Compare And Contrast The Attention Restoration Theory

A competing theory to Kaplan (1995)’s Attention Restoration Theory (ART) has been proposed by Ulrich et al. (1991). Similar to Attention Restoration Theory, Ulrich et al. (1991)’s Psycho-evolutionary Restoration Theory is also based on the assumption that human physiology has evolved in a natural environment. Because of this, it also shares the assumption that brain and sensory systems are tuned to efficiently process natural content and are less efficient at processing urban or built environments, thus resulting in physiological and cognitive depletion when interacting with urban environments (Ulrich et al., 1991). Research by Mace, Thorpe, & Fabre-Thorpe (2005) has found support for this assumption of “rapid processing of natural scenes”
The bulk of the theory is based on adaptive survival behavior, which is problematic when considering the function of urban environments and cities: Modern day cities afford significantly better odds of survival, resources and health compared to savannah-like areas. Obtaining medicine, food, water, and shelter is significantly easier in a city than it is in the wilderness (especially for individuals that have no wilderness survival training). If preference was truly driven by access to resources that facilitate survival, then urban cities should be preferred over most natural environments. However, the contrary has been demonstrated in empirical research. This point is partially combated by the evolutionary argument made in Psycho-evolutionary Restoration Theory, which suggests that since our sensory and cognitive systems evolved in natural settings, they are tuned to natural stimuli and have difficulty classifying urban-environments as “beneficial” to survival (Ulrich et al., 1991). Unfortunately, there is little mention of the specific (evolved) sensory and cognitive systems that may be responsible for the "automatic affective response" to environments (i.e. preference and restoration). This shortcoming of describing a mechanism for the “automatic affective response” is similar to Attention Restoration Theory’s shortcoming in defining the source of “soft fascination.” If we consider the proposals made by Attention Restoration Theory (ART) and Psycho-evolutionary Restoration Theory, stating that sensory and cognitive systems evolved in natural settings, and that specific mechanisms may have evolved to favor survival, it stands to reason that the underlying mechanism may be a reward system tuned to specific information in the environment that has evolutionarily been linked to survival and well-being.