1 / 16

M. L. Theeman Ian Davies Department of Psychology University of Surrey

Reactions to Fluorescent Light Pairs. M. L. Theeman Ian Davies Department of Psychology University of Surrey. Indication of An Across-Participant Pattern of Light Preference?. Why?. Lighting makes a difference – But our lighting ‘needs’ vary alongside specific

igraham
Download Presentation

M. L. Theeman Ian Davies Department of Psychology University of Surrey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reactions to Fluorescent Light Pairs M. L. Theeman Ian Davies Department of PsychologyUniversity of Surrey Indication of An Across-Participant Pattern of Light Preference?

  2. Why? Lighting makes a difference – But our lighting ‘needs’ vary alongside specific environmental, individual, and social factors

  3. Basis for Research • Can we integrate user demographics and task variables into a formula to predict optimal lighting levels for specific workplace populations based on preference measures?

  4. Statement of Purpose Toinvestigate the extent to which preferences for certain qualities of fluorescent light may indicate a pattern of preference across-participants which is positively associated with well-being and productivity.

  5. Definitions • Brightness • Light Quality ◦Absence of flicker ◦Color rendition (CRI) ◦Distribution of light ◦Correlated color temperature (CCT) Daylight 5000K Cool 4000K Warm 3000K

  6. Research Roots

  7. Previous Research • Duration of Exposure • Heil & Mathis 2002 • Health and Performance • Hathaway 1995, Heschong Mahone Group 1999 • Depression and Light Perception • Friberg & Borrero 2000 • Individual Sensitivities to Light • Heerwagen 1990

  8. Research Questions • To what extent are daylight-simulating fluorescents preferred over other fluorescent tubes? • Will favored factorial combinations of CCT and brightness vary by gender? • Will the absence of visual stimuli affect preference?

  9. Methodology • Familiar room in building • 60 office-based employees • 38 male - 22 female • Tested for color-blindness • 21 light combinations • Daylight 12” 9” • Warm 12” 9” • Cool 12” 9” • Two trials per participant • Color panel for visual stimuli

  10. Significant Mean Preference Scores * p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  11. Mean Preference Score by Gender

  12. Variables Influencing Light Preference * p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  13. Guttman Analyses

  14. Discussion • Men broader range of preference • Evaluating under a ‘tighter’ set of rules? • Presence of color panel decreases range of preference • Less ability to differentiate when ‘distracted’? • More indicative of ‘real’ perception? • “Cold” response to Warm lights • Environmental influence? • Differing content of anecdotal comments?

  15. Discussion • Consistent preference for bright daylight tubes • Environmental/task influence? • Mixed response to brightness • Evidence of a brightness threshold? • Only partial evidence of an overall preference pattern

  16. Thank you for your time Please contact me at the Graduate Center – City University of New York mtheeman@gc.cuny.edu

More Related