72*** Ground traffic
DR2 Sig. .003
.005
.011
Note: WNS = Weinstein Noise Sensitivity Scale; NC = Need for Cognition scale; MSP = motivation for sensory pleasure. Model 1: Constant, WNS, NC, MSP. Model 2: Constant, WNS, NC, MSP, Natural,Voice, Ground traffic. *p < .085. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
values improved test scores (b = .282-.350); higher WNS scores generally lowered test scores (b = –.168 to –.202, respectively) but the effect was only marginally significant for both the total score and recognition score (p = .054 and .065, respectively). MSP scores did not significantly contribute to the prediction of memory test scores. The block two dummy coded variables related to the three experimental sound conditions significantly improved on total model prediction for all three sets of scores (DR2 = .069-.088). Specifically, the presence of ground traffic significantly reduced all three types of memory scores (b = –11.13 to
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
702
Environment and Behavior 42(5)
–11.72) compared to the control condition. The presence of voices caused a marginally significantly reduction in total score (b = –5.84; p = .071) and recognition score (b = –7.67; p = .060) compared to the no sound control condition; no significant effect on recall scores was shown (b = –4.60; p = .182). The natural sound condition had no significant effect upon any of the three memory test scores.
Discussion Previous research has shown that noise has a variety of effects on humans such as elevated stress levels, negative affective states, and in some cases, a decline in cognitive performance. This experiment tested participant memory retrieval for facts presented in an auditory format relevant to the visual stimuli (i.e., an interpretative talk being given at a national park). Results showed that some soundscapes—natural containing either ground traffic or human voices—were associated with a decrement in memory performance. Other soundscapes, such as the natural condition, did not show a reduction in memory performance. These findings support and expand on previous research relating noise to memory and likely fit into the irrelevant sound effect paradigm more than overload models. The sounds that interfered with memory were of low intensity and were obviously irrelevant to the information presented. While this does not exclusively guarantee that the irrelevant sound effect was the source of the interference, the low intensity of the sounds suggests that environmental load was not the mechanism accounting for the memory deficits. More importantly, because of the type of sounds used, the type of factual material presented, and the situation tested, these results have immediate significance to decision making and management strategies in several government agencies. Ground traffic and human voices interfered with a person’s retention of the information presented in differing amounts. The effect for ground traffic was nearly twice that of voices implying that the former is more problematic than the latter. In terms of noise management, this difference in effect gives priority to one aspect over another even though affective- and aesthetic-based research has already begun examining the benefits accrued from managing both factors. Some national parks have already begun taking steps to reduce ground traffic noise (e.g., Zion National Park) and those efforts have been shown to be both effective and beneficial to the overall visitor experience (Mace & Marquit, 2006). Second, while mandating a reduction in noise from voices is problematic for a variety of reasons, some research has shown that very simple manipulations in park signage can lead
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
Benfield et al.
703
to significant decreases in human voices (3-4 dBA) and leave more naturally occurring conditions (Newman, et al., 2007). Those projects together with the current findings highlight the importance of psychological research related to noise in recreation and natural environments and encourage further study. Cognitive benefits of experiences in natural settings are known (e.g., Berman et al., 2008), and affective and aesthetic influences in them are fairly well documented (e.g., Mace et al., 1999), but the detrimental impact of noise on cognitive functions remains largely unexplored in this context. This project demonstrated significant impacts of two separate sources of anthropogenic noise on memory. Other cognitive processes such as speed of processing or selective attention could be similarly impacted. The significance of that impact varies by situation but circumstances involving emergency response, visitor safety, or general decision making could be of particular interest to researchers and recreation managers alike. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article. This research was supported by Cooperative Agreement No. H2380040002, Metrics of Human Responses to Natural Sound Environments from the National Park Service. Grantees undertaking projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their findings and conclusions. Points of view or opinions do not, therefore, necessarily represent official National Park Service policy.
References Aasvang, G. M., & Engdahl, B. (2003). Subjective responses to aircraft noise in an outdoor recreational setting: A combined field and laboratory study. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 276, 981-996. Ambrose, S., & Burson, S. (2004). Soundscape studies in national parks. The George Wright Forum, 21, 29-38. Anderek, K. L., & Knopf, R. C. (2007). The relationship between experiences sought, preferred settings, resource conditions, and management preferences in an urbanproximate recreation area. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 25, 39-61. Aydin, Y., & Kaltenbach, M. (2007). Noise perception, heart rate and blood pressure in relation to aircraft noise in the vicinity of the Frankfurt airport. Clinical Research in Cardiology, 96, 347-358.
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
704
Environment and Behavior 42(5)
Babisch, W. (2003). Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. Noise and Health, 5, 1-11. Beaman, C. P. (2005). Auditory distraction from low-intensity noise: A review of the consequences for learning and workplace environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1041-1064. Beaman, C. P., & Jones, D. M. (1997). The role of serial order in the irrelevant speech effect: Tests of the changing-state hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 459-471. Bell, P. A., Hess, S., Hill, E., Kukas, S., Richards, R. W., & Sargent, D. (1984). Noise and context-dependent memory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 99-100. Bell, P. A., Mace, B. L., & Benfield, J. A. (2009). Aircraft overflights at National Parks: Conflict and its potential resolution. Park Science, in press. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207-1212. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford: Pergamon. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131. Colle, H. A., &Welsh, A. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 17-31. Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. Oxford: Clarendon. Eisenberger, R., Sucharski, I. L., Yalowitz, S., Kent, R. J., Loomis, R. J., Jones, J. R., et al. (2009). The motive for sensory pleasure: Enjoyment of nature and its representation in painting, music, and literature. Journal of Personality, in press. Ellermeier, W., Eigenstetter, M., & Zimmer, K. (2001). Psychoacoustic correlates of individual noise sensitivity. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 1464-1473. Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban stress. New York: Academic Press. Green, D. M., & Fidell, S. (1991). Variability in the criterion for reporting annoyance in community noise surveys. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, 234-243. Henry, W., Ernenwein, R., Thompson, H., & Opperman, S. (2000). Management of commercial air tourism over national parks. USDA Forest Service Proceedings (RMRS-P-14). Herzog, T. R., & Bosley, P. J. (1992). Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 115127. Horonjeff, R. D., Kimura, Y., Miller, N. P., Robert, W. E., Rosano, C. F., & Sanchez, G. (1993). Acoustic data collected at Grand Canyon, Haleakala, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks (USDI Rep. No. 290940.18). Denver, CO: National Park Service. Jones, D. M., & Morris, N. (1992). Irrelevant speech and serial recall: Implications for theories of attention and working memory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 33, 212-229.
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
Benfield et al.
705
Kryter, K. D. (1994). The handbook of learning and effects of noise. San Diego: Academic Press. Mace, B. L., Bell, P. A., & Loomis, R. J. (1999). Aesthetic, affective, and cognitive effects of noise on natural landscape assessment. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 225-242. Mace, B. L., & Marquit, J. (2006, June). Six years of mandatory shuttle use in Zion National Park; A longitudinal analysis of the visitor experience. Paper presented in the 14th Internationals Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Maschke, C., Rupp, T., & Hecht, K. (2000). The influence of stressors on biochemical reactions—A review of present scientific findings with noise. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 203, 45-53. Miedema, H. M. E., & Vos, H. (1999). Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 3336-3344. Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167, 1461-1468. Newman, P., Pilcher, E., Manning, R., Trevino, K., Savidge, M., & Monroe, M. (2007). An adaptive approach to managing soundscapes in Muir Woods National Monument: A test of management actions. Paper presented at the meeting of the George Wright Society, St. Paul, MN. Oh, C. O., Park, M., & Hammitt, W. E. (2007). Predicting site choice behavior among types of campers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 25, 23-40. Pilcher, E. J., Newman, P., & Manning, R. E. (2009). Understanding and managing experiential aspects of soundscapes at Muir Woods National Park. Environmental Management, 43, 425-435. Salame´, P., & Baddeley, A. D. (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 150-164. Stansfield, S. A., Sharp, D. S., Gallacher, J., & Babisch, W. (1993). Road traffic noise, noise sensitivity, and psychological disorder. Psychological Medicine, 23, 977-985. Staples, S. L. (1996). Human response to environmental noise. American Psychologist, 51, 143-150. Taylor, S. M. (1984). A path model of aircraft noise annoyance. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 96, 243-260. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule (Expanded form). Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Weinstein, N. (1978). Individual differences in reactions to noise: A longitudinal study in a college dormitory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 458-466. Zimmer, K., & Ellermeier, W. (1999). Psychometric properties of four measures of noise sensitivity: A comparison. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 295-302.
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
706
Environment and Behavior 42(5)
Bios Jacob A. Benfield, PhD, is currently working as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Psychology at Colorado State University. His primary research interests include environmental stress (noise and crowding), resource dilemmas and judgments of losses, and social components of person-environment interactions (including territoriality, privacy, and anthropomorphism). Paul A. Bell, PhD, is professor of Psychology at Colorado State University, where he has been since 1975. His research interests include environmental stress (heat, noise, crowding, pollution), human interactions with built and natural environments, environmental influences on aggression and violence (including road rage and dementia-associated aggression), conflict resolution, resource dilemmas and judgments of environmental losses, and designing for dementia. Lucy J. Troup, PhD, is a computational Cognitive Neuroscientist with a background in cognitive and brain modeling applied to artificial systems. Current active research programs include research into the effects of sounds on human experience and cognition, evaluating and developing software tools for facilitating collaborative cognition in teams, and evaluating technology for use with older adults in health management and promotion. Nick Soderstrom is a PhD student in the Cognitive Psychology Program at Colorado State University. His research focuses on human memory, and in particular, metamemory. Currently, he is investigating what people know about their own memory processes and how this knowledge impacts future behavior. His other research interests include cognitive aging, episodic memory, and working memory.
Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on August 20, 2010
