Emotional responses to a sustainable interior environment and a non-sustainable interior environment

Abstract

This study focused on users' emotional responses to a sustainable and a non-sustainable interior environment. Emotional reactions toward interior environments were tested by having subjects complete a survey. The survey tested users' emotional reactions with a mixed methods approach by including both qualitative and quantitative questions. The scope of this thesis included surveys completed by subjects in the sustainable Kelley Engineering Center conference room number 1114 and in the non-sustainable Bates Hall conference room number 129, both located on the Oregon State University campus in Corvallis, Oregon. Survey questions utilized material from Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) "Semantic Differential Measures of Emotional State or Characteristic (Trait) Emotions" scale; Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) "Verbal Measures of Approach-Avoidance" scale; and Anderson's (2006) survey involving lighting, thermal comfort, and noise level satisfaction. There were also open- ended questions and a demographic section. Mehrabian and Russell's "Semantic Differential Measures of Emotional State or Characteristic (Trait) Emotions" scale included only questions based on pleasure and arousal, which were interpreted with Russell's (1980) circumplex model. In addition, pleasure, arousal, and dominance score results were tested with a two-sided paired t-test. The thermal comfort, lighting, and noise variables were tested using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The findings of this research were mixed. The pleasure and arousal results were significant, indicating that participants rated the sustainable and non-sustainable interior environments differently. In addition to the results of the two-sided paired t-test, the differences in pleasure and arousal scoring for the two interior environments were also apparent in the circumplexes. The circumplex for the Kelley Engineering Center conference room showed that many participants rated the interior positively on the pleasure axis and on the arousal axis, indicating that users felt excited in the space. Regarding the Bates Hall conference room, scores on the circumplex were positive on the pleasure axis, but less so than in the other interior; and they were negative on the arousal axis. These results indicated that participants felt content in the Bates Hall conference room. The results for dominance were not significant. Thermal comfort and noise were also not found to be significant. The satisfaction with the lighting in the interior environments was significant, indicating that participants rated the lighting of the two conference rooms differently. Subjects rated the Kelley Engineering Center conference room lighting as more satisfying than the lighting in the Bates Hall conference room. Lastly, qualitative responses were different for the two spaces. Some participants stated preference for the interior of the Kelley Engineering Center conference room over the Bates Hall conference room. No subjects stated preference for the Bates Hall conference room over the Kelley Engineering Center conference room.