Windowlessness in the Workplace

Abstract

A series of studies was performed to explore the hypothesis that employees in windowless offices compensate for the lack of windows. In Experiment 1, students rated the degree to which they perceived various office features to be substitutes for windows. Analyses revealed four general categories of potential window substitutes: other apertures (e.g., skylights), paintings/art, living things (e.g., plants), and panels (e.g., light panels). Experiment 2 supported the external validity of the data in Experiment 1 in that full-time office workers produced virtually identical ratings of window substitutability. Experiment 3 was a field study of 173 offices. Measurements were made of the number and size of windows, number and size of all potential window substitutes, and size of wall space available for pictures. Size was measured in degrees of visual angle from the office workers' chairs. No evidence was obtained to indicate that any of the features measured were more prevalent or larger in offices without windows. Furthermore, power analyses indicated that the study had sufficient power to find such effects. Experiment 4 was designed to investigate other potential reasons for the use of the items that were examined in Experiment 3. Several reasons, such as space personalization, were found to be perceived by office occupants as more important than the desire to compensate for lack of windows.

From Novel Practice to Consecrated Exemplar: Unity Temple as a Case of Institutional Evangelizing

“…Research shows that when identities are inscribed into material form, they trigger emotional attachment, called identification, that shapes individuals’ efforts and practices (Elsbach, 2004; Rafaeli & Pratt, 2006). For example, office workers who personalize their workspaces in ways that signal their distinctiveness feel more connected to their organizations and are willing to forgo privacy features such as lockable doors (Biner, Butler, Lovegrove, & Burns, 1993). Through artifacts such as logos (Baruch, 2006) and built spaces (Berg & Kreiner, 1990; Yanow, 2006), we “communicate collective values, beliefs and feelings” (Yanow 2006, p. 42) and “people understand themselves, their organizations and their institutions” (Rafaeli & Pratt, 2006, p. 279).…”

A Framework of Smart-Home Service for Elderly’s Biophilic Experience

“…Smart homes for the elderly focus on providing efficient healthcare and convenience, such as real-time monitoring systems and remote medical treatment, fall detection and response, security, and safety management. Even though biophilia has long explained the importance of nature on health and welfare [1,2,[12][13][14][15], few studies have investigated smart-home services that support and connect the elderly to nature. Contemporary smart healthcare services are useful for treating diseases and responding to emergencies; however, planning techniques that expose the patients and the elderly to a healthy natural environment could be more important, as they can provide the opportunity for the elderly to maintain a good health.…”