383242

42Herzog et al.Environment and Behavior

© The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permission: http://www.

EAB43610.1177/00139165103832

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Article
Environment and Behavior

Incompatibility and 43(6) 827­–847

© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Mental Fatigue sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916510383242
http://eab.sagepub.com

Thomas R. Herzog1, Lauren J. Hayes1,

Rebecca C. Applin1, and Anna M. Weatherly1

Abstract
A straightforward prediction from attention restoration theory is that the
level of incompatibility in a person’s life should be positively correlated with
that person’s level of mental (or directed attention) fatigue. The authors
tested this prediction by developing a new self-report measure of incom-
patibility in which they attempted to isolate all the six categories of incom-
patibility described by S. Kaplan: distraction, deficit of information, duty,
deception, difficulty, and danger. Factor analysis revealed six factors that
corresponded reasonably well to those six categories. This article found that
a composite incompatibility score was positively correlated with a separate
self-report measure of mental fatigue and so were all six of the subscale
scores. With the exception of the score for duty, these positive correla-
tions remained after partialing out a separate measure of the level of stress
in the person’s life. The authors concluded that the proposed categories of
incompatibility can be validly measured; that the constructs of incompatibility,
mental fatigue, and stress are discriminable from each other; and that incom-
patibility is generally positively correlated with mental fatigue.

Keywords
compatibility, mental fatigue, directed attention, restoration, ART

1
Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI

Corresponding Author:
Thomas R. Herzog, Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University,
Allendale, MI 49401
Email: herzogt@gvsu.edu
828 Environment and Behavior 43(6)

The purpose of this study was to test a prediction from attention restoration
theory (ART; S. Kaplan, 1995, 2001). Specifically, we wanted to see if the
level of incompatibility in a person’s life is positively correlated with the
level of mental fatigue in that person’s life. As described below, the capacity
to focus or direct attention can be diminished by prolonged use, resulting in
mental fatigue. Incompatibility, a lack of fit between what a person wants to
do or is inclined to do and the kinds of activities supported by a setting, can
contribute to the loss of directed attention capacity. It follows that incompat-
ibility should be positively correlated with mental fatigue. The correlation
may be modest because there are many other causes of mental fatigue, but it
should exist. In the process of testing this prediction, we found it necessary to
develop a new measure of the level of incompatibility in a person’s life and
of its various subcategories. Below, we first provide an overview of ART and
its empirical support. This is followed by a discussion of its application to the
variables under investigation and of our strategy for developing a measure of
incompatibility.

Theoretical Background
As described by the Kaplans (S. Kaplan, 1995, 2001; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989),
ART holds that directed attention, the kind that requires an effort, can become
fatigued from prolonged use, leading to the inability to focus attention vol-
untarily. Directed attention fatigue (informally known as mental fatigue) has
several unfortunate consequences, including performance errors, inability to
plan, social incivility, and irritability. Restoration of directed attention capac-
ity requires a setting that is different from the ones that led to fatigue (being
away), has sufficient scope and organization to occupy one’s mind (extent),
holds attention without requiring an effort (fascination), and supports one’s
inclinations or purposes (compatibility). All four of these properties are essen-
tial for a successful restorative experience. ART notes that ordinary natural
settings are likely to be well endowed with all of the features necessary for a
restorative experience.
The concept of compatibility has been explored in detail by S. Kaplan
(1983, 2001). To help illuminate the concept, both articles deal at some length
with its opposite, incompatibility. The general conclusion is that if a good fit
between a person’s inclinations or goals and what the setting allows or
encourages (compatibility) is necessary for restoring fatigued directed atten-
tion, it follows that a bad fit (incompatibility) will exacerbate the problem.
Further use of directed attention is required to deal with an incompatibility.
Herzog et al. 829

Thus, one avenue for avoiding mental fatigue is to avoid incompatibility. For
this reason, various generic situations involving incompatibility were reviewed
and classified. S. Kaplan (2001) distinguished six categories of incompatibil-
ity: distraction, deficit of information, duty, deception, difficulty, and danger.
These categories of incompatibility all involve either problems in achieving
clarity (the first two), a conflict between thought and action (the next two), or
a mismatch between what the situation demands and one’s skills or abilities
(the last two). We felt that a new self-report measure of incompatibility
should attempt to provide valid scores for all six of the incompatibility cate-
gories described by Kaplan.

Empirical Background
Much of the research on ART has supported its prediction of a positive
relationship between restorative experiences, particularly those involving
nature, and various measures of effective functioning (e.g., Berman, Jonides,
& Kaplan, 2008; Berto, 2005; Canin, 1992; Cimprich, 1993, 1999; Hartig,
Evans, Jamner, Davis, & Garling, 2003; Felsten, 2009; Hartig, Mang, &
Evans, 1991; R. Kaplan, 2001; Kuo, 2001; Kuo & Sullivan, 2001; Taylor,
Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001, 2002; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Wells, 2000).
Some research has also investigated other possibilities for restorative set-
tings such as museums (Kaplan, Bardwell, & Slakter, 1993), favorite places
(Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser, & Fuhrer, 2001), and spiritual settings (Herzog,
Ouellette, Rolens, & Koenigs, 2010; Ouellette, Kaplan, & Kaplan, 2005).
There has also been research directed at distinguishing among the benefits
of restorative experiences, such as restoration of fatigued attention versus
reflection (Herzog, Black, Fountaine, & Knotts, 1997).
Research on ART’s four necessary features of a restorative setting has
generally involved attempting to measure them and then showing that they
are positively related to behavioral or self-report measures of restoration.
Several researchers have pursued this strategy by developing self-report mea-
sures of the four necessary features (Hartig, Korpella, Evans, & Garling,
1997; Herzog, Maguire, & Nebel, 2003; Laumann, Gärling, & Stormark,
2001). A common approach to validation for such measures has been to show
that they yield higher scores for natural settings than for urban settings and/
or that they are sensitive to the actual or imagined state of mental fatigue
(e.g., Hartig & Staats, 2006; Staats, Kieviet, & Hartig, 2003). Empirical rela-
tionships between both measures of the necessary features or composites of
such measures and independent behavioral measures of restoration are rare.
830 Environment and Behavior 43(6)

Hartig et al. (1991) showed that a composite score based on self-report mea-
sures of the four necessary features was positively correlated with a proof-
reading measure of restoration.

Measuring Incompatibility
Our purpose was rather different from that of previous research investigating
the four necessary features of a restorative setting. Instead of trying to establish
a positive relationship between the compatibility of settings and their restor-
ative potential, we approached incompatibility as an individual-differences
measure across people. We sought to measure the level of incompatibility in
a person’s life based on experiences in the person’s recent past and also to
measure separately the person’s current level of mental fatigue. In addition,
we wanted to isolate the six categories of incompatibility described by S. Kaplan
(2001) and to derive separate measures for each one. Finally, we wanted to
measure stress so that we could assess the discriminant validity of the ART
constructs.
The rationale for investigating incompatibility and mental fatigue as indi-
vidual differences across people is straightforward. Mental fatigue is by defi-
nition a personal variable. It can be considered as either a state (varying
within a person in response to immediate circumstances) or as a more endur-
ing tendency (a response to longer lasting features of a person’s habitat).
Our assumption was that a person’s current level of mental fatigue would be
a result of both kinds of factors and could be measured as an individual-
differences variable. Likewise, incompatibility by definition involves an inter­
action between personal and situational variables. The key issue is whether the
situation supports or obstructs a person’s inclinations, goals, and purposes.
We assumed that people will vary in how much incompatibility they have
experienced (short or long term) and that such differences can be validly
measured and assigned to theoretically based categories. As summarized ear-
lier, given that dealing with incompatibility requires the use of directed atten-
tion, ART must predict a positive correlation between incompatibility and
mental fatigue across people.
Given our ambitious measurement objectives, we did not feel that behav-
ioral measures would be feasible. We opted instead for a self-report approach.
We generated an initial instrument consisting of three sections containing
items to measure incompatibility, mental fatigue, and stress, respectively. The
incompatibility section contained five items for each of Kaplan’s six incom-
patibility categories. These were pristine items, representing our best effort
to achieve face validity for each of the incompatibility categories. The next
Herzog et al. 831

section contained 31 items intended to measure mental fatigue. These items

consisted of phrases and adjectives and were patterned originally on the
items used by R. Kaplan (2001) to measure effective functioning and dis-
traction. The final section consisted of 32 items to measure stress. These
also consisted of adjectives and phrases, the former generated by us and the
latter borrowed liberally from the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck,
& Mermelstein, 1983).
As some of the mental fatigue items borrowed from R. Kaplan (2001)
loaded on what she called a distraction factor and one of the categories of
incompatibility is distraction, there was a danger of spurious correlation
between the incompatibility and mental fatigue measures if items were not
carefully framed. However, that danger is more apparent than real. S. Kaplan’s
(2001, p. 493) discussion of the distraction category of incompatibility dealt
specifically with situations “characterized by stimuli that are fascinating but
irrelevant to one’s purposes.” Following his lead, our items for that category
relentlessly described situations involving irrelevant fascination. The reader
may appreciate our single mindedness by examining every sixth item, starting
with item number 2, in the first section of the questionnaire reproduced in the
appendix. In contrast, R. Kaplan’s (2001) distraction factor consisted of items
“that suggest manifestations of fatigued directed attention” (p. 525). Thus, her
items dealt with general indications of mental fatigue such as being forgetful,
disorganized, losing things, having difficulty in persisting, and making mis-
takes. They did not focus narrowly on the experience of fending off irrelevant
fascination. We followed suit with our mental fatigue items (see Items 31-61
in the appendix). Given this separation of focus in item content, it was our
hope and expectation that the items for the distraction category of incompati-
bility and those for mental fatigue would be factorially distinct.
Results from a pilot study (described in “Measures” below) convinced us
that the major constructs were distinct but that we had failed to isolate the six
categories of incompatibility. Consequently, we undertook a thorough revi-
sion of the items, resulting in the instrument used in this study. The revision
concentrated primarily on achieving distinctiveness and face validity for the
six incompatibility categories, but we also replaced items that did not work
well in the other sections of the instrument.

Predictions
We expected to achieve distinct measures of incompatibility, mental fatigue,
and stress and also to achieve distinct measures of Kaplan’s six categories of
incompatibility. We also predicted the following relationships:
832 Environment and Behavior 43(6)

Hypothesis 1: Measures of overall incompatibility and of each of its six

categories should be positively correlated with the measure of mental
fatigue.
Hypothesis 2: The positive correlations of Hypothesis 1 should con-
tinue to hold after partialing out the effect of the stress measure.

Method
Participants

The sample consisted of 594 undergraduate students at a university in the

Midwestern United States. Participation fulfilled a course requirement for
introductory psychology. A total of 25 sessions were run, with the number of
participants per session ranging from 6 to 34. The sample was young (80%
less than 20 years old), single (86%), and predominantly female (66%).

Measures
Each participant received a six-page booklet consisting of a cover page of
instructions, followed by three pages of scales for measuring incompatibility,
mental fatigue, and stress, respectively. This was followed by a page of items
unrelated to this study and then a final page eliciting personal information
(gender, age, marital status, religious affiliation, and perceived health). The
complete text of the pages measuring the variables of this study is provided
in the appendix. Responses to all items used a 7-point step scale with a neutral
point. The steps ranged either from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” or
from “never” through “almost always” depending on the nature of the item.
The first 30 items were intended to measure incompatibility and consisted
of five items for each of Kaplan’s six categories of incompatibility. The first
six items were intended to measure deficit of information, distraction, duty,
deception, difficulty, and danger, respectively. This cycle of item order for
the six incompatibility categories repeated for the remainder of the 30 items.
The instructions asked participants to consider the last few weeks and to rate
how much they agreed with each item as a description of their life or experi-
ence. All items were positively worded.
The next 31 items were intended to measure mental fatigue and consisted
of 16 phrases and 15 adjectives. The instructions asked the participants to
consider the last few days and to rate how often they felt or behaved as
described by the phrases and how much they would agree with the adjectives
Herzog et al. 833

as descriptions of themselves. Of the 31 items, 18 were positively worded

and 13 items, coded as (–) in the appendix, were negatively worded.
The last 32 items were intended to measure stress and consisted of 18
adjectives or very brief phrases and 14 longer phrases. For the adjectives and
brief phrases, the instructions asked the participants to consider the last few
weeks and to rate how much they agreed with the items as descriptions of
themselves. For the longer phrases, the instructions asked the participants to
consider the last month and to rate how often each phrase applied to them.
Half of the 32 items were positively worded and the other half of the items,
coded as (–) in the appendix, were negatively worded.
The reasons for the different time frames for the various item sets vary. We
wanted a longer time frame for the incompatibility items and a very recent
time frame for the mental fatigue items because we considered prior incom-
patibility experiences as setting the stage for current mental fatigue. For the
mental fatigue items, we were also following R. Kaplan’s (2001) lead. For the
stress items, we adopted a longer time frame because that is the way stress has
been traditionally measured. The 1-month time frame for the longer phrases
was borrowed from the same instrument that supplied the original versions of
the phrases, the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983).
We performed several factor analyses to isolate the constructs being mea-
sured and to see how well they corresponded to our prior intuitions. All of the
factor analyses used principal-axis factoring and a varimax (orthogonal) rota-
tion.1 To interpret factors, we defined a pure loader as an item with a rotated
factor loading of │.40│ or greater on one factor only. Factor-based scores
were obtained by averaging the item scores for pure-loading items after
reverse scoring items that loaded opposite in sign to the majority of the items.
Thus, a high score always indicated that the participant was high in the vari-
able measured.
Factor analyses of all 93 items revealed that as long as we retained at least
9 factors, there were few instances of items intended to measure incompati-
bility, mental fatigue, or stress loading on the wrong construct. With an
11-factor solution, there were no such instances. The few instances that did
occur with solutions in fewer factors always involved items intended to mea-
sure stress loading on a mental fatigue factor or vice versa. There were no
instances of items intended to measure incompatibility (including the subcat-
egory of distraction) loading on a mental fatigue factor or vice versa. Within
the incompatibility items, there was a tendency for the items intended to mea-
sure difficulty and danger to cluster together and the same was true for the
items intended to measure distraction and duty. Within the mental fatigue and
834 Environment and Behavior 43(6)

stress items, there was a persistent tendency for positive and negative items
to load on separate factors, a problem that also occurred in our pilot study.
Encouraged by the separation of items for the three major constructs, we
suspected that we might see better results if we performed separate factor
analyses within each item set. For the incompatibility items, a six-factor solu-
tion accounted for 42% of the variance in the ratings after factor extraction
and yielded communalities ranging from .21 to .68. The factors corresponded
well to the six categories of incompatibility suggested by S. Kaplan (2001).
The danger factor consisted of all five items intended to measure danger
(Items 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30) plus one item (Item 17) originally intended to
measure difficulty. Apparently, the phrase very difficult in Item 17 was inter-
preted as connoting danger. The distraction, deficit of information, and duty
factors all consisted of four of the items intended to measure those categories
(Items 8, 14, 20, and 26 for distraction; Items 1, 7, 13, and 19 for deficit; and
Items 3, 15, 21, and 27 for duty). The deception factor consisted of three
items intended to measure that category (Items 4, 16, and 28). The factor that
we opted to call “difficulty” consisted of two items originally intended to
measure difficulty (Items 11 and 23) and two items originally intended to
measure deception (Items 10 and 22). It is noteworthy that the three items
comprising the deception factor all dealt with deception only (e.g., “I had to
deceive someone”), but the two deception items that contributed to the diffi-
culty factor dealt with deception in the context of a potential difficulty (e.g.,
“I had to act cool when I was actually very upset”).
For the mental fatigue items, a two-factor solution accounted for 39% of
the variance in the ratings after factor extraction and yielded communalities
ranging from .17 to .63. The larger factor (15 items) consisted of all of the
items originally thought to be positive items for mental fatigue except for
Items 39, 51, and 61. The second factor (11 items) consisted of all of the items
originally thought to be negative items for mental fatigue except for Items 41
and 58. The clear message from the factor analyses (we examined several
solutions) was that the items we had intended as negative for mental fatigue
actually formed a separate factor. Because the positive items seemed to get-
ting at mental fatigue directly, we called the first factor mental fatigue. The
negative items seemed more directly concerned with effective functioning in
general, and so we called the factor effective functioning. The tendency for
positive and negative items to form separate factors also occurred in R. Kaplan’s
(2001) study.
For the stress items, a two-factor solution accounted for 37% of the vari-
ance in the ratings after factor extraction and yielded communalities ranging
from .16 to .66. Here again the items split into two factors corresponding to
Herzog et al. 835

Table 1. Reliability Coefficients, Means, and Standard Deviations for Each Measured
Variable (N = 594)

Variable No. of items Coefficient α M SD

Distraction  4 .69 5.17 1.05
Deficit of information  4 .69 3.14 1.16
Duty  4 .67 5.43 1.01
Deception  3 .74 3.08 1.55
Difficulty  4 .77 4.89 1.31
Danger  6 .79 3.03 1.13
Incompatibility  6 .78 4.12 0.84
Mental fatigue 15 .91 4.21 1.05
Effective functioning 11 .87 4.73 0.86
Stress 17 .91 4.59 1.01
Coping/serenity 11 .83 4.39 0.82

positively and negatively worded items. The larger factor (17 items) con-
sisted of all the positively worded items plus one of the negatively worded
items (Item 77: “stress free”). This item set seemed to be getting at stress
directly, and so we called the factor stress. The second factor (11 items) con-
sisted of all of the remaining negatively worded items except for Items 63,
67, 73, and 76. The items seem to deal with two themes, coping successfully
with potentially stressful situations and feeling serene. We called the factor
coping/serenity.

Procedure
After obtaining informed consent and going over instructions for how to fill
out the survey, the researcher passed out booklets and allowed participants
in each session to work at their own pace. Responses were entered on com-
puter forms for scanning into a data file.

Results
Table 1 contains reliability coefficients (coefficient alpha) and other descri­
ptive statistics for all of the factor-based scales. As is evident, the lowest
reliability coefficient was .67 for the duty scale, but most of the coefficients
exceeded .70.
Table 2 contains simple correlations among all the factor-based scales.
A number of points are noteworthy. First, Hypothesis 1 was supported. The
836
Table 2. Correlations Among All Variables (N = 594)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 1. Distraction —  
  2. Deficit of information  .37* —  
 3. Duty  .49*  .26* —  
 4. Deception  .23*  .33* .22* —  
 5. Difficulty  .49*  .42* .45*  .38* —  
 6. Danger  .29*  .51* .32*  .48*  .54* —  
 7. Incompatibility  .65*  .68* .62*  .68*  .79*  .75* —  
 8. Mental fatigue  .47*  .45* .30*  .40*  .52*  .46*  .62* —  
 9. Effective functioning −.27* −.25* −.03 −.25* −.28* −.23* −.32* −.59* —  
10. Stress  .49*  .43* .40*  .38*  .59*  .46*  .65*  .65* −.30* —  
11. Coping/serenity −.30* −.26* −.13 −.23* −.36* −.21* −.36* −.47*  .60* −.55* —
*p < .001.
Herzog et al. 837

Table 3. Partial Correlations Between Incompatibility and Its Six Categories and
Mental Fatigue (With Stress Partialed Out, Left Column) or Stress (With Mental
Fatigue Partialed Out, Right Column)

Variable

Variable Mental fatigue (stress) Stress (mental fatigue)

Distraction .23* .27*
Deficit of information .25* .20*
Duty .06 .29*
Deception .22* .17*
Difficulty .23* .38*
Danger .24* .24*
Incompatibility .35* .42*
*p < .001.

scales for incompatibility and all of its categories were significantly and posi-
tively related to the scale for mental fatigue. Second, stress had the same
pattern of positive correlations with incompatibility and its categories as did
mental fatigue. This is not surprising given that stress and mental fatigue cor-
related .65 with each other. Third, the positive functioning scales, effective
functioning and coping/serenity, had the opposite pattern of correlations (that
is, negative correlations) with incompatibility and its categories. Again, this
is not surprising given that effective functioning correlated negatively with
mental fatigue (−.59) and coping/serenity correlated negatively with stress
(−.55). Fourth, the major constructs of the study were substantially correlated
with each other. However, the largest correlation not involving incompatibil-
ity with one of its categories (where the correlations were inflated by com-
mon items) was .65 between stress and incompatibility or mental fatigue.
This indicates about 42% shared variance between the constructs, suggesting
that excessive redundancy among constructs was not a problem.
Table 3 contains partial correlations. The first column shows the results
for the tests of Hypothesis 2. For incompatibility and all of its categories
except duty, the hypothesis was supported. The predicted positive correlation
with mental fatigue occurred after partialing out stress. The second column of
the table shows that the same pattern of positive relationships occurred for
incompatibility and its categories with stress after partialing out mental
fatigue. In other words, incompatibility positively correlates with both men-
tal fatigue and stress and in each case continues to do so after the other con-
struct has been partialed out.
838 Environment and Behavior 43(6)

Discussion
The major conclusions are that the categories of incompatibility, as described
by S. Kaplan (2001), can be measured as separate constructs; that incompat-
ibility, mental fatigue, and stress can be measured as discriminable con-
structs; that incompatibility and its categories are for the most part positively
related to mental fatigue; and that those positive relationships survive after
partialing out stress. The pattern of relationships between incompatibility
and mental fatigue is in accord with predictions from ART. As far as we
know, this is the first empirical demonstration that the level of incompatibil-
ity in a person’s life positively correlates with the level of mental fatigue in
that person’s life.
We also found that incompatibility positively correlates with stress before
and after partialing out mental fatigue. Although not demanded by ART, this
finding makes sense. Many incompatible situations are likely to be both men-
tally fatiguing and stressful. What is demanded by ART is that mental fatigue
and stress are separate reactions. S. Kaplan (1995) provided a lengthy discus-
sion of how mental fatigue and stress are discriminable constructs that may
occur in various causal sequences. Our findings support that view.
These findings involving incompatibility as an individual-differences vari-
able have obvious practical implications. Although our measuring instrument
could benefit from further refinement (see below), it is clear that a question-
naire of this sort could provide a profile of sources of incompatibility in a
person’s life that could be a useful tool in counseling. Pinpointing specific
sources of incompatibility would allow a person to focus self-management
efforts more efficiently. An appreciation that incompatibility involves person–
environment interaction could lead to the implementation of both cognitive
and behavioral strategies. If possible, cognitive strategies might include alter-
ing one’s goals and aspirations to lessen the mental toll exacted by a nonsup-
portive situation. Behavioral strategies might include avoiding incompatible
situations (if possible), preparing in advance to acquire the resources needed
to reduce or overcome incompatibility, or at least having realistic expectations
regarding the costs and consequences involved in an incompatible situation.
Potential limitations of the study must be acknowledged. First, the gener-
ality of results based on college students can be questioned. This issue is best
settled by future research, but in the realm of environmental preference research,
there are grounds for optimism (Stamps, 1999). A more serious problem is
the use of self-report measures for all constructs. This can lead to halo effects
and mono-method bias. It is not possible to do individual-differences research
without measuring all constructs using the same participants. Thus, halo effects
Herzog et al. 839

cannot be avoided entirely. Mono-method bias could be addressed by using a

behavioral measure of a person’s current level of mental fatigue. Some ele-
gant behavioral measures of mental fatigue have been devised recently
(Berman et al., 2008; Berto, 2005), but they have the drawback that they are
time consuming. Nonetheless, a study using such a measure would be a valu-
able supplement to the current study. A third issue is whether it is possible to
have a balanced self-report scale (both positive and negative items) for con-
structs like mental fatigue or stress. If factorial purity is the criterion, then all
we can say after two abysmal failures is that we are not optimistic. When the
only workable negative item for stress is “stress free,” there is not much room
for variation in wording. One could include a few items of that sort to check
for bias toward either end of the step scale.
With regard to the items that were used in this study, it makes sense to
us in retrospect that the positive and negative items intended to measure
both mental fatigue and stress are in each case really getting at two sepa-
rate constructs. It seems reasonable that a person could feel capable of
functioning effectively even though mentally fatigued or that a person
might feel serene even though stressed. From this perspective, the fact that
the six incompatibility scales generally correlate more strongly with men-
tal fatigue and stress than with effective functioning and coping/serenity
(see Table 2) suggests that incompatibility has more to do with the first
two constructs than with the last two. That incompatibility has stronger
links with negative states like mental fatigue and stress than with positive
states like effective functioning and coping/serenity may be worth follow-
ing up in future research.
Another finding worthy of brief comment is that two of the incompatibil-
ity scales, duty and difficulty, were more strongly related to stress than to
mental fatigue, as indicated in Tables 2 and 3. We discuss the case of duty
below, including the possibility that it may not be a major component of
incompatibility. In the case of difficulty, the stronger relation with stress may
involve our conceptualization of the construct. The difficulty scale was the
least well matched to our prior intuitions. In particular, the two a priori dif-
ficulty items that did not load on any factor (“I felt that I was in over my
head” and “I had to try to figure out something that was very hard to under-
stand”) seem to emphasize the need for a sustained effort. Perhaps items deal-
ing with the kind of difficulty that requires endurance or maintaining focus
would be more closely related to mental fatigue.
A potential objection to our study that we anticipated and planned for was
weakness in the discriminability of our constructs, particularly in the items
intended to measure the distraction category of incompatibility and mental
840 Environment and Behavior 43(6)

fatigue, respectively. As noted in “Measures,” there were no instances of

items intended to measure either construct loading on a factor representing
the other construct. Moreover, as Tables 2 and 3 indicate, the correlations
between distraction and mental fatigue were not notably larger than those for
any of the other incompatibility categories. Thus, we believe that discrim-
inability of constructs was not a serious problem.
Although our measure of incompatibility was generally successful, it
could stand improvement. There was some crosstalk between items int­
ended to measure difficulty and deception. Rewording should eliminate
any implication of difficulty from items intended to get at deception. Thus,
Items 10 and 23 might be replaced by something like “I played fast and
loose with the truth.” Likewise, three of the five items intended to measure
difficulty either failed to load on any factor or loaded on the wrong factor.
The one that loaded on the wrong factor carried an implication of possible
danger (Item 17). Rewording should relentlessly emphasize the sole issue
of difficulty. For example, “I was stumped by a problem that was just too
hard for me” might be a viable candidate. As noted above, an emphasis on
difficulties requiring sustained effort might also be useful. Despite the
need for fine tuning, we regard our development of a measure of the cate-
gories of incompatibility as an important contribution and a useful tool for
other researchers.
Future research on incompatibility as a personal variable might proceed in
several directions. One is to explore whether different incompatibility pro-
files are related to different classic personality types. A second might be to
track how well interventions intended to reduce incompatibility actually
work. In this application, the incompatibility measure would be the depen-
dent variable. A third line of work could follow up our curious finding that
the duty category did not predict mental fatigue independently of stress. Was
the fault in our conceptualization of the construct as reflected in our items or
is duty really not all that fatiguing mentally? In this regard, it might be useful
to distinguish between long-standing duties for which habitual strategies may
have developed and relatively unexpected and burdensome duties that might
be more demanding cognitively. If future research continues to show no cor-
relation between duty and mental fatigue independent of stress, it might be
appropriate to question whether duty should be considered a major compo-
nent of incompatibility. Finally, one might explore how the categories of
incompatibility combine their influences in a factorial experiment. This could
be done using a scenario approach. It is clear that there is still much to be found
out about incompatibility.
Herzog et al. 841

Appendix
Likert-Type Scale Items for Measuring Incompatibility,
Mental Fatigue, and Stress
Thinking about the last few WEEKS, to what extent does each of
these describe your life or experience?
Scale
A = strongly agree
B = agree
C = mildly agree
D = neutral
E = mildly disagree
F = disagree
G = strongly disagree

  1. I could not find the information I needed.

  2. I had to resist temptation so that I could stay the course.
  3. I had to do something I didn’t want to do but was expected to do.
  4. I had to deceive someone.
  5. I felt that I was in over my head.
  6. I felt threatened and didn’t know what to do.
  7. Although I tried, I could not find out what was expected of me.
  8. I had to fend off distractions to get something done.
  9. I had to do my duty.
10. I had to act cool when I was actually very upset.
11. I wasn’t sure I had what it takes to succeed at something.
12. I had to constantly be on the alert for potential threats.
13. I couldn’t finish an assignment because I couldn’t find the resources
I needed.
14. I couldn’t think about something because there was too much going
on around me.
15. I did what I had to do, even though it wasn’t pleasant.
16. I was involved in something dishonest.
17. I had to adapt to a very difficult situation.
18. I felt endangered and didn’t know how to handle it.
19. I could not accomplish a task because I lacked adequate directions.
20. I was bothered by stimuli that were interesting but irrelevant.
21. I had to push on and do what was necessary.
842 Environment and Behavior 43(6)

22. I had to pretend that everything was OK when in fact things were
all messed up.
23. I was perplexed by a very complicated situation.
24. I was in a menacing situation.
25. I didn’t know how to act because I wasn’t getting clear signals
about what to do.
26. I had to block out diversions so I could stay with the program.
27. I had to fulfill an obligation.
28. I felt that I was living a lie.
29. I had to try to figure out something that was very hard to under-
stand.
30. I felt that I was in peril.

Considering the last few DAYS, how often have you felt or behaved as
follows?
Scale
A = almost always
B = very often
C = often
D = about half the time
E = occasionally
F = seldom
G = never

31. able to get really absorbed in a task (–),

32. difficulty in concentrating,
33. too much to deal with,
34. unable to pay attention,
35. you really had your act together (–),
36. failing to notice things,
37. you can keep your mind on what you are doing (–),
38. it’s hard to stick with one course of action,
39. you leave things half done,
40. you are able to think things through (–),
41. you can easily follow instructions (–),
42. it’s hard to keep your mind from wandering,
43. things are mixed up in your mind,
44. you can stick with dull but necessary tasks (–),
45. you can accurately size up situations and take appropriate action (–),
46. you have trouble deciding what to do.
Herzog et al. 843

Considering the last few DAYS, how much would you agree with each of
these descriptions of yourself?
Scale
A = strongly agree
B = agree
C = mildly agree
D = neutral
E = mildly disagree
F = disagree
G = strongly disagree

47. alert (–)

48. effective (–)
49. confused
50. scatterbrained
51. disorganized
52. focused (–)
53. indecisive
54. muddled
55. absent-minded
56. efficient (–)
57. inattentive
58. clear-headed (–)
59. dazed, in a fog
60. sharp (–)
61. careless

Considering the last few WEEKS, how much would you agree with
each of these descriptions of yourself?
Scale
A = strongly agree
B = agree
C = mildly agree
D = neutral
E = mildly disagree
F = disagree
G = strongly disagree

62. stressed out

63. undisturbed (–)
844 Environment and Behavior 43(6)

64. pressured
65. cool (–)
66. under the gun
67. relaxed (–)
68. hassled
69. weighed down with concerns
70. taking things in stride (–)
71. constantly struggling
72. mellow (–)
73. untroubled (–)
74. a victim of endless demands
75. strained to the limit
76. calm (–)
77. stress free (–)
78. ground into the dirt
79. peaceful (–)

During the last month, how often have you

Scale
A = almost always
B = very often
C = often
D = about half the time
E = occasionally
F = seldom
G = never

80. felt upset because of something that happened unexpectedly,

81. felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life,
82. felt nervous and “stressed,”
83. dealt successfully with irritating life hassles (–),
84. felt that you were effectively coping with important changes that
were occurring in your life (–),
85. felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems (–),
86. felt that things were going your way (–),
87. found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do,
88. been able to control irritations in your life (–),
89. felt that you were on top of things (–),
90. been angered because of things that happened that were outside of
your control,
Herzog et al. 845

91. found yourself thinking about things that you have to accomplish,
92. been able to control the way you spend your time (–),
93. felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome
them.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.

Note
1. Even though we knew which construct each item was intended to measure, we
used exploratory factor analysis rather than confirmatory factor analysis because
we were in only the second round of item development and could not be sure that
our intuitions were correct. As it turned out, there were surprises that would not
have been revealed by confirmatory factor analysis.

References
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting
with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207-1212.
Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional
capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259.
Canin, L. H. (1992). Psychological restoration among AIDS caregivers: Maintain-
ing self care. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Cimprich, B. (1993). Development of an intervention to restore attention in cancer
patients. Cancer Nursing, 16, 83-92.
Cimprich, B. (1999). Pre-treatment symptom distress in women newly diagnosed
with breast cancer. Cancer Nursing, 22, 185-194.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived
stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: An attention
restoration theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 160-167.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Garling, T. (2003). Tracking
restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ogy, 23, 109-123.
846 Environment and Behavior 43(6)

Hartig, T., Korpella, K., Evans, G. W., & Garling, T. (1997). A measure of restorative
quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14, 175-194.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environ-
ment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.
Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a deter-
minant of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26,
215-226.
Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and
attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 17, 165-170.
Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative com-
ponents of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159-170.
Herzog, T. R., Ouellette, P., Rolens, J. R., & Koenigs, A. M. (2010). Houses of wor-
ship as restorative environments. Environment and Behavior, 42(4), 395-419.
Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 33, 507-542.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspec-
tive. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1983). A model of person-environment compatibility. Environment and
Behavior, 15, 311-332.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative frame-
work. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue.
Environment and Behavior, 33, 480-506.
Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L. V., & Slakter, D. B. (1993). The museum as a restorative
environment. Environment and Behavior, 25, 725-742.
Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative experience
and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572-589.
Kuo, F. E. (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the
inner city. Environment and Behavior, 33, 5-34.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does
vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33, 343-367.
Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of
restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
21, 31-44.
Ouellette, P., Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (2005). The monastery as a restorative envi-
ronment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 175-188.
Staats, H., Kieviet, A., & Hartig, T. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue:
An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 23, 147-157.
Herzog et al. 847

Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155-175.
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Coping with ADD: The surprising
connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33, 54-77.
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline:
Evidence from inner-city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49-63.
Tennessen, C. M., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Jour-
nal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77-85.
Wells, N. M. (2000). At home with nature: Effects of “greenness” on children’s cog-
nitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32, 775-795.

Bios
Thomas R. Herzog is a professor of psychology at Grand Valley State University in
Allendale, Michigan. His current research focuses on environmental preferences,
restorative environments, and the psychology of humor.

Lauren J. Hayes received bachelor’s degree in psychology from Grand Valley State
University.

Rebecca C. Applin received bachelor’s degree in psychology from Grand Valley

State University.

Anna M. Weatherly received bachelor’s degree in psychology from Grand Valley

State University.