Looking Forward to the Future: Visual Prospects and Optimism

Abstract

This article reports the results of a series of experiments examining the potential psychological link between spatial and temporal prospects, specifically between variations in the degree of foreground obstruction and spatial depth of external window views and an observer’s sense of connection to the future. It was found that external views from indoor spaces were strongly associated with a sense of the future, that partially obstructing such a view significantly reduced that association, and that replacing a real view with a pictorial representation removed most of its association with the future. A less extreme change in the spatial depth of a real view, however, appeared to have no significant effect on association with the future. These results suggest that the configuration of external views from inside buildings could directly affect feelings about the future, and in particular levels of optimism.

Full text

HE ALTH AN DSO CIET Y.COM
VOLUME 12 ISSUE 1
The International Journal of
Health, Wellness, and
Society
________________________________________________
Looking Forward to the Future
Visual Prospects and Optimism
ZHUO JOB CHEN AND KEVIN NUTE
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND SOCIETY
https://healthandsociety.com/
ISSN: 2156-8960 (Print)
ISSN: 2156-9053 (Online)
https://doi.org/10.18848/2156-8960/CGP (Journal)
First published by Common Ground Research Networks in 2021
University of Illinois Research Park
60 Hazelwood Drive
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
Ph: +1-217-328-0405
https://cgnetworks.org
The International Journal of Health, Wellness, and
Society is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal.
COPYRIGHT
© 2021 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2021 (selection and editorial matter),
Common Ground Research Networks
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study,
research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the applicable
copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any
process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions
and other inquiries, please contact cgscholar.com/cg_support.
Common Ground Research Networks, a memb er of Crossref
EDITOR
Alan Ewert, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA
MANAGING EDITOR
Helen Repp, Common Ground Research Networks, USA
ADVISORY BOARD
The Health, Wellness & Society Research Network
recognizes the contribution of many in the evolution of the
Research Network. The principal role of the Advisory Board
has been, and is, to drive the overall intellectual direction of the
Research Network. A full list of members can be found at
https://healthandsociety.com/about/advisory-board.
PEER REVIEW
Articles published in The International Journal of Health, Wellness,
and Society are peer reviewed using a two-way anonymous peer review
model. Reviewers are active participants of the Health, Wellness, and
Society Research Network or a thematically related Research Network.
The publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors all agree upon the
following standards of expected ethical behavior, which are based on
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices. More
information can be found at:
https://healthandsociety.com/journal/model.
ARTICLE SUBMISSION
The International Journal of Health, Wellness, and Society
publishes biannually (June, December). To find out more
about the submission process, please visit https://
healthandsociety.com/journal/call-for-papers.
ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING
For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed,
please visit https://healthandsociety.com/journal.
RESEARCH NETWORK MEMBERSHIP
Authors in The International Journal of Health, Wellness, and
Society are members of the Health, Wellness & Society Research
Network or a thematically related Research Network. Members
receive access to journal content. To find out more, visit
https://healthandsociety.com/about/become-a-membe r.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
The International Journal of Health, Wellness, and Society
is available in electronic and print formats. Subscribe to gain
access to content from the current year and the entire backlist.
Contact us at cgscholar.com/cg_support.
ORDERING
Single articles and issues are available from the
journal bookstore at https://cgscholar.com/bookstore.
HYBRID OPEN ACCESS
The International Journal of Health, Wellness, and Society is Hybrid
Open Access, meaning authors can choose to make their articles
open access. This allows their work to reach an even wider audience,
broadening the dissemination of their research. To find out more,
please visit https://healthandsociety.com/journal/hybrid-open-access.
DISCLAIMER
The authors, editors, and publisher will not accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions that may h ave been made in
this publication. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein.
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

The International Journal of Health, Wellness, and Society
Volume 16, Issue 1, 2021, https://healthandsociety.com
© Common Ground Research Networks, Zhuo Job Chen, Kevin Nute, All Rights Reserved.
Permissions: cgscholar.com/cg_support
ISSN: 2156-8960 (Print), ISSN: 2156-9053 (Online)
https://doi.org/10.18848/2156-8960/CGP/v12i01/1-12 (Article)
Looking Forward to the Future:
Visual Prospects and Optimism
Zhuo Job Chen, Clemson University, USA
Kevin Nute,1 University of Hawai'i, USA
Abstract: This article reports the results of a series of experiments examining the potential psychological link between
spatial and temporal prospects, specifically between variations in the degree of foreground obstruction and spatial
depth of external window views and an observer’s sense of connection to the future. It was found that external views
from indoor spaces were strongly associated with a sense of the future, that partially obstructing such a view
significantly reduced that association, and that replacing a real view with a pictorial representation removed most of its
association with the future. A less extreme change in the spatial depth of a real view, however, appeared to have no
significant effect on association with the future. These results suggest that the configuration of external views from
inside buildings could directly affect feelings about the future, and in particular levels of optimism.
Keywords: Prospection, Window Views, Obstruction, Spatial Depth, Optimism
Introduction
necdotally, rooms with views have long been considered preferable to those without,
but it was only in the 1980s that the psychological benefits of such prospects began to
be systematically examined. Many studies have since shown not only a strong
preference for natural over built views but also clear psychological benefits stemming from the
latter (Ulrich 1984; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Dosen and Ostwald 2013a, 2016). The work
reported here examined a potentially important effect of views that has not received the same
attention: how they may affect our feelings about the future.
Physically and psychologically, humans are forward-looking. We not only look ahead to
see what lies in front of us spatially but also actively look forward into the future in an attempt
to anticipate what might happen there. While we can physically explore the space in front of us,
however, the future cannot be experienced directly. This is one of the reasons that spatial
metaphors are typically used to talk about the future in most languages, and why temporal
metaphors are less commonly used to discuss space A rare but well-known instance of the
latter, for example, is the usual American response to the question “how far is it” in terms of the
number of hours it would take to drive somewhere (Haspelmath 1997; Boroditsky 2000; Nunez
and Cooperrider 2013).
Spatial Construals of Time
The English word “prospect” encapsulates the overlapping of the spatial and temporal. It
originated in classical times as a purely spatial term meaning view or “look forward” but in the
sixteenth century took on the additional temporal implication of an imagined future.2 The
contemporary psychological notion of “prospection,” then, the capacity for future-oriented
1 Corresponding Author: Kevin Nute, School of Architecture, 2410 Campus Rd, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
email: knute@hawaii.edu
2 “Late Middle English (as a noun denoting the action of looking toward a distant object): from La tin prospectus ‘view’,
from prospicere “look forward,” from pro- “forward” + specere ‘to look.’ Early use, referring to a view of landscape,
gave rise to the meaning ‘mental picture’ (mid sixteenth century), whence ‘anticipated event’.” Oxford Languages
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=prospect+etymolo
A
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND SOCIETY
cognition (Gilbert and Wilson 2007; Szpunar, Spreng, and Schacter 2014; Bulley and Irish
2018), actually has its origins in a spatial analogy.
Many linguistic studies have indicated that spatial analogs have a profound influence on
how we process ideas about time (Gentner 2001), but that the mapping from space to time is
highly selective (Nunez and Cooperrider 2013). “Temporo-spatial dynamics” have been
proposed as the missing link between the brain and mind (Northoff, Wainio-Theberge, and
Evers 2020). But as Buzsáki and Llinás (2017, 482) point out, classical notions of these
dimensions may not be sufficient for studying them at a physiological level, now that in
contemporary physics “there is no longer space that ‘contains’ the world, and there is no time
‘in which’ events occur.” Siqueira-Batista et al. (2015) proposed such an interrelation between
issues addressed by neuroscience and concepts developed by theoretical physics. While
neuroscientific studies have long suggested that the link between space and time is more than
cultural, and that spatial and temporal processing may be linked in the brain (Pellionisz and
Llinas. 1982; Yarrow et al. 2001; Nunez and Huang 2007; Teuscher et al. 2008; Roussel,
Grondin, and Killeen 2009; Northoff and Huang 2017), however, it still remains to be
conclusively proven that space structures our processing of time at a physiological level.
There are also some fundamental differences between our concepts of space and time.
Space, at least since the time of Descartes, has generally been considered to have three
dimensions, while time is commonly treated as having only one, which is also one-directional
(Nunez and Cooperrider 2013). Our bodily relationships to space and time also differ. It is
common to see ourselves as moving through space, for example, while time is often, although
not universally, thought of as moving past us. Note that even the latter concept of time,
however, is based on an essentially spatial analogy (Gentner 2001).
Prospect and Refuge Theory
The important role of views in human perceptions of natural and built environments has become
widely accepted in the environmental design professions since geographer Jay Appleton first
theorized that visual prospect, in combination with concealment (refuge), would have given
early humans a key survival advantage. This had earlier been described by the ethnographer and
zoologist Konrad Lorenz as the capacity “to see without being seen” (Appleton 1975). As
Lorenz explained:
Before we break through the last bushes and out of cover to the free expanse of the
meadow, we do what all wild animals and all good natu-ralists, wild boars, leopards,
hunters and biologists would do under similar circumstances: we reconnoiter, seeking,
before we leave our cover, to gain from it the advantage which it can offer alike to
hunter and hunted—namely, to see without being seen. (Lorenz 1952, 181)
Appleton described such a position, under cover yet commanding a wide view of the landscape,
as possessing “refuge and prospect,” and argued that although such conditions are no longer
critical to our survival, unconsciously people continue to find them psychologically comforting,
and tend to prefer such combinations over environments with only one or the other of these
characteristics (Appleton 1975). Prospect and Refuge Theory has since been widely referenced
in environmental design literature such as Grant Hildebrand’s analyses of Frank Lloyd Wright’s
buildings (Hildebrand 1991). Other studies have attempted to test its veracity, with mixed
results (Stamps 2006, 2008a, 2008b; Dosen and Ostwald 2013b, 2016). Since our interest was
in prospect alone, however, in the three studies reported in this article refuge was treated as
simply a conditioning factor
Much of the discussion of prospect and refuge has centered on evolutionary psychology,
and revolves around characteristics of landscapes that, so it is argued, would have been
2
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

CHEN AND NUTE: LOOKING FORWARD TO THE FUTURE
perceived by early humans as advantageous, such as sources of water, food or fuel, or
information about other creatures in the vicinity (Appleton 1975). All of these perceived assets
rely on an observer being able to imagine taking advantage of them, in other words, on
anticipation of the future.
Objectives
The mental representation of possible futures has been a central part of our survival as a species
(Boyer 2008; Suddendorf and Busby 2005; Suddendorf 2006; Suddendorf and Corballis 2007). A
positive sense of the future also seems critical to maintaining morale. It has been argued, for
example, that lack of a positive image of the future may be an important contributing cause of
depression (Beck 1974; Breier-Williford and Bramlett 1995; Abela and D’Alessandro 2002; Alloy
et al. 2006; Hankin et al. 2004; Roepke and Seligman 2016; Seligman et al. 2016). Most people in
the developed world now spend more than 90 percent of their lives in indoor environments
(Klepeis et al. 2001; Roberts 2016). So any link between visual and temporal prospects could
potentially have important implications for both well-being and the design of buildings.
Established research has indicated that the content of views can have a significant effect on
mood (Ulrich 1984; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). More recently, Kent and Schiavon (2020)
examined the effects of view distance in combination with natural and urban views. The work
reported here differs from these studies in testing how changing the spatial parameters of a
view, rather than its content, may affect an observer’s sense of the future.
Experimental Method
The following spatial parameters were varied in order to test whether there was any relationship
between how much or how far an indoor observer can see of an outside view and their sense of
connection to the future:
1. Degree of Enclosure of the Observer (Refuge)
2. Partial Obstruction of the Visual Prospect
3. Spatial Depth of the Visual Prospect
Hypotheses
Three separate studies were designed to test the following six hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (main effect of prospect):
Distant external visual prospects evoke a sense of the future in building occupants.
Hypothesis 2 (moderation effect of refuge):
The sense of the future evoked by an external view from an indoor space is enhanced when
it is combined with refuge.
Hypothesis 3 (moderation effect of obstruction):
The sense of the future evoked by an external view from an indoor space is weakened when
the view is partially obstructed.
Hypothesis 4 (mediation effect of optimism):
The sense of the future evoked by an external view from an indoor space can be explained
by an increased sense of optimism.
3
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND SOCIETY
Hypothesis 5 (moderation effect of type):
The sense of the future evoked by an external view from an indoor space is weakened when
the view is a pictorial representation with no real spatial depth.
Hypothesis 6 (moderation effect of spatial depth):
The sense of the future evoked by an external view from an indoor space increases with the
spatial depth of the view.
Study 1: Enclosure of the Observer (Refuge)
This study was designed to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. It was intended to determine whether
having an external view from an indoor space evoked a sense of the future, and whether this
was affected by the degree of spatial enclosure of the observer (refuge). A total of N = 488
individuals (241 female, Mage = 36.4, SDage = 11.2, 67.21% Caucasian) recruited from Amazon
Mechanic Turk (MTurk) participated in the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of
the four groups in a 2 (view vs. no view) by 2 (refuge vs. no refuge) between subjects design. In
the 2 by 2 between-subjects design, subjects were shown one of the four drawings depicted in
Figure 1: a space with (a) neither prospect nor refuge, (b) prospect but no refuge, (c) refuge but
no prospect, and (d) both prospect and refuge. Immediately after seeing one of the drawings,
participants were asked to assess their degree of agreement with statements such as “This space
gives me a feeling of being connected to the future” (future), and “This space makes me feel
comfortable” (comfort). This was done numerically using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 1: The images used in Study 1: From left to right: (a) neither prospect nor refuge, (b) prospect without refuge, (c)
refuge without prospect, (d) prospect and refuge. Each subject was randomly shown only one of the images.
Source: Nute
All analyses and data visualizations were conducted in R Core Team (2017). In addition to
test statistics, Cohen’s f was reported as a measure of effect size with conventional benchmarks
set for large (0.40), medium (0.25), and small (0.10). As preliminary analyses for all studies in
this article, we examined association of sex and age with both the independent and the
dependent variables, and found no significant associations (p’s ranged from .09 to .84). Further
analyses, therefore, did not include sex and age. We found a significant and substantial main
effect linking view and sense of connection to the future, F = 58.13, p < .001, Cohen’s f [95%
CI] = 0.35 [0.27, 0.42]. Subjects reported a greater sense of connection to the future when a
view was available (M = 4.50, SD = 1.54) than when it was not (M = 3.38, SD = 1.72).
Hypothesis 1 was therefore supported.
The presence of refuge in the form of partial enclosure of the observer did not significantly
moderate this effect, F = 5.58, p = .019, f = 0.11 [0.03, 0.18]. When there was no view at all,
spatial enclosure evoked some connection to the future (post-hoc difference d = 0.59, p = .024);
but when there was a view, spatial enclosure had no effect (d = -0.10, p = .960). Neither did
refuge have any significant primary effect on its own [F = 2.75, p = .098]. Figure 2 illustrates
4
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

CHEN AND NUTE: LOOKING FORWARD TO THE FUTURE
the primary effect of a view on sense of connection to the future, and that refuge only
contributes to this effect when there is no view. Hypothesis 2 was therefore not supported.
Figure 2: Interaction effects of refuge and prospect on connectedness to the future in Study 1.
Source: Chen
These effects could potentially have been generated by positive feelings about the room
itself. In order to rule out this possibility, we included comfort as a covariate in multiple
regression. Although comfort was correlated positively with a sense of connection to the future
(r = .51, p < .001), including comfort did not account for either the effect of a view, t = 13.35, p
< .001, f = 0.35 [0.27, 0.42], or the interaction effect, t = -2.35, p = .019, f = 0.11 [0.03, 0.18].
These findings supported Hypothesis 1, but not Hypothesis 2. A view elicited a clear sense of
connection to the future, but only when there was no view did enclosure of the observer (refuge)
contribute any sense of connection to the future. The latter conclusion was also found to be
robust when comfort was considered as an alternative explanation.
Study 2: Partial Obstruction of View
This study first attempted to confirm the main results of Study 1 by showing that views lead to a
sense of connection to the future. We then went beyond Study 1 by testing whether the effect
would be moderated by partial obstruction of the view (Hypothesis 3). We also included a
measure of subjective optimism to test a possible explanation for the link between view and
sense of connection to the future. Since refuge appeared to have no effect on occupants’ sense
of connection to the future when a view was present, in all of the spaces tested the observer was
enclosed to the same degree. A total of N = 486 individuals (229 female, Mage = 36.8, SDage =
11.4, 66.46% Caucasian) recruited from MTurk participated in the study. Subjects were
randomly assigned to one of four groups in a 2 (view vs. no view) by 2 (obstruction vs. no
obstruction) between subjects design. Homologous to Study 1, subjects were shown one of the
four drawings depicted in Figure 3: a drawing of a room with (a) neither an external view nor
any obstruction, (b) an unobstructed external view, (c) partial foreground obstruction but no
external view, and (d) a partially obstructed external view.
5
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND SOCIETY
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 3: The images used in Study 2: From left to right: (a) neither external prospect nor foreground obstruction, (b) an
unobstructed external view, (c) partial foreground obstruction but no external view, (d) a partially obstructed external
view. Each subject was randomly shown only one of the images.
Source: Nute
Immediately after seeing one of the drawings, participants were asked to assess their degree
of agreement with statements such as “This room gives me a feeling of being connected to the
future” (future), “This room makes me feel comfortable” (comfort), and “This room makes me
feel optimistic” (optimism). This was done numerically using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Again, we found a significant main effect linking an external
view and a sense of connection to the future: F = 9.56, p = .002, f = 0.14 [0.07, 0.22]. Subjects
reported a greater sense of connection to the future when there was such a view (M = 4.47, SD =
1.57) than when there was not (M = 4.00, SD = 1.72). The effect of the external viw remained
significant and of comparable effect size after controlling for comfort, t = 1.98, p = .049,
f = 0.15 [0.08, 0.23]. Hypothesis 1 was therefore further supported. Partial obstruction of the
view had a small moderating effect, F = 3.90, p = .049, f = 0.09 [0.00, 0.17]. Obstruction on its
own had no main effect, F = 0.01, p = .946. As shown in Figure 4, a partially obstructed view
was less strongly connected with the future than an unobstructed one. Hypothesis 3 therefore
also received support.
Figure 4: Interaction effects of external view and partial obstruction on sense of connection to the future in Study 2.
Source: Chen
We then tested optimism as a potential mediator between view and sense of connection to
the future. Optimism was chosen rather than general mood, because as a concept it implies
feelings about the future. In the path analysis shown in Figure 5 view predicted optimism,
which in turn led to a sense of connection with the future. With optimism in the model, the
direct path between view and connection to the future became non-significant, b = 0.07, p =
.097. Removal of this path did not significantly reduce the model fit, Δχ2 (1) = 2.73, p = .098. In
other words, optimism entirely mediated the association. The standardized indirect effect and
1000-sample bootstrapped 95 percent confidence interval was 0.07 [0.03, 0.12]. Hypothesis 4
was therefore supported.
6
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

CHEN AND NUTE: LOOKING FORWARD TO THE FUTURE
.15
.49
View
Connection
to the Future
Optimism
.07
Figure 5: The mediation effect of optimism on the association between view and sense of connection to the future. The
solid line indicates the significant indirect path, the dashed line the insignificant direct path.
Source: Chen
We were therefore able to replicate the robust association between view and sense of a connection
to the future. Using path analysis, we were also able to demonstrate that such a connection could
be fully explained by an increased sense of optimism stemming from having a view.
Study 3: Depth of View
This study attempted to extend the previous findings by testing whether they would be
moderated by the spatial depth of a view, per Hypotheses 5 and 6. We tested whether either
replacing a real view with a pictorial representation with no real spatial depth, or a real view
with greater spatial depth affected subjects’ sense of connection to the future.
A total of N = 493 individuals (244 female, Mage = 37.8, SDage = 12.2, 64.91% Caucasian)
recruited from MTurk participated in the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four
groups: one group served as a control without seeing a view, whereas the other four groups
were placed in a 2 (middle-distance view vs. distant view) by 2 (picture view vs. window view)
between subjects design. Subjects were shown one of the four drawings illustrated in Figure 6:
(a) a room with a medium-depth external view through a window, (b) the same medium depth
view depicted in a wall-hung picture, (c) a more distant external view through the same
window, and (d) the same distant external view depicted in a wall-hung picture. Window views
were indicated by wall thickness (Figure 3a and 3c), while pictorial representations were
indicated by a drop shadow on the wall (Figure 3b and 3d). In all cases the spatial depth of the
view was indicated by perspectivized ground lines.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 6. The images used in Study 3. From left to right: (a) a middle-distance window view, (b) a pictorial
representation of the same middle-distance view, (c) a deeper window view, and (d) a pictorial representation of the
same deeper view. Each subject was randomly shown only one of the images.
Source: Nute
A significant main effect linking the reality of the view with connection to the future was
found: F = 6.39, p = .012, f = 0.11 [0.04, 0.19]. Subjects reported a greater sense of connection
to the future when a view extended beyond the room (M = 4.30, SD = 1.72) than when the same
prospect was represented pictorially within a room (M = 3.91, SD = 1.69). This effect remained
significant and of comparable effect size after controlling for comfort, t = 2.51, p = .013,
7
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND SOCIETY
f = 0.13 [0.05, 0.20]. Hypothesis 5 was therefore supported. The pictorial representation can be
considered a view with no real spatial depth, but varying the spatial depth of a real view did not
seem to have a main effect, F = 0.02, p = .876. Nor did it significantly moderate the one
described above, F = 0.10, p = .754. Hypothesis 6 was therefore not supported. Figure 7
summarizes both of these findings.
Figure 7: Effects of depth of view on sense of connection to the future.
Source: Chen
Conclusions
Our primary hypothesis, that views evoke associations with the future (H1), was strongly
supported. There would seem to be a factual basis, then, for the common spatial metaphor of
“looking forward” to something in the future. The ability to see what lies in front of us spatially
appears to be directly linked to a sense of what lies ahead of us temporally.
Degree of Enclosure of the Observer (Refuge)
Combining prospect with refuge in the form of lateral enclosure of the observer did not increase
subjects’ sense of connection to the future (H2). This would make sense if refuge serves
primarily as a source of security, and not as a source of information about what lies ahead of us.
Partial Obstruction of a View
Even partial obstruction of a view was found to significantly reduce an observer’s sense of
connection to the future (H3). Counter to our main finding, when there was no external view at all,
however, partial foreground obstructions in a room seemed to increase an observer’s sense of the
future. We postulate that hidden areas within a room could introduce a sense of something yet to
be revealed, and hence anticipation, but this seems to go against our finding, that obstructions of
external views cause the opposite effect, and, thus, this requires further investigation.
Depth of View
Increasing the spatial depth of an external view did not evoke any equivalent increase in
subjects’ sense of connection the future (H6), but when a real view was replaced with a pictorial
representation—a view with effectively no real depth—the sense of the future evoked was
markedly reduced (H5). The first of these results was consistent with the findings of two studies
by Stamp, one of which found that more distant prospects of natural scenes were clearly
preferred but that increased spatial depth in indoor environments had no effect (Stamp 2008a).
In Stamp’s second study, however, increased depth made no apparent difference to views of
natural scenes, and, in built environments, shorter views were actually preferred (Stamp 2008b).
8
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

CHEN AND NUTE: LOOKING FORWARD TO THE FUTURE
Opposite findings have since been reported by Kent and Schiavon (2020), who found that
people preferred features in urban views to be further away but that spatial depth seemed to
make no difference in natural views.
The apparent lack of any effect of varying the spatial depth of a real view surprised us. This
may have been simply because there was no obvious source of scale in the external prospects by
which to estimate distance. So the effect of view depth probably warrants re-testing with
external prospects containing a reliable source of scale, such as human figures.
The Mediating Role of Optimism
Moderation analyses revealed that the elevated sense of connection to the future evoked by an
external visual prospect can be explained by an increase in optimism, a generally positive
feeling about what lies ahead. We concluded that external views from indoor spaces are
strongly associated with a positive sense of the future. Partially obstructing such views
significantly reduces an observer’s sense of connection with the future. Replacing such a view
with a pictorial representation of the same scene removes most of its association with the future,
while increasing the spatial depth of a real view appeared to have no significant effect on an
observer’s sense of connection to the future, although the latter warrants re-examining.
Implications
Although the authors have conducted previous work on temporal cues in built environments
(Nute and Chen 2018), this is the first study we are aware of to have shown a psychological link
between spatial and temporal prospects. Most significantly, the path between visual prospect
and a sense of the future was found to run via optimism. In other words, spatial prospects do not
just evoke a sense of the future; they seem to encourage positive feelings about what lies ahead.
Denying someone a view, then, may also be reducing their sense of hope for the future. This
could have important implications for the design of the indoor environments where most of us
now spend more than 90 percent of our lives, and particularly for those prone to depression or
in long-term confinement.
These results are consistent with the survival advantage suggested by Prospect and Refuge
Theory. Being blind to, or having a limited view of what lies in front of them would have been
severely disadvantageous to early humans, leaving them vulnerable to attack and likely to miss
important opportunities. Having a broad, unobstructed view of what lay ahead, on the other
hand, would have offered advanced knowledge of both hazards and opportunities. A visual
prospect would tell the observer what was “coming.” That could either be something that was
actually approaching, or what they were likely to encounter if they themselves moved forward
into the space in front of them. Both of these scenarios are inherently temporal, involving
imagined events in the future based on projected movement through space. Commanding such a
view would have provided a feeling of empowerment, and with it, a sense of optimism about
what lay ahead.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Clemson Creative Inquiry for their generous support of this
research. Zhuo Job Chen was responsible for the experimental design, data collection, and
statistical analyses. Kevin Nute was responsible for the theory, writing, and experimental
images. Anonymous questionnaires were used to gather the data, and all those who participated
gave their prior informed consent to both the gathering of the numerical data and its future
publication. All procedures were approved by Clemson University’s Office of Research
Compliance and Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects as being in accordance with
the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5).
9
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND SOCIETY
REFERENCES
Abela, John R., and David U. D’Alessandro. 2002. “Beck’s Cognitive Theory of Depression: A
test of the Diathesis-stress and Causal Mediation Components.” British Journal of
Clinical Psychology 41 (2): 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466502163912.
Alloy, Lauren B., Lyn Y. Abramson, Wayne G. Whitehouse, Michael E. Hogan, Catherine
Panzarella, and Donna T. Rose. 2006. “Prospective Incidence of First Onsets and
Recurrences of Depression in Individuals at High and Low Cognitive Risk for
Depression.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115 (1): 145–156.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.1.145.
Appleton, Jay. 1975. The Experience of Landscape. London: Wiley.
Beck, Aaron T. 1974. “The Development of Depression: A Cognitive Model.” In The
Psychology of Depression: Contemporary Theory and Research, edited by Raymond J.
Friedman and Martin M. Katz, 318–330. Oxford, UK: John Wiley.
Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. “Metaphoric Structuring: Understanding Time through Spatial
Metaphors.” Cognition 75 (1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6.
Boyer, Pascal. 2008. “Evolutionary Economics of Mental Time Travel?” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 12 (6): 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.03.003.
Breier-Williford, Sandra, and Ronald K. Bramlett. 1995. “Time Perspective of Substance Abuse
Patients: Comparison of the Scales in Stanford Time Perspective Inventory, Beck
Depression Inventory, and Beck Hopelessness Scale.” Psychological Reports 77 (3, Pt
1): 899–905. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.899.
Bulley, Adam, and Muireann Irish. 2018. “The Functions of Prospection–Variations in Health and
Disease.” Frontiers in Psychology 9:2328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02328.
Buzsáki, Gyorgy, and Rodolfo Llinás. 2017. “Space and Time in the Brain.” Science 358
(6362): 482–485. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8869.
Dosen, Annemarie S., and Michael J. Ostwald. 2013a. “Methodological Characteristics of
Research Testing Prospect-Refuge Theory: A Comparative Analysis.” Architectural
Science Review 56 (3): 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2013.809689.
———. 2013b. “Prospect and Refuge Theory: Constructing a Critical Definition for
Architecture and Design.” International Journal of Design in Society 6 (1): 9–24.
https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1328/CGP/v06i01/38559.
———. 2016. “Evidence for Prospect-Refuge Theory: A Meta-Analysis of Environmental
Preference Research: Constructing a Critical Definition for Architecture and Design.”
City, Territory and Architecture 3 (4): 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-016-0033-1.
Gentner, Dedre. 2001. “Spatial Metaphors in Temporal Reasoning.” In Spatial Schemas and
Abstract Thought, edited by M. Gattis, 203–222. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gilbert, Daniel T., and Timothy D. Wilson. 2007. “Prospection: Experiencing the Future.”
Science 317 (5843): 1351–1354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144161.
Grondin, Simon. 2010. “Timing and Time Perception: A Review of Recent Behavioral and
Neuroscience Findings and Theoretical Directions.” Attention, Perception, &
Psychophysics 72 (3): 561-582. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.3.561.
Hankin, Benjamin L., Lyn Y. Abramson, Nicole Miller, and Gerald J. Haeffel. 2004. “Cognitive
Vulnerability-Stress Theories of Depression: Examining Affective Specificity in the
Prediction of Depression versus Anxiety in Three Prospective Studies.” Cognitive Therapy
and Research 28:309–345. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COTR.0000031805.60529.0d.
Haspelmath, Michael. 1997. From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the World’s
Languages [Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 3]. Munich: Lincom Europa.
10
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

CHEN AND NUTE: LOOKING FORWARD TO THE FUTURE
Siqueira-Batista, Rodrigo, Ricardo Alves, Victor Luis Bastos de Jesus, and Jose Abdalla
Helayel-Neto. 2015. “Neuroscience, Space and Time.” VÉRTICES, Campos dos
Goytacazes/RJ 17 (2): 237–253. https://doi.org/10.19180/1809-2667.v17n215-12.
Hildebrand, Grant 1991. The Wright Space: Pattern and Meaning in Frank Lloyd Wright’s
Houses. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kent, Michael, and Stefano Schiavon. 2020. “Evaluation of the Effect of Landscape Distance
Seen in Window Views on Visual Satisfaction.” Building and Environment
183:107160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107160.
Klepeis, Neil E., William C. Nelson, Wayne R. Ott, John P. Robinson, Andy. M. Tsang, Paul
Switzer, Joseph V. Behar, Stephen C. Hern, and William H. Engelmann 2001. “The
National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A Resource for Assessing
Exposure to Environmental Pollutants.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology 11 (3): 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500165.
Lorenz, Konrad. 1952. King Solomon’s Ring: New Light on Animal Ways. New York: Crowell.
Northoff, Georg, and Zirui Huang. 2017. “How Do the Brain’s Time and Space Mediate
Consciousness and its Different Dimensions? Temporo-Spatial Theory of
Consciousness (TTC).” Neuroscience Biobehavioral Reviews 80:630–645.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.07.013.
Northoff, Georg, Soren Wainio-Theberge, and Kathinka Evers. 2020. “Is Temporo-Spatial
Dynamics the ‘Common Currency’ of Brain and Mind: In Quest of ‘Spatiotemporal
Neuroscience.’” Physics of Life Reviews 33:34–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2019.05.002.
Nunez, Rafael E., and Ruey S. Huang. 2007. “Neural Basis of Metaphorical Abstraction: an
fMRI Study of Ego-Reference-Point Spatial Construals of Time.” In Proceedings of
the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Edited by D. S. McNamara, J. G. Trafton,
284–285. Cognitive Science Society https://philpapers.org/rec/DSPOT.
Nunez, Rafael, and Kensey Cooperrider. 2013. “The Tangle of Space and Time in Human
Cognition.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17 (5): 220–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.008.
Nute, Kevin, and Zhuo Job Chen. 2018. “Temporal Cues in Built Environments.” International
Journal of the Constructed Environment 8 (1): 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.18848/2154-8587/CGP/v09i01/1-18.
Pellionisz, Andras, and Rodolfo Llinas. 1982. “Space-Time Representation in the Brain: The
Cerebellum as a Predictive Space-Time Metric Tensor.” Neuroscience 7:2949–2970.
R Core Team. 2017. “A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” R Foundation
for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Roberts, Tristan. 2016. “We Spend 90% of Our Time Indoors. Says Who?: Where the Oft-
Quoted Statistic Comes from, and What the Underlying Study Says about Health in
Buildings.” Building Green, December 2016. https://www.buildinggreen.com/blog/we-
spend-90-our-time-indoors-says-who.
Roepke, Ann Marie, and Martin Seligman. 2016. “Depression and Prospection.” British Journal
of Clinical Psychology 55 (1): 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12087.
Roussel, Marie-Eve, Simon Grondin, and Peter Killeen. 2009. “Spatial Effects on Temporal
Categorization.” Perception 38 (5): 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6165.
Seligman, Martin E. P., Peter Railton, Roy F. Baumeister, and Chandra Sripada. 2016. Homo
Prospectus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stamps, III, Arthur E. 2006. “Interior Prospect and Refuge.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 103
(3): 643–653. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.103.3.643-653.
11
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH, WELLNESS, AND SOCIETY
———. 2008a. “Some Findings on Prospect and Refuge: I.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 106
(1): 147–162. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.106.1.147-162.
———. 2008b. “Some Findings on Prospect and Refuge Theory: II.” Perceptual Motor Skills
107 (1): 141–158. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.107.1.141-158.
Suddendorf, Thomas. 2006. “Foresight and Evolution of the Human Mind.” Science 312
(5776):1006-1007. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1129217.
Suddendorf, Thomas, and Janie Busby. 2005. “Making Decisions with the Future in Mind:
Developmental and Comparative Identification of Mental Time Travel.” Learning and
Motivation 36: 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2005.02.010.
Suddendorf, Thomas, and Michael C. Corballis. 2007. “The Evolution of Foresight: What is
Mental Time Travel, and is it Unique to Humans?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30
(3): 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001975.
Szpunar, Karl K., R. Nathan Spreng, and Daniel L. Schacter. 2014. “A Taxonomy of
Prospection: Introducing an Organizational Framework for Future-Oriented
Cognition.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 111 (52): 18414–18421. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417144111.
Teuscher, Ursina, Marguerite McQuire, Jennifer Collins, and Seana Coulson. 2008. “Congruity
Effects in Time and Space: Behavioral and ERP Measures.” Cognitive Science: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 32 (3): 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802035084.
Ulrich, Roger S. 1984. “View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.”
Science 224 (4647): 420–421. https://doi.org 10.1126/science.6143402.
Yarrow, Kielan, Patrick Haggard, Ron Heal, Peter Brown, and John C. Rothwell, 2001.
“Illusory Perceptions of Space and Time Preserve Cross-saccadic Perceptual
Continuity.” Nature 414:302–305. https://doi.org/10.1038/35104551.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Zhuo Job Chen: Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Clemson University,
Clemson, South Carolina, USA
Kevin Nute: Associate Professor, School of Architecture, University of Hawai'i, Mānoa,
Honolulu, Hawai'i, USA
12
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST

The International Journal of Health, Wellness
and Society offers an interdisciplinary forum for the
discussion of issues at the intersection of human
physiology and the social life conditions. It is a focal
point for scholarly and practice-based discussion in
a time of growing public and research awareness of
the relations between health and social wellbeing.
The concept of “health and wellness” impacts all
members of society, whether at a personal level in the
positive senses of life-satisfaction and exhilaration,
or problematically, through the cost and availability of
remedial health care. Contributions to the journal range
from broad scientific, sociological, philosophical, and
policy explorations to detailed studies of particular
physiological and social dynamics.
As well as article of a traditional, scholarly type, this
journal invites case studies that take the form of
presentations of practice—including documentation of
socially engaged practices and exegeses analyzing the
effects of those practices.
The International Journal of Health, Wellness and
Society is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal.
ISSN 2156-8 96 0
Downloaded by Kevin Nute on Tue Sep 14 2021 at 07:36:52 AM HST