Chronic nature exposure does not moderate affective and attentional effects of acute nature exposure

Research consistently demonstrates that exposure to natural environments benefits affect and attention, though findings remain mixed, with some studies reporting negligible or opposite effects. One proposed explanation is that chronic nature exposure may attenuate the benefits of acute exposure. The current study tested whether chronic high (residing in a nature utopia) or low (residing in a nature-deficient environment) nature exposure moderates the effects of an acute nature exposure on affect and cognition. A total of 456 U.S. adults were randomly assigned to view a 5-min video of a natural, urban, or geometric (control) environment. Affect (positive and negative affect, stress, happiness), and attention (digit span backwards) were assessed pre- and post-exposure and perceived restorativeness was assessed post-exposure. As hypothesized, the nature environment was perceived as the most restorative, and both the nature and control conditions reduced negative affect more than the urban condition, but did not differ from each other, supporting the Nature-as-Reward hypothesis. These findings highlight the importance of considering stimulus pleasantness more broadly, as beneficial outcomes may stem from reward responses. No effects of the environment on positive affect, happiness, or attention were found. Moderation analyses conducted with a subsample (<i>N</i> = 357) of those living in either the low or high extremes of chronic nature exposure revealed that chronic exposure did not moderate the relationship between acute exposure condition and the outcome measures. These findings suggest that while nature is restorative, its affective and cognitive benefits do not depend on prior chronic exposure.