Latest Blog Posts
Theodorson and Scott researched lighting preferences. They report that their “research explores the human response to colored lighting with light emitting diodes (LEDs) in a space with the intent of understanding preference and affectual [emotional] response. The research was conducted through photographic appraisal of a single interior space illuminated with monochromatic and mixed colored lighting. Results indicate that. . . . When mixed color lighting is introduced, there are preferences for warm colors.”
Judy Theodorson and Jennifer Scott. 2020. “Colored LED Lighting as a Primary Interior Spatial Condition – Human Preference and Affectual Response.” In Damien Masson (ed.), Ambiances, Alloaesthesia: Senses, Inventions, Worlds. Proceedings of the 4thInternational Congress on Ambiances. International Ambiances Network, vol. 1 e-conference, pp. 102-107.
Bisson studied experiences in urban environments. Research completed indicated that “three levels of understanding of urban environments can be identified: a first level shared by all, a second one shared by social groups, and a last one related to the individual. These three-levels of the inhabitants’ definition of urban ambiance anchors enable us to question participation in urban planning.”
Brieuc Bisson. 2020. “A Multi-Dimensional Approach to Ambiance Change Triggers in an Urban Context.” In Damien Masson (ed.), Ambiances, Alloaesthesia: Senses, Inventions, Worlds. Proceedings of the 4thInternational Congress on Ambiances. International Ambiances Network, vol. 1 e-conference, pp. 62-67.
Thygesen and colleagues link greater access to green space as a child to lower levels of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). They report that when they reviewed data collected in Denmark for “individuals, who were born in Denmark between 1992 and 2007 . . . and followed for a diagnosis of ADHD from age 5, during the period 1997–2016. . . . Individuals living in areas defined by sparse green vegetation . . . had an increased risk of developing ADHD, compared with individuals living in areas within the highest [levels of green space]. . . . findings suggest that lower levels of green space in residential surroundings, during early childhood, may be associated with a higher risk of developing ADHD.”
Malene Thygesen, Kristine Engemann, Gitte Holst, Birgitte Hansen, Camilla Geels, Jorgen Brandt, Carsten Pedersen, and Soren Dalsgaard. 2020. “The Association Between Residential Green Space in Childhood and Development of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Population-Based Cohort Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 128, no. 12, https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6729
Blut and Iyer investigated the implications of retail crowding. They determined via a meta-analysis of previously published studies that spatial crowding, which is tied to the physical features of a space, such as the space available to a person and the form of that space, degrades store evaluations while human crowding, or the perceived number of people in a store and impressions of the interactions of those people, enhances those assessments: “Managers should also examine if their retail or service setting is perceived as hedonic [pleasure-related], and whether attracting more customers into their store would have positive impacts on customer responses. . . . Some retail types, such as those with predominantly utilitarian offerings (e.g., grocery stores) benefit less from human crowding. . . . greater use of in-store technologies (self-service checkouts, robotic assistance) to ease checkout and exiting the store may alleviate crowding perceptions. . . . impacts of crowding on some outcomes are affected by whether the environment is perceived as competitive or cooperative, retailers could encourage greater interactions between customers to create a more cooperative environment. An example of the latter is seating arrangements in neighborhood coffee shops and diners where proximity may foster a cooperative environment.”
Markus Blut and Gopalkrishnan Iyer. “Consequences of Perceived Crowding: A Meta-Analytical Perspective.” Journal of Retailing, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 362-382, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.11.007
Chen and colleagues studied the nonverbal messages sent by package shapes; their findings are useful to designers more generally. The Chen-lead team determined that “a tall, slender package creates the perception of higher brand status to a significantly greater extent than a short, wide package. Therefore, retailers in the high-end market can stock more products in tall, slender packages to communicate and enhance their positioning. . . . Retailers in the low-end market, on the other hand, face more complicated decisions. Should they stock more products in short, wide packages? On the one hand, consumers who are aware of the retailer’s economic positioning might still prefer a product they perceive to have a high brand status over one perceived to have a low brand status, all other things being equal. On the other hand, for new consumers who know little about the retailer, high perceived brand status may lead to a high estimation of product price, and turn price-sensitive consumers away.”
Huan Chen, Jun Pang, Minkyung Koo, and Vanessa Patrick. 2020. “Shape Matters: Package Shape Informs Brand Status Categorization and Brand Choice.” Journal of Retailing, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 266-281, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.08.003
What do we prefer to see when we look out the window at an urban area? Batool, Rutherford, and McGraw found that “participants tend to prefer the presence of people, well-maintained buildings and orderly presented colours. . . . Views containing a variety of information, with colourful patterns and differentiated facades, were preferred more than those with less information. . . . windows not affording a clear vision to the inside – that is, where further information could not be obtained about the environment behind an opening – led to reduced preference. . . . The presence of green and naturalistic elements, however small, in urban views may lead to higher preference ratings."
A.Batool, P. Rutherford, and P. McGraw. “View Preference in Urban Environments.” Lighting Research and Technology, in press, https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153520981572
Vasquez and colleagues studied children’s (their sample was kindergarteners, 3.5 – 6.6 years old) classroom design preferences. They determined that “young children can differentiate lighting needs according to the activity performed. Visual contact with the view seen through the classroom window was important to the children, with a higher preference for natural views. . . . the children preferred the classroom with open curtains. . . . most of the children enjoyed looking out of the window, without any difference related to gender or age. The main reason that made them look out of the classroom window was the possibility of seeing natural elements, mainly the sky.” In their conclusion, the researchers suggest that kindergarten design can succeed by “incorporating green areas near the classroom windows, locating the project in surroundings that favor and stimulate children, placing openings that allow children to see outside, designing openings that allow access to natural light and control of direct radiation, and favoring the use of zenithal openings to ensure a homogeneous distribution of natural lighting.”
Natalia Vasquez, Maira Felippe, Fernando Pereira, and Ariane Kuhnen. 2019. “Luminous and Visual Preferences of Young Children in Their Classrooms: Curtain Use, Artificial Lighting and Window Views.” Building and Environment, vol. 152, pp. 59-73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.049
Recently completed research indicates how behaviors in a space are related to the general conditions people encounter there. Bergquist and colleagues set out to replicate a study done by a Cialdini-lead team in 1990. When doing so they found “less littering in clean compared to littered environments [consistent with the Cialdini-lead research]. . . . littering increased rather than decreased by adding a single piece of litter in an otherwise clean environment [inconsistent with the Cialdini-lead research].”
M. Bergquist, P. Blumenschein, J. Kohler, E. Martins, Silva Ramos, J. Rodstrom, and E. Ejelov.”Replicating the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct as Tested by Cialdini et al. (1990) Study 2 and 3.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101573
Ozkul, Bilgili, and Koc studied how the color of light used in a restaurant influences diner experience. The researchers found when “five experiments were conducted in five ambient lighted in different colors. . . . the perception of service quality and the level of satisfaction were higher in red and yellow-lighted ambient than those in blue and green-lighted ambient.” Some technical details: “Yellow, blue, red, and green lights were obtained by covering the surface of white bulbs with colored gelatin. . . to have approximately 1000 lx standard per square meter, 25 bulbs were used for the green light, 28 bulbs for the red light, and 29 bulbs for the blue light.”
Emrah Ozkul, Bilsen Bilgili, and Erdogan Koc. 2020. “The Influence of the Color of Light on the Customers’ Perception of Service Quality and Satisfaction in the Restaurant.” Color Research and Application, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1217-1240, https://doi.org/10.1002/col.22560
Barone, Coulter, and Li determined that where prices are marked (their vertical position) determines how that price is perceived. The researchers asked: “Can changing the vertical location of a price (e.g., presenting it above or below a product image in an advertisement or retail display) influence consumer response? . . . several lab and field investigations [conducted by the Barone-lead team] demonstrate that prices provided in low (vs. high) locations lead to lower price perceptions, more favorable purchase intentions, and higher in-store sales. . . . such price location effects . . . arise only among individuals who associate down with less and up with more. . . . low price locations can also induce consumers to perceive a product as being less costly without adversely affecting quality perceptions. . . . firms can improve consumer response simply by showing prices at the bottom (vs. top) of a focal product in a marketing stimulus.”
Michael Barone, Keith Coulter, and Xingbo Li. 2020. “The Upside of Down: Presenting a Price in a Low or High Location Influences How Consumers Evaluate it.” Journal of Retailing, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 397-410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2020.02.003