Latest Blog Posts

Tang and teammates set out to learn more about using natural elements in workplaces.  They “draw on self-determination theory to develop a theoretical model predicting that exposure to nature at work satisfies employees’ psychological needs (i.e., needs for autonomy [to have comfortable levels of control], relatedness [to interact with others], and competence [to do their job well]) and positively affects their subsequent task performance and prosocial behavior. In addition, we theorize that the effects of nature on need satisfaction are weaker in employees higher on speciesism (i.e., the belief that humans are superior to other forms of life). We test these predictions with a mixed-method approach. . . . Overall, our findings largely support our theoretical model.”

Pok Tang, Anthony Klotz, Shawn McClean, Yating Wang, Zhaoli Song, and Chin Ng. “Who Needs Nature?  The Influence of Employee Speciesism on Nature-Based Need Satisfaction and Subsequent Work Behavior.”  Journal of Applied Psychology, in press, https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001104

Placebos can have real and powerful effects on responses to designed elements and recent medical research on placebos is likely useful to designers. Sandra and colleagues “tested whether presenting a (placebo) analgesia machine as personalised would improve its effectiveness. We recruited participants . . . to receive painful heat stimulations on their forearm. During half of the stimulations, a machine purportedly delivered an electric current to reduce their pain. The participants were either told that the machine was personalised to their genetics and physiology, or that it was effective in reducing pain generally. Participants told that the machine was personalised reported more relief in pain intensity than the control group in both the feasibility study . . . and the pre-registered double-blind confirmatory study. . . . We found similar effects on pain unpleasantness, and several personality traits moderated the results. We present some of the first evidence that framing a sham treatment as personalised increases its effectiveness.”

Dasha Sandra, Jay Olson, Ellen Langer, and Mathieu Roy.  2023. “Presenting a Sham Treatment As Personalised Increases the Placebo Effect in a Randomised Controlled Trial.”  eLife, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84691

Niza and associates investigated the conditions under which sick building syndrome is most likely to occur.  They determined via a literature review that “Headaches, fatigue, malaise and nausea are amongst the complaints associated with SBS. . . . . indoor air quality (IAQ) emerged as the primary factor influencing SBS, especially within the post-pandemic context. Increasing air circulation and ventilation are viable alternatives to enhance IAQ.”

Iasmin Niza, Midhia de Souza, Inaiele Da Luz, and Evandro Broday. “Sick Building Syndrome and Its Impacts on Health, Well-Being and Productivity:  A Systematic Literature Review.”  Indoor and Built Environment, in press, https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326x231191079

Mahady, Takac, and De Foe study the differences between autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR) and being in a biophilic environment. They report that “Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR) is a nascent phenomenon wherein a pleasant and relaxing tingling sensation occurs in response to audio and visual triggers like whispering and close personal attention. Biophilia is the concept that humans are innately drawn to nature. Previous research has found both phenomena elicit similar physiological and emotional responses, such as decreased blood flow, pupil dilation, and positive mood recovery. . . . participants watched a video of ASMR and nature sounds. . . . [analyses] showed ASMR to be more sensorially stimulating and engaging, while biophilic stimuli were more relaxing, requiring less voluntary attention. Those who preferred ASMR tended to find biophilia less purposeful, while those who preferred biophilia found ASMR exceedingly intense. Findings support the hypothesis that ASMR is akin to a flow state. ASMR susceptibility varied, while connectedness to nature was consistently high, suggesting biophilic stimuli were universally appreciated.”

Aidan Mahady, Marcel Takac, and Alexander De Foe. “Differences Between Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR) and Biophilia:  A Pilot Study.”  Psychology of Consciousness:  Theory, Research, and Practice, in press, https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000357

Gentile and teammates studied links between virtual reality nature environments and reductions in perceived stress via a literature review.  They learned that “The exposure to natural environments through VR seemingly reduces objective and subjective stress levels. The presence of (a) natural sounds, (b) natural lighting, and (c) water elements seem to be key elements that help VR users reducing stress.”

Ambra Gentile, Salvatore Ficarra, Ewan Thomas, Antonio Bianco, and Anna Nordstrom. “Nature Through Virtual Reality as a Stress-Reduction Tool:  A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Stress Management, in press, https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000300

Smalley and associates studied restorative virtual reality experiences and how they are affected by accompanying music or nature sounds.  They “formed a transdisciplinary broadcast initiative, called BBC Soundscapes for Wellbeing. Part of this project involved a randomized and controlled experiment that presented participants (n = 7636) with a dynamic nature scene accompanied by one of four acoustic tracks. Results demonstrated that whilst adding music to this scene led to increased feelings of excitement, it led to no other restorative or affective benefits when compared to silence. In contrast, the addition of natural sounds was associated with greater feelings of restorative potential, calmness, and excitement. Natural sounds also drove significant increases in the complex emotions of awe and nostalgia. . . . Those with positive memories stimulated by the experience reported significantly greater effects across all conditions. . . . the acoustic design of virtual nature encounters can affect a range of emotional responses, the memories triggered by these experiences may be far more important for predicting viewer outcomes.”

Alexander Smalley, Mathew White, Revecca Sandiford, Nainita Desai, Chris Watson, Nick Smalley, Janet Tuppen, Laura Sakka, and Lora Fleming.  2023. “Soundscapes, Music, and Memories:  Exploring the Factors that Influence Emotional Responses to Virtual Nature Content.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 89, 102060, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102060

Yin’s dissertation research probed the short-term health effects of indoor biophilic design via multiple virtual reality-based projects.  It determined that “participants experiencing biophilic environment virtually had similar physiological and cognitive responses, including reduced blood pressure and skin conductance and improved short-term memory, as when experiencing the actual environment. . . . we designed a . . . study to let 30 participants experience three versions of biophilic design in simulated open and enclosed office spaces in VR. Compared to the base case, participants in three spaces with biophilic elements had consistently lower level of physiological stress indicators and higher creativity scores. . . . Participants were randomly assigned to experience one of four virtual offices (i.e. one non-biophilic base office and three similar offices enhanced with different biophilic design features) for six minutes after stressor tasks. We found that participants in biophilic indoor environments had consistently better recovery responses after a mental stressor compared to those in the non-biophilic environment.”

Jie Yin.  2021. “Bringing Nature Indoors with Virtual Reality:  Human Responses to Biophilic Design in Buildings.”  Dissertation Abstracts International:  Section B:  The Sciences and Engineering, vol. 82(6-B).

Jin, Meneely, and Park studied responses to virtual reality and “real life” experiences.  They determined “how participant perceptions of a single interior environment varied among a real-world space (R) and two surrogate VR spaces (one made with 360° spherical photography and one made with 360° spherical digital rendering). . . . Each participant completed a visual acuity task and evaluated perceived brightness, glare, and spaciousness within the real-world space and one of the two surrogate VR environments. Participants reported acceptable baseline levels of perceived realism in both VR environments. There was no significant difference between the rendered-VR simulation and real-world space for brightness, glare, and spaciousness, while the photographed-VR simulation was seen as significantly brighter and glaring. Performance on the visual acuity task was significantly lower in both VR simulations than in the real-world-approximating the difference between 20/20 and 20/60 vision.”

Xu Jin, Jason Meneely, and Nam-Kyu Park.  2022. “Virtual Reality Versus Real-World Space: Comparing Perceptions of Brightness, Glare, Spaciousness, and Visual Acuity.”  Journal of Interior Design, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 31-50, https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12209

Research completed by Moyal and Garcia provides insight into the sort of impression that sellers’ should make.  As Moyal and Garcia report, “The present research introduces the seller's status-signaling fallacy: Sellers tend to use status signals to attract buyers, but buyers actually prefer sellers who do not signal status. Across six studies we demonstrate the effect. . . . Study 1 demonstrates this effect in contexts where sellers and buyers make initial sales connections. Study 2 replicates the effect in transaction situations where the buyer actually chooses the seller from whom to buy. . . . the seller's status signaling is perceived by buyers as an unsuccessful impression management attempt, which ultimately leads those buyers to prefer sellers who do not try to impress them through status signaling.”

Adiel Moyal and Stephen Garcia.  “The Seller’s Status-Signaling Fallacy.”  Psychology and Marketing, in press, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21860

Goh, Phillips, and Firestone evaluated the experience of being in a “silent” space.  They report that “silences can ‘substitute’ for sounds in event-based auditory illusions. Seven experiments introduce three ‘silence illusions,’ adapted from perceptual illusions previously thought to arise only with sounds. In all cases, silences elicited temporal distortions perfectly analogous to their sound-based counterparts, suggesting that auditory processing treats moments of silence the way it treats sounds. Silence is truly perceived, not merely inferred.”

Rui Goh, Ian Phillips, and Chaz Firestone.2023.  “The Perception of Silence.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 120, no. 29, e2301463120, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301463120