Fear versus fascination : An exploration of emotional responses to natural threats

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp
Fear versus fascination: An exploration of emotional responses to
natural threats
Agnes E. van den Berga,Ã, Marlien ter Heijneb
aWageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
bUniversity of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Abstract
This article describes two studies that examined people’s emotional responses to threatening encounters with nature. In Study 1,
participants from The Netherlands were asked to describe a fearful experience with nature in their home country. We identi?ed four
broad categories of fear-relevant situations, named Close Encounters, Forceful Situations, Overwhelming Situations, and Disorienting
Situations. Each of these situations evoked negative as well as positive emotions. Study 2 investigated the role of sensation seeking and
gender in emotional responses to standardized descriptions of threatening encounters with nature. High sensation seekers and men, as
compared to low sensation seekers and women, responded less often with negative emotion and avoidance tendencies, and more often
with positive emotion and approach tendencies.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
ters with natural threats (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). To
date, the determinants of this variation in emotional
Nature has many good things to offer. At a very basic
responses to natural threats remain largely unknown.
level, nature provides people with elementary necessities
Our central aim in the present research was to gain more
such as food, medicine, and clean air. In addition, at a
insight into people’s emotional responses to natural
more psychological level, nature offers a wide variety of
threats. In the following paragraphs, we ?rst review
positive experiences, such as aesthetic pleasure (Parsons &
previous research on fear of nature. Next, we discuss the
Daniel, 2002), possibilities for discovery and learning
evidence for positive reactions to natural threats, and
(Kahn, 1999), and restoration from stress and mental
consider the potential relevance of gender and sensation
fatigue (Van den Berg, Koole, & Van der Wulp, 2003).
seeking to understanding individual differences in negative
Taken together, there are strong grounds for assuming that
versus positive responses to natural threats. Finally, we
contact with nature is frequently bene?cial to people.
present two empirical studies that examined people’s
But there is also a dark side to contact with nature.
emotional responses to natural threats in The Netherlands.
Natural environments contain many dangers, such as
predators, venomous animals, and lightning, that can
1.1. Fear of nature
strike quickly and without warning (Tooby & Cosmides,
1990). People’s reactions to these natural threats show
Much of the current knowledge on fear of nature derives
considerable variation. On the one hand, encounters with
from laboratory research on fear conditioning within
these threatening aspects of nature may evoke strong fears
clinical psychology and neuroscience. This research started
and other negative emotions (Ulrich, 1993). On the other
with the observation that fears and phobias do not occur to
hand, researchers have observed that some people derive
an arbitrary group of objects and situations, but rather are
highly positive and meaningful experiences from encoun-
directed at natural objects and situations such as snakes,
spiders, deep water, heights, depths, darkness and blood
Ã
(Agras, Sylvester, & Oliveau, 1969). These objects and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 74 74 393; fax: +31 74 24 812.
E-mail address: agnes.vandenberg@wur.nl (A.E. van den Berg).
situations have in common that they represented survival
0272-4944/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.004

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
262
A.E. van den Berg, M. ter Heijne / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
threats to pre-modern humans. Accordingly, Seligman
Bixler, Carlisle, Hammitt, & Floyd, 1994; Bixler & Floyd,
(1971) has proposed that modern humans remain ‘‘biolo-
1997). For example, based on research among school
gically prepared’’ through natural selection to learn fears of
children, Bixler & Floyd (1997) have distinguished nine
natural objects and situations that threatened the survival
typical fear-evoking situations: Seeing a snake or stepping
of the human species during the course of evolution.
on it, getting a spider bite, being chased by a swarm of
The ‘‘biological preparedness hypothesis’’ has been
bees, being caught in a windstorm, being caught in thunder
supported by a large number of well-controlled laboratory
and lightning, getting lost, getting separated from friends,
studies (see for reviews Ulrich, 1993; O¨hman & Mineka,
and not getting back before dark. Since most of these fear-
2001). Most of this research has focused on images of
evoking situations seem to have some evolutionary
snakes as a prototypical example of evolutionary relevant
signi?cance, these ?ndings once again speak to the
threats (O¨hman & Mineka, 2003). This research has
relevance of evolutionary theories to understanding fearful
demonstrated that fear of snakes is more easily learned,
reactions to nature.
and harder to unlearn, than fear of other stimuli, including
equally or more dangerous man-made stimuli such as guns
1.2. Positive responses to natural threats
and electricity outlets (e.g. Hugdahl & Johnsen, 1989).
Furthermore, this research has shown that fear of snakes
In addition to fears and other negative reactions,
can be activated and learned even when people are not
evaluations of wilderness programs have also documented
consciously aware of the presence of these animals (e.g.
numerous positive responses to wilderness, including an
O¨hman & Soares, 1993). Finally, this research has found
increase in psychological energy, a greater self-con?dence,
that people’s attention is automatically captured by
and a sense of awe and wonder (Ewert, 1986; Kaplan &
pictures of snakes in complex visual arrays (O¨hman, Flykt,
Kaplan, 1989; Holy?eld & Fine, 1997; Fredrickson &
& Esteves, 2001). Together, these ?ndings provide strong
Anderson, 1999). These positive reactions tend to become
evidence that fear of nature is driven by deeply rooted,
stronger during the course of the trip, and may persist even
evolved mechanisms (O¨hman & Mineka, 2001).
after reentry into ‘civilization’. According to Kaplan &
Biophobia research has focused almost exclusively on
Kaplan (1989) confrontations with physical challenges and
fear of animals. As Ulrich (1993) has pointed out, one may
natural threats constitute a critical factor in these positive
wonder to what extent the insights from this research are
changes. By conquering their fear of the potential dangers
relevant to people’s reactions to physical properties of
that ‘lurk in the woods’ (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, p. 146),
natural environments. In recent years, a second line of
participants of wilderness programs may discover a new
research has emerged that has studied predictors of
sense of competence and fresh energy. Consistent with this
negative reactions to visual representations of forest and
notion, participants’ journal entries often expressed perso-
?eld settings (Herzog & Kutzli, 2002; Herzog & Kropscott,
nal dif?culties and intense positive emotions at the same
2004). Most notably, this research has shown that access,
time (Kaplan & Talbot, 1983). Despite their fears and
visual or locomotor, is signi?cantly related to both self-
worries, participants felt oddly refreshed and invigorated,
reported fear and perceived danger. Forest and ?eld
‘‘feeling better than I have in a long time’’, laughing all the
settings that lacked visual or locomotor access were
time, ‘‘having a blast’’ (Kaplan & Talbot, 1983, p. 178).
perceived as more dangerous and evoked more self-
Experimental research on outdoor adventure activities
reported fear than accessible settings. For our ancestors
provides further support for the idea that confrontations
who had to survive in natural environments, access
with natural threats, in particular depths and heights, can
constituted a vital necessity for surveillance, exploration,
be a direct source of positive emotions. For example, a
and escape (Appleton, 1975). Thus, research on fearful
study by Hennig, Laschefski, & Opper (1994) among
reactions to natural environments appears to be largely
novice bungee jumpers showed that ratings on euphoria
consistent with an evolutionary account of fear of nature.
increased markedly after performing the jump and were
Finally, a third line of research has studied people’s
accompanied by an increase of more than 200% in beta-
fearful experiences during actual visits to wilderness areas.
endorphin immunoreactivity. This increase in beta-endor-
This research has revealed that a stay in the wilderness may
phin was signi?cantly correlated with ratings on euphoria
evoke strong fears and other negative emotions. For
obtained at subsequent measurements, indicating a rela-
example Kaplan & Talbot (1983; see also Kaplan, 1984;
tionship between beta-endorphins and euphoria. Euphoric
Talbot & Kaplan, 1986; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) reported
effects of beta-endorphins and other brain chemicals have
that 92% of a total number of 176 participants of
also been found in women in labor (Brinsmead, Smith,
American Outward Challenge Programs expressed fearful
Singh, Lewin, & Owens, 1985) and marathon runners
emotions (afraid, worried, want to go home) in their
(Harber & Sutton, 1984) and have been interpreted as an
journals. These fears dealt with social concerns and
adaptive mechanism that helps individuals tolerate and
physical challenges, but also with aspects of the natural
survive periods of extreme pain and stress.
environment itself, such as animals, bugs, the weather, and
Researchers of wilderness experience have paid little
getting lost. Other studies have reported more detailed lists
attention to the possibility that positive responses to
of fear-evoking aspects of wilderness settings (Ewert, 1986;
natural threats may re?ect automatic effects of biochemical

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.E. van den Berg, M. ter Heijne / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
263
processes. Instead, they have emphasized that people are
sensation seekers often even enjoy such activities, because
self-conscious beings, who can be aware of their own fear
these provide them with their desired level of stimulation
of nature (Scherl, 1989). This self-awareness may promote
and challenge. As yet, there is no direct evidence for a
existential fears of death and nonexistence because it can
relationship between sensation seeking and emotional
remind people of the fact that they themselves are part of
responses to natural threats. However, it has been
nature too, and eventually will have to die like all other
found that high sensation seekers like ‘gloomy’ nature
living creatures (Koole & Van den Berg, 2004, 2005). But
paintings with a high level of tension more than low
self-awareness may also enable people to control their own
sensation seekers (Zuckerman, Ulrich, & McLaughlin,
fears and transform it into a positive and meaningful
1993). Furthermore, a recent study on the relationship
experience. Notably, this cognitive explanation of emo-
between sensation seeking and holiday preferences has
tional responses to natural threats is not necessarily
shown that high sensation seekers have greater preference
incompatible with biological explanations. There is grow-
for adventurous holidays such as trekking in nature
ing consensus among emotion researchers that there are
(Eachus, 2004). These ?ndings suggest that high sensation
multiple levels of processing that contribute to emotional
seekers may experience threatening encounters with nature
experience (Robinson, 1998). In particular when indivi-
as less frightening and more pleasurable than low sensation
duals are confronted with urgent or threatening informa-
seekers.
tion, cognitive and physiological processes may operate in
Another person variable that might be relevant to
combination to generate consciously experienced, negative
individual differences in emotional responses to natural
and/or positive, emotions.
threats is gender. Outcomes of a representative survey in
Sweden (Fredrikson, Annas, Fischer, & Wik, 1996) suggest
1.3. Individual differences in emotional responses to natural
that phobic fear of nature is more common in women than
threats
in men. Animal phobia (snakes, spiders) had a prevalence
of 12.1% in women and 3.3% in men. Prevalence of
Wilderness programs provide people with opportunities
situational phobia (lightning, darkness and heights) was
to physically and cognitively master the threats and
17.4% in women and 8.5% in men. No gender differences
challenges posed by the physical environment. Conse-
were observed for other types of phobia such as fear of
quently, pre-existing individual differences in coping skills
dentists and injections. These ?ndings suggest that women
and personality might give rise to considerable variation in
are more likely to respond fearfully to natural threats than
outcomes of wilderness experience (cf. Weber, 2001). In
men. As yet, there is no direct evidence that women are also
particularly, some individuals may ?nd it more dif?cult to
less likely than men to respond positively to confrontations
turn their fear of nature into a positive experience than
with natural threats. However, a study by Hoff & Maple
others. Because wilderness programs attract mostly in-
(1982) showed that female visitors were more likely to
dividuals with a favorable attitude towards engaging in
refuse to enter a reptile house, and if they did enter it,
risky activities, empirical evidence of negative outcomes of
female visitors tended to stay a shorter period of time. The
such programs is scarce. However, evaluations of school
latter observation suggests that women derive less positive
?eld trips and other mandatory nature programs con?rms
emotions from actual confrontations with feared objects
that a small but substantial number of individuals tend to
than men.
react fearfully to wilderness environments even after
spending prolonged periods of time in these environments
1.4. Overview of the present research
(see Bixler et al., 1994, for an overview). For example, in a
study by Wendling & Wuench (1985) one out of ?ve
We conducted the present research to learn more about
students reported that they did not like a compulsory
people’s emotional responses to natural threats. Based on
wilderness trip and would have rather stayed in the
evolutionary accounts of human-nature relations we
classroom. These results suggest that there exist important
assumed that nature represents a potent and deeply rooted
individual differences in emotional responses to natural
source of fear. Consequently, we predicted that threatening
threats.
encounters with nature would evoke fear even in a highly
One important variable that may account for individual
cultivated country such as The Netherlands. Based on
differences in emotional responses to natural threats is the
insights from research on wilderness experience and out-
personality trait ‘sensation seeking’. Sensation seeking can
door adventure activities, we further expected that people
be de?ned as an individual’s genetically and socially
might offset their fearful responses to natural threats with
determined tendency to seek varied, novel, complex, and
highly positive emotions. Finally, we expected that
intense sensations and experiences (Zuckerman, 1994,
encounters with similar natural threats would elicit
p. 27). Research on the behavioral correlates of sensation
different types of emotional responses in different indivi-
seeking has shown that high sensation seekers typically
duals. More speci?cally we predicted that these individual
view risky activities, such as use of alcohol, gambling, and
differences would vary systematically as a function of
high-risk sports, as less threatening than low sensation
personality characteristics, in particular sensation seeking
seekers (see Roberti, 2004, for an overview). High
and gender.

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
264
A.E. van den Berg, M. ter Heijne / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
To test the aforementioned hypotheses, we employed a
2.1.3. Content analysis
mixture of methodological approaches that combined both
To analyse the emotional and situational content of the
qualitative and quantitative techniques (cf. Creswell, 2003).
episodes, the two researchers ?rst underlined all references
This multi-method approach enabled us to detect broad
to emotions and emotion-evoking objects and situations in
patterns in people’s interactions with threatening aspects of
the episodes. References to emotions could be unambigu-
nature, along with the meanings people attach to these
ously classi?ed as ‘‘negative’’ or ‘‘positive’’. To develop a
interactions. In Study 1, we investigated people’s open-
coding scheme for the situational content, the two
ended descriptions of their emotional reactions to natural
researchers independently identi?ed a limited set of
threats and explored the potential existence of individual
abstract situational characteristics that captured the range
differences in these reactions. In Study 2, we conducted a
and variety of the natural objects and circumstances
more focused investigation of individual differences in
described by the participants. Discrepancies were recon-
emotional responses using standardized scenarios of
ciled through discussion and line-by-line review of coded
encounters with natural threats.
episodes. After having reached consensus, the two
researchers independently scored each episode on each
2. Study 1
characteristic in the coding scheme. These scores were then
submitted to cluster analysis to classify the episodes into
In Study 1, we conducted an initial exploration of
similar groups of situations. As a ?nal step in the content
people’s emotional responses to natural threats. Partici-
analysis, we computed the frequencies of positive and/or
pants in Study 1 were asked to describe in their own words
negative emotional responses within each cluster of
how they were affected by their own threatening encoun-
situations.
ters with nature. We subsequently coded these descriptions
for their emotional contents. Based on the foregoing
2.2. Results
theoretical discussion, we anticipated that encounters with
natural threats would be associated with both negative and
2.2.1. Environments
positive emotions. A further purpose of Study 1 was to
The experiences were situated in various types of natural
develop a classi?cation scheme of situational character-
environments. Five experiences took place in forests or
istics that are salient in people’s personal narratives of their
wooded areas, four experiences occurred on the water
encounters with natural threats. Using this preliminary
(seas, rivers, lakes), four experiences happened at the beach
classi?cation scheme, we explored whether similar situa-
or in the dunes, two experiences were situated in swamp-
tions might be associated with different emotional
like areas, one experience was located on the moors, one in
responses among different participants.
a meadow, one in a backyard, and one inside a house
(which was invaded by bats). In eight episodes the
2.1. Method
environment was not speci?ed, these episodes focused on
natural elements, such as thunder, darkness, or animals.
2.1.1. Participants and procedure
Thus, participants’ experiences occurred relatively often
Participants consisted of employees of a large environ-
(59%) in wooded areas and on or near the water.
mental research organization, and personal acquaintances
of the researchers. All participants were contacted via
2.2.2. Emotions
e-mail. We received 27 reactions, in which 35 episodes were
In eleven episodes (41%) participants reported only
described. Five episodes were excluded from the analysis,
negative emotions and sensations. In another eleven
because (despite our explicit instructions), these were
(41%) episodes participants described a nature experience
situated outside The Netherlands. Another three episodes
that had evoked both negative and positive emotions.
were excluded because these concerned reactions to other
Unexpectedly, in ?ve stories (19%) participants described
people in nature, and not to nature itself. The remaining
only positive emotions. Because the situational descriptions
data set consisted of 27 episodes described by 23
of these participants indicated that they had clearly
participants (9 men and 14 women).
been in a threatening situation, it is unlikely that these
participants misunderstood our instructions and described
2.1.2. Instructions
a different kind of nature experience. Possibly, these
The e-mail survey asked recipients to describe one or
participants may have suppressed their negative feelings
more fearful encounters with nature in their home country.
so well that they did not reach consciousness. Alterna-
To allow for the possibility that these encounters were
tively, they may have forgotten their negative emotions, or
experienced in a positive way, the e-mail emphasized that
they may have felt embarrassed to write down their
the encounter might have been ‘both fearful and fascinat-
negative emotions.
ing at the same time’. Recipients were asked to describe, in
Participants who experienced negative emotions mostly
about half a page, their emotions and sensations during the
described feelings of fear and lack of control. These feelings
encounter(s), as well as the natural objects and situations
were sometimes accompanied by unpleasant bodily sensa-
that caused these emotions and sensations.
tions, such as ‘goose bumps’, ‘raised hackles’ and ‘cold

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.E. van den Berg, M. ter Heijne / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
265
sweat under my arms’. Participants who experienced
there was a marginally signi?cant difference between the
positive emotions described various types of feelings, such
clusters on ‘repulsiveness’.
as euphoric feelings of happiness and excitement, feelings
The ?rst cluster was labeled ‘‘Close Encounters’’. It
of fascination, elevated levels of awareness and perception,
consisted of 10 episodes with high (X1.5) scores on
and feelings of awe and respect. These latter feelings were
proximity and suddenness, and moderately high (X1)
often accompanied by feelings of insigni?cance, described
scores on novelty. Compared to the other clusters, this
as ‘vulnerable’, ‘diminutive’, and ‘the feeling that one is all
cluster also scored relatively high on repulsiveness. Most
alone in the world’.
episodes in this cluster involved close encounters with
animals, such as a deer, wild cows, snakes, bats, or insects.
The second cluster was labeled ‘‘Forceful Situations’’. It
2.2.3. Situational characteristics
contained seven episodes with high scores on danger,
Table 1 provides an overview of the 10 emotion-evoking
dependence, and ?erceness, and moderately high scores on
characteristics that were identi?ed in the content analysis.
suddenness and immensity. In ?ve of these forceful
The two researchers independently scored the episodes on
episodes people were hit by thunderstorms, mostly in
the 10 characteristics. As can be seen in the ?rst column of
combination with sailing on open water. Two forceful
Table 1, suf?cient inter-rater reliability (k40.65) was
episodes involved people who were swimming in rivers
obtained for all characteristics.
with strong currents. The third cluster was labeled
We conducted a cluster analysis with the added scores of
‘‘Overwhelming Situations’’. It represented ?ve episodes
the two researchers as an outcome variable. These scores
with high scores on immensity, and moderately high scores
took a value of ‘0’ if neither of the two researchers rated the
on absence of others. In these episodes people were
characteristic applicable to an episode, a value of ‘1’ if one
overwhelmed by the greatness of a forest, the immensity
of the two researchers rated the characteristic applicable,
of the sea, or the impressiveness of a vast plain. The fourth
and a value of ‘2’ if both researchers rated the characteristic
cluster was labeled ‘‘Disorienting Situations’’. It contained
applicable.
?ve episodes with high scores on invisibility and moder-
The cluster analysis was carried out using a two-stage
ately high scores on novelty. All episodes in this cluster
procedure whereby a hierarchical procedure determines the
were about people getting lost in nature, mostly in dark
number of clusters and starting means, and then a
forests.
nonhierarchical method is used for ?nal clustering (Ketch-
en & Shook, 1996). Inspection of the dendogram and the
agglomeration schedule coef?cients provided by the
2.2.4. Emotions within clusters
hierarchical cluster analysis suggested that a clustering
Table 2 provides an overview of frequencies of emotional
into four clusters of episodes was appropriate to the data
reactions in each cluster. The results indicate that similar
(Aldenderfer & Blash?eld, 1984). The adequacy of the ?nal
situations evoked different emotional reactions in different
four-cluster solution was con?rmed by a one-way MAN-
individuals. For example, while most participants experi-
OVA which revealed a signi?cant multivariate effect of
enced a mixture of fear and fascination when they were
Cluster Membership (1–4) on the situational character-
confronted with the powers of nature in a Forceful
istics, F ð30; 48Þ ¼ 10:9; po:001. Univariate analyses de-
Situation, some of them were unable to see the bright side
monstrated signi?cant differences among the four clusters
of this kind of situation and experienced only negative
on nine out of 10 characteristics (see Table 1). In addition,
emotions. Similar variations in the range of emotional
Table 1
Situational characteristics and ?nal cluster means (Study 1)
Characteristic
De?nition
Cluster
F
1
2
3
4
Danger (k ¼ 1.00)
Possibility of death or severe injuries
0.00
1.71
0.00
0.00
34.07**
Dependence (k ¼ 0.82)
A situation in which one cannot afford to make mistakes
0.20
1.57
0.00
0.40
7.40**
Fierceness (k ¼ 0.91)
Confrontation with the powers of the elements
0.00
1.86
0.40
0.00
31.39**
Immensity (k ¼ 0.82)
The presence of vast elements, such as heights and tall trees
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.20
17.14**
Suddenness (k ¼ 0.78)
Caught unprepared by an unexpected event
1.60
1.14
0.00
0.20
7.50**
Proximity (k ¼ 0.85)
Being at a close distance of something
2.00
0.29
0.40
0.00
33.19**
Novelty (k ¼ 0.85)
Being in an unfamiliar area, or being confronted with unknown things
1.20
0.00
0.60
1.20
3.47*
Invisibility (k ¼ 0.91)
Being surrounded by darkness, hearing or touching something invisible
0.70
0.00
0.00
2.00
13.44**
Repulsiveness (k ¼ 1.00)
The presence of disgusting animals, smells, or materials
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.20
2.65
Absence of others (k ¼ 1.00)
Being alone in nature
0.20
0.00
1.20
0.40
9.99*
Note: Scores range from 0 (not applicable) to 2 (applicable). See text for description of how scores were computed.
ÃÃ po:01; Ãpo:05.

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
266
A.E. van den Berg, M. ter Heijne / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
Table 2
Distribution of negative and positive emotions across clusters of threatening situations (Study 1)
Cluster 1: Close
Cluster 2: Forceful
Cluster 3:
Cluster 4:
Encounters
Situations
Overwhelming
Disorienting
Situations
Situations
Only negative emotions
6 (60%)
2 (29%)
—
3 (60%)
Negative and positive emotions
2 (20%)
5 (71%)
2 (40%)
2 (40%)
Only positive emotions
2 (20%)
—
3 (60%)
—
Total
10 (100%)
7 (100%)
5 (100%)
5 (100%)
reactions were found in the other clusters. These ?ndings
ary environments. Thus, our ?ndings are consistent with
are consistent with our hypothesis that there exist
the notion that fear of nature is rooted in our evolutionary
important individual differences in emotional responses
history.
to threatening situations in nature.
The 10 characteristics were used to subdivide the
Inspection of Table 2 also suggests that that were
episodes into four ‘prototypical’ threatening situations,
differences in emotional reactions between the clusters. In
labeled Close Encounters, Forceful Situations, Overwhelm-
particular, it seems that Close Encounters and Disorienting
ing Situations, and Disorienting Situations. In each cluster,
Situations more often evoked only fear than the other two
some individuals reacted with a combination of positive
clusters, while Overwhelming Situations more often evoked
and negative emotions, while others reacted only with
only positive emotions. However, because of the small
positive or only with negative emotions. This ?nding
sample size, we could not perform a statistical test to
provides some preliminary support for the existence of
con?rm this observation.
important individual differences in emotional reactions to
natural threats. These individual differences were further
2.3. Discussion
pursued in Study 2.
Study 1 consisted of an initial exploration of Dutch
3. Study 2
people’s descriptions of threatening encounters with
nature in their home country. As predicted, such encoun-
In Study 2 we examined people’s emotional responses to
ters did not only evoke fear, but also positive emotions.
standardized descriptions of threatening situations in
Positive emotions included intense happiness, fascination,
nature. These scenarios were constructed on the base of
and awe and amazement. Each of these emotions has
situational dimensions identi?ed in Study 1. In particular,
previously been identi?ed as characteristic of so-called
we investigated the in?uence of sensation seeking and
‘transcendent’ or ‘spiritual’ nature experiences (Fredrick-
gender on people’s emotional responses to the scenarios.
son & Anderson, 1999; Williams & Harvey, 2001). The
Based on previous research (Hoff & Maple, 1982; Zucker-
result of the present study provides further support for the
man et al., 1993), we expected that men and individuals
notion that such deeply meaningful experiences can be
high in sensation seeking, would be more likely to respond
elicited by challenging or threatening situations (Kaplan &
positively to the threatening situations, while women and
Kaplan, 1989).
individuals low in sensation seeking would be more likely
More than half of the experiences were situated in forests
to respond negatively to these situations. In a more
and on or near the water. This ?nding is consistent with
exploratory vein, Study 2 also examined the potential
historical analyses, which have revealed that forests and
in?uence of phobic fears and other variables that have been
waters have been considered as places of fear and terror
found relevant to environmental preferences in previous
across different times and cultures (Schama, 1995). Never-
research, including membership of nature protection
theless, the mere fact that one is in a forest or on or near
organizations and frequency of nature visits, and phobic
the water only rarely aroused fear or fascination in our
fears of nature (cf. Van den Berg, Vlek, & Coeterier, 1998).
participants. More perilous circumstances, such as being
lost, darkness, thunderstorms, or the presence of dangerous
3.1. Method
animals, were usually required to transform a walk in the
forest or a boat trip into a terrifying experience. We
3.1.1. Participants and procedure
summarized these circumstances into 10 characteristics,
Fifty paid volunteers at Wageningen University (32
labeled danger, dependence, ?erceness, immensity, sudden-
women and 18 men, average age 23) participated in the
ness, proximity, novelty, invisibility, repulsiveness, and
study. Upon arrival in the laboratory, participants
absence of others. Each of these characteristics appears to
were seated at separate desks, where they ?lled out a
have had immediate survival relevance in early evolution-
written questionnaire. The ?rst part of this questionnaire

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.E. van den Berg, M. ter Heijne / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
267
contained questions about six scenarios describing threa-
Table 3
tening situations in nature. The scenarios were printed in
Factor analysis of emotions (Study 2)
the upper half of each page, with the questions printed
directly below. The second part of the questionnaire
Factor
Factor 1 Negative
Factor 2 Positive
emotions
emotions
consisted of the 13 items of the sensation-seeking scale,
followed by some background questions about partici-
Afraid
.86
pants’ age, gender, membership of nature protection
Insecure
.83
organizations, and frequency of visits to nature. Partici-
Sad
.81
Tense
.67
À.36
pants were also asked to indicate whether they suffered
Happy
.86
from one or more phobic fears, and if yes, to indicate what
Impressed
.84
type of object(s) or situation(s) they were afraid of. Finally,
Curious
À.36
.79
participants were paid and dismissed.
Fascinated
À.47
.71
Variance explained
36.2%
35.3%
3.1.2. Scenarios
Alpha
.84
.86
The stimulus set consisted of six scenarios describing
threatening situations in nature (See the Appendix). Each
Note: Only factor loadings 4|.30| are displayed.
scenario was described in an objective manner, and did not
contain any references to emotions or feelings. The six
scenarios were selected from a larger set of 12 scenarios,
which were pilot-tested in a postal survey within the
tained the four positive emotions (‘‘happy’’, ‘‘fascinated’’,
general Dutch population ðN ¼ 60Þ. This larger set of
‘‘impressed’’, ‘‘curious’’). We combined the four negative
scenarios was constructed on the base of the results of
emotions into one new variable, Negative Emotions, that
Study 1, and included four Forceful Encounters, four Close
consisted of the simple average of the four separate indices
Encounters, and four Disorienting Situations. The initial
(range 1–5). In a similar vein, we created a new aggregate
set of scenarios did not include any Overwhelming
variable for Positive Emotions.
Situations, because it appeared too dif?cult to describe
The third question consisted of two statements about the
these situations as threatening without explicit reference to
participant’s tendency to approach or avoid the situation in
emotional states.
the future. The ?rst statement was ‘‘I would try to avoid
Results of the pilot study showed that reactions to six
this situation in the future’’, the second statement read ‘‘I
scenarios (three Close Encounters and three Disorienting
would want to experience this more often’’. Participants
Situations) showed little or no variation. Reactions to the
were asked to indicate how much they agreed with each
other six scenarios (four Forceful Encounters, one Close
statement on a 5-point scale.
Encounter, and one Disorienting Situation) were highly
varied. Some participants indicated that they would react
‘‘primarily with fear’’ to these situations, while others
3.1.4. Assessment of individual differences
indicated that they would react ‘‘primarily with fascina-
To assess individual differences in sensation seeking, we
tion’’. These latter six scenarios were used in the present
used a Dutch translation of a shortened version of the
study.
original Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS-V; Zuckerman,
Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978). This brief version was
3.1.3. Assessment of emotional responses
published by Zuckerman (1978) as a quick self-test. It
Three questions were asked about each scenario.
consists of 13 items that tap into various dimensions of the
The
?rst
question
asked
participants
to
indicate
original scale. Each of the items consists of two alter-
how they would feel if they were in the situation described.
natives, A or B, that describe a preference or a feeling
They
could
choose
between
‘‘primarily
afraid’’
or
towards a particular action or situation. One of these
‘‘primarily fascinated’’. Participants’ answers to this
alternatives refers to a preference or feeling that expresses a
question were aggregated across the six scenarios into a
high desire for sensation-seeking, for example ‘‘I would like
single index (labeled ‘Fear/Fascination’). This index
a job that requires a lot of traveling’’. The other alternative
represents the number of times a participant selected the
refers to a preference or feeling that expresses a low desire
alternative ‘‘primarily fascinated’’ (minimum ¼ 0, max-
for sensation-seeking, for example ‘‘I would prefer a job in
imum ¼ 6).
one location’’. All items of the brief measure of the SSS-V
The second question consisted of a list of eight items that
referred to actions or situations that were unrelated to
described negative and positive emotions. Participants were
nature or natural environments. For each item, partici-
asked to indicate on a 5-point scale to which degree they
pants were asked to choose which of two alternative
would feel the emotion if they were in the situation
responses would best describe their preference or feeling.
described. Factor analysis yielded two factors (Table 3).
High sensation-seeking choices were coded as ‘1’, whereas
One factor contained the four negative emotions (‘‘afraid’’,
low sensation-seeking choices were coded as ‘0’ (Cron-
‘‘insecure’’, ‘‘tense’’, ‘‘sad’’), while the other factor con-
bach’s a ¼ .63).

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
268
A.E. van den Berg, M. ter Heijne / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
Table 4
Correlations between sensation seeking and reactions to threatening scenarios (Study 2)
Fear/fascination
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Approach in future
Avoid in future
Sensation seeking
.56
.53
À.57
.69
À.55
Note: All correlations are signi?cant at po:001 (2-tailed). Descriptions of the emotion measures are provided in the methods section of Study 2.
3.2. Results and discussion
Table 5
Means of reactions to threatening scenarios by men and women (Study 2)
3.2.1. Fear versus fascination
The scenarios elicited different emotional responses. For
Men ðN ¼ 18Þ
Women ðN ¼ 32Þ
F
?ve out of six scenarios, about half of the participants
M
S.D.
M
S.D.
indicated that they would feel ‘‘primarily afraid’’ if they
were in the situation described. The other half of the
Fear/fascination
3.78
1.48
1.97
1.69
14.35**
participants indicated that they would feel ‘‘primarily
Positive emotions
3.07
0.48
2.82
0.63
2.18
Negative emotions
2.60
0.32
3.18
0.57
15.29**
fascinated’’ in the situation described. Situation# 5 evoked
Approach in future
2.64
0.60
2.07
0.72
7.80**
more fearful reactions than the other situations. Because
Avoid in future
3.19
0.72
3.74
0.69
7.10*
situational characteristics were not systematically varied
ÃÃ
across the scenarios, the precise cause of the greater fear-
po:01; Ãpo:05.
evoking capacity of this scenario is dif?cult to determine.
Speculatively, it could be that the description of a ‘‘holiday
home’’ in this scenario lead some participants to imagine
signi?cantly less negative emotions. Furthermore, men
that it was situated abroad in a more unfamiliar and
were more likely to agree with the statement that they
uncontrolled setting.
would want to experience the situation again in the future,
while they were less likely to agree with the statement that
3.2.2. In?uence of sensation seeking
they would try to avoid the situation in the future. Men did
Sensation seeking was signi?cantly correlated (all
not display signi?cantly more positive emotions than
pso:001) with each of the emotional response measures,
women.
as well as with future approach/avoidance tendencies
Men did not differ signi?cantly from women with respect
(Table 4). High sensation seekers, as compared to low
to
sensation
seeking,
M ¼ 7:76
vs.
M ¼ 7:00,
sensation seekers, more often indicated that they would be
F ð1; 48Þ ¼ 1:06, p ¼ 0:31. Thus, the gender differences in
‘‘primarily fascinated’’ by a threatening situation. To
reactions to threatening situations in nature could not be
illustrate the strength of this effect, we divided the
explained by differences in sensation seeking between men
participants in a group of 28 low sensation seekers and
and women. Indeed, additional analyses of the combined
22 high sensation seekers on the base of a median split. On
effects of sensation seeking and gender yielded parallel,
average, the low sensation seekers reacted primarily with
signi?cant effects on emotional reactions.
fear to four out of six situations, while the high sensation
seekers reacted primarily with fear to only two situations.
High sensation seekers also displayed more positive
3.2.4. In?uence of other personal variables
emotions, and they displayed less negative emotions.
There was a small but signi?cant positive correlation
Finally, high sensation seekers were more likely to agree
between frequency of nature visits and positive emotions,
with the statement that they would want to experience the
r ¼ :31, po:05. However, additional analyses revealed that
situation again in the future, while they were less likely to
this relationship could be explained by the fact that
agree with the statement that they would try to avoid the
participants who frequently visited nature scored higher
situation in the future. These results con?rm our hypoth-
on sensation seeking. When sensation seeking was con-
esis that sensation seeking is an important trait that
trolled for, the signi?cance disappeared, r ¼ :14, p4:36,
underlies individual differences in reactions to threatening
suggesting that sensation seeking was responsible for this
situations in nature.
spurious relationship.
The sample contained 12 participants who were mem-
3.2.3. In?uence of gender
bers of nature protection organizations, and 13 partici-
A one-way MANOVA revealed a signi?cant multi-
pants who suffered from phobic fears (mostly heights).
variate effect of gender on the ?ve emotional response
However, one-way MANOVAs did not reveal any multi-
measures, F ð5; 44Þ ¼ 4:71, po:01. As can be seen in
variate or univariate effects of membership of nature
Table 5, men were more often primarily fascinated by
organizations and phobic fears on participants’ emotional
threatening situations than women. Men also displayed
reactions to the scenarios, all ps4.11.

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.E. van den Berg, M. ter Heijne / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
269
4. General discussion
differences are relatively stable, and cannot easily be
in?uenced or changed. As such, programming activities
In the present research, we sought to gain more insight
aimed at modifying negative perceptions of wildlands or
into people’s responses to natural threats. As expected,
natural threats might do well to match individual needs for
encounters with natural threats were strongly associated
challenge and threat (Weber, 2001).
with fearful emotions. Indeed, Study 1 showed that even
inhabitants of a highly developed country such as The
5. Limitations and future perspectives
Netherlands were able to recall one or more fearful
encounters with nature in their home country. Study 2
The present research is only an initial exploration of
con?rmed that interactions with nature can be a source of
what is clearly an intricate domain of nature experiences.
fear, even if these interactions are situated in relatively
Therefore, there remain many important issues that need to
cultivated settings. For each of the threatening scenarios
be addressed in future research. A ?rst issue concerns the
used in this study, including a scenario about an encounter
prevalence and frequency of threatening encounters with
with cows in agricultural ?elds, about half or more of the
nature. How many people have had one or more
respondents indicated that they would react primarily with
threatening encounters with nature? How often are people
fear if they were in this situation. These results suggest that
frightened and/or fascinated by nature? And how do
fear of nature is not tied to the spatial context of wilderness
emotional responses vary across different types of settings,
settings, which have been focal in previous work on this
and different types of encounters with nature? These
topic (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Bixler & Floyd, 1997).
questions cannot be answered by the present research,
Instead, the ?ndings of the present research suggest that
because the samples of participants were small and not
fear of nature can occur in any type of environment and is
representative of the general population. Moreover, the
evoked by relatively common and unexceptional circum-
research was restricted to threatening encounters with
stances, such as the presence of animals, darkness, being
nature in The Netherlands, a country with a highly
alone, or the forces of nature.
cultivated landscape that is not representative of the types
Consistent with observations from research on wild-
of natural settings in most parts of the world. By
erness experience and outdoor adventure activities (Kaplan
conducting large-scale survey studies among more repre-
& Kaplan, 1989; Hennig et al., 1994), encounters with
sentative samples in different countries across the world,
natural threats were also associated with highly positive
future research may provide a better understanding of the
emotions. In Study 1, we found that fear of nature was
pervasiveness of fear of nature in modern people’s
often accompanied by profound and meaningful positive
interactions with nature.
emotions, such as extreme happiness, fascination, and awe.
Future research may also take a closer look at the
In Study 2, participants reported similar positive emotions
in?uence of sensation seeking on emotional responses to
in response to threatening scenarios using pre-structured
natural
threats.
In
the
present
research,
sensation
rating scales. As yet, few studies have considered the
seeking was measured using an early, brief version of the
possibility that deeply meaningful and positive experiences
sensation seeking scale (Zuckerman, 1978). Therefore, it
with nature may be closely related to fear and other
was not possible to reliably determine the separate
negative emotions. Thus, the results of the present study
in?uences of the four subscales of the full scale (Thrill
suggest that research on positive nature experiences may
and Adventure Seeking, Experience Seeking, Disinhibition,
bene?t from considering these experiences in conjunction
and Boredom Susceptibility). Findings of recent research
with negative experiences.
on preferences for adventurous holiday (Eachus, 2004)
Finally, both studies supported the existence of mean-
suggest that in particular the subscales of Experience
ingful individual differences in emotional responses to
Seeking and Thrill and Adventure Seeking may be
natural threats. Similar situations (e.g. sailing a boat
important to the prediction of emotional responses to
during a heavy storm) were experienced as purely
natural threats. Future research may examine this hypoth-
frightening by some people, while others were able to
esis by employing the extended 40-items SSS-V (Zucker-
derive enjoyment and positive meaning from them. Study 2
man et al., 1978), or the more recently developed Brief
demonstrated that these differences were systematically
Sensation Seeking Scale (Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen,
related to gender and sensation seeking. Men and high
Lorch, & Donohew, 2002).
sensation seekers, as compared to women and low
A more fundamental issue that warrants scrutiny in
sensation seekers, more often indicated that they would
future research concerns the processes underlying people’s
be primarily fascinated by a threatening encounter with
overt responses to natural threats. In the introduction, we
nature. Both gender and sensation seeking constitute basic
have argued that emotional responses to natural threats
aspects of people’s personality and functioning that are
may re?ect automatic physiological processes that prepare
shaped by genetic and social processes (Zuckerman, 1994;
the body for appropriate defensive behaviors (O¨hman &
Jang, Stein, Taylor, & Livesley, 1999). Therefore, the
Mineka, 2001), as well as deliberate processes that serve to
?nding that individual differences in responses to natural
interpret the situation in a symbolically meaningful way
threats are related to these variables suggests that these
(Koole & Van den Berg, 2004, 2005). The present research

---

ARTICLE IN PRESS
270
A.E. van den Berg, M. ter Heijne / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 261–272
relied on descriptive methods that are unsuitable for
Appendix. Scenarios used in study 2 (translated from Dutch)
studying the operation of these underlying processes. By
employing more sophisticated methods, such as experi-
Scenario 1 (Forceful Situation)
mental designs and neuro-imaging techniques, future
research may yield more insight into the interplay between
You have decided to go to the beach. When you arrive,
physiological and cognitive processes in the generation of
there is a strong wind, and big clouds are chasing the sky.
emotional responses to natural threats. Future research
You start to walk against the wind. On bare feet, you cross
might also investigate developmental aspects of emotional
a little stream, and then you continue your walk over the
responses to natural threats or conduct cross-cultural
deserted beach. The clouds keep racing and the wind turns
studies to learn more about the relative importance of
into a storm. You decide to return. But when you arrive at
genetic versus cultural in?uences.
the stream, it has turned into a real river. The tide is
Finally, we wish to draw attention to the practical
pushing the water on the beach and has created a strong
implications of this research. By showing that fear of
current. You realize that the only way back is through the
nature is implied in some of people’s most positive and
water.
meaningful experiences with nature, the results of the
present study strengthen the rationale for the active use of
Scenario 2 (Forceful Situation)
fear in outdoor activity programming for youth and adults.
Fearful experiences with nature may not only teach
The weather forecasting station has predicted a heavy
people more about themselves, but these experiences may
storm. But in the afternoon, nothing has happened yet, and
also help to create a bond with nature. It has been argued
you decide to take a walk in the forest. You are unaware of
that such a bond with nature constitutes a critical
the fact that the storm has already reached The Nether-
antecedent of environmental awareness and concern
lands earlier that day. In the middle of the forest you are
(Chawla, 1988). Thus, fear-provoking activities can be a
startled by the ?rst blasts of wind. Big branches are
valuable tool for therapeutic as well as educational
sweeping hence and forth, and acorns and chestnuts are
purposes. However, in applying this tool, instructors and
falling out of the trees. Then you hear a loud noise and an
interpreters should be aware that some individuals have
enormous branch falls down just a few meters front of you.
more dif?culties in overcoming their fear of nature than
others. For these individuals, fear may pose a barrier to
Scenario 3 (Close Encounter)
enjoying and learning about nature. However, protecting
these individuals against the threatening aspects of nature
Together with a friend you have decided to take an early
may also be ineffective because it can hinder the develop-
morning walk. The mist is still hanging over the ?elds when
ment of a personal bond with nature. Coping with this
you walk along old farms and hedges. After half an hour,
dilemma is a major task for nature education, and more
two large animals suddenly step out of the mist. When you
insight into the nature and determinants of fear of nature
have approached them at a close distance, you see that the
may help to enhance the ef?cacy of nature education
animals are two large wild cows with sharp horns and long
programs.
red hairs, a mother an her young. You hold your steps. The
big mother animal looks at you watchfully. You become
keenly aware of the short distance between you and her.
6. Concluding remarks
Scenario 4 (Forceful Situation)
The present ?ndings suggest that fear plays an impor-
tant, but ambivalent role in modern human’s interactions
You have decided to take a walk in the forest. The
with nature. There is a bright side to the dark side of
weather is warm and the birds are singing. Lost in
nature, but not everybody is able to see it. Some people, in
thoughts, you walk along the path deeper and deeper into
particular women and those low on sensation seeking, may
the forest. Suddenly the sun disappears. You look up at the
be unable to transform their deeply rooted fears into
sky and see that big clouds are developing. You decide to
meaningful positive experiences. An important implication
walk back in order to get out of the forest before the
of these ?ndings is that modern society’s struggle against
thunder starts. But the clouds are growing so fast, that you
the dark side of nature is ultimately psychological, and as
cannot get out of the forest in time. You hear the ?rst
such is unlikely to be solved by further scienti?c or
strikes of thunder in the distance. Soon the sky is pitch
technological developments (cf. Koole & Van den Berg,
black. You see a ?ash of lightning directly followed by a
2004, 2005). This means that we need psychological
loud bang. Then it starts to rain.
wisdom to resolve our battle against the threats of nature,
and accept that eliminating the dangers will not eliminate
Scenario 5 (Forceful Situation)
the fear. Instead of going to extremes to control nature, we
better ?nd ways to control our fear and transform it into a
There is an old rowing boat in the lake near your holiday
positive experience.
home. You remember that, as a child, you loved to row in

---

Document Outline

• Fear versus fascination: An exploration of emotional responses to natural threats
  • Introduction
    • Fear of nature
    • Positive responses to natural threats
    • Individual differences in emotional responses to natural threats
    • Overview of the present research
  • Study 1
    • Method
      • Participants and procedure
      • Instructions
      • Content analysis
    • Results
      • Environments
      • Emotions
      • Situational characteristics
      • Emotions within clusters
    • Discussion
  • Study 2
    • Method
      • Participants and procedure
      • Scenarios
      • Assessment of emotional responses
      • Assessment of individual differences
    • Results and discussion
      • Fear versus fascination
      • Influence of sensation seeking
      • Influence of gender
      • Influence of other personal variables
  • General discussion
  • Limitations and future perspectives
  • Concluding remarks
  • Scenarios used in study 2 (translated from Dutch)
    • Scenario 1 (Forceful Situation)
    • Scenario 2 (Forceful Situation)
    • Scenario 3 (Close Encounter)
    • Scenario 4 (Forceful Situation)
    • Scenario 5 (Forceful Situation)
    • Scenario 6 (Disorienting Situation)
  • References

---