IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i23p9086-d457316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Animate-Inanimate Soundscapes and Framing on Environments’ Evaluation and Predicted Recreation Time

Author

Listed:
  • Paulina Krzywicka

    (Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ostrowskiego 30b, 53-238 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Katarzyna Byrka

    (Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ostrowskiego 30b, 53-238 Wroclaw, Poland)

Abstract

In this research, we investigated whether soundscapes’ animateness and the framing of environments affect participants’ assessment of the surroundings and their predicted recreation time. In an online study, we showed the participants six stimuli, each consisting of an animate or inanimate soundscape recording and of a verbal label of a natural or urban environment. We asked them to (a) imagine visiting the presented locations while mentally fatigued, in company or alone; (b) to visualize spending time there while engaged in recreational activities; and (c) to assess the environment and the predicted recreation time. We found that environments with animate soundscapes were rated as having a higher degree of naturalness and were favored in the urban condition. Environments with inanimate soundscapes, meanwhile, were preferred in the natural condition. Furthermore, natural-framed soundscapes were evaluated as having a higher degree of naturalness and were preferred over urban-framed soundscapes. Social context did not affect the results; however, we discovered the indirect effect of natural labels on the recreation time through the naturalness of the environments, both for the environments with animate and inanimate soundscapes. Overall, our findings demonstrate the influence of soundscapes’ animateness and framing on the settings’ evaluations and on recreation time.

Suggested Citation

  • Paulina Krzywicka & Katarzyna Byrka, 2020. "The Effect of Animate-Inanimate Soundscapes and Framing on Environments’ Evaluation and Predicted Recreation Time," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-16, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:23:p:9086-:d:457316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/23/9086/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/23/9086/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Minou Weijs-Perrée & Gamze Dane & Pauline van den Berg, 2021. "Editorial for the Special Issue on “Experiencing the City: The Relation between Urban Design and People’s Well-Being”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-6, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Feess, Eberhard & Schilling, Thomas & Timofeyev, Yuriy, 2023. "Misreporting in teams with individual decision making: The impact of information and communication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 509-532.
    2. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Kas, Judith, 2022. "The effect of online reputation systems on intergroup inequality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    6. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    7. Osberghaus, Daniel & Reif, Christiane, 2021. "How do different compensation schemes and loss experience affect insurance decisions? Experimental evidence from two independent and heterogeneous samples," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    8. Jean-Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra & Giorgia Romagnoli, 2022. "Belief Elicitation When More than Money Matters: Controlling for "Control"," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 837-888, August.
    9. Jun Yeong Lee & Elizabeth Hoffman, 2023. "The effect of COVID-19 on Amazon MTurk," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 43(1), pages 583-588.
    10. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    11. Mekvabishvili, Rati, 2023. "Decentralized or Centralized Governance in Social Dilemmas? Experimental Evidence from Georgia," MPRA Paper 117811, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Roggenkamp, Hauke C., 2024. "Revisiting ‘Growth and Inequality in Public Good Provision’—Reproducing and Generalizing Through Inconvenient Online Experimentation," OSF Preprints 6rn97, Center for Open Science.
    13. Brunner, Fabian & Gamm, Fabian & Mill, Wladislaw, 2023. "MyPortfolio: The IKEA effect in financial investment decisions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    14. Bortolotti, Stefania & Kölle, Felix & Wenner, Lukas, 2022. "On the persistence of dishonesty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1053-1065.
    15. Jessica B. Hoel & Prachi Jain & Bridget Galaty, 2022. "JUST VENMO ME: Does form of payment affect risk taking and intertemporal choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 16-33, December.
    16. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Simon, Lisa & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "Can Online Surveys Represent the Entire Population?," IZA Discussion Papers 11799, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Heinrich H. Nax & Stefano Balietti & Ryan O. Murphy & Dirk Helbing, 2018. "Adding noise to the institution: an experimental welfare investigation of the contribution-based grouping mechanism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(2), pages 213-245, February.
    18. Sönke Ehret & Sara M. Constantino & Elke U. Weber & Charles Efferson & Sonja Vogt, 2022. "Group Identities Make Fragile Tipping Points," CESifo Working Paper Series 9737, CESifo.
    19. Burgstaller, Lilith & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "You don't need an invoice, do you? An online experiment on collaborative tax evasion," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 22/6, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    20. Jonathan Schulz & Uwe Sunde & Petra Thiemann & Christian Thoeni, 2019. "Selection into Experiments: Evidence from a Population of Students," Discussion Papers 2019-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:23:p:9086-:d:457316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.