UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Indoor plants, place quality, and human behavior Genereux, Randy Lee 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A8 G46.pdf [ 8.1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095381.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095381-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095381-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095381-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095381-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095381-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095381-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095381-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095381.ris

Full Text

INDOOR PLANTS, PLACE QUALITY, AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR by RANDY LEE GENEREUX B.Sc, University of Calgary, 197§ A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July, 1982 @ Randy Lee Genereux In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Psychology The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 D a t e August 7, 1982 DE-6 (3/81) Abstract A conceptual framework was proposed for investigating the role of single environmental variables in person-environment interactions. The role of one p a r t i c u l a r environmental variable indoor g r e e n e r y — w a s then empirically investigated in four linked studies. In the f i r s t study, people's attitudes toward and involvement with indoor greenery were assessed via a survey. In general, people were very positive about indoor plants. They l i k e d plants e s p e c i a l l y for their aesthetic q u a l i t i e s and their symbolization of the outdoors, nature, l i f e , and growth. Respondents were not very fond of or involved with taking care of their plants. Most favorable response to indoor plants was reported by females, those of strong general environmental preference for nature and for the suburbs, those high on sentience and nurturance personality t r a i t s , those who l i v e d in apartments rather than houses, and those who l i v e d with a mate rather than alone. In the second study, color slides were used to assess the impact of indoor greenery on 35 dimensions of place qu a l i t y , including perceptual-cognitive, a f f e c t i v e , behavioral, and miscellaneous dimensions. The impact was found to depend on a number of factors, including the p a r t i c u l a r place involved, the p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y to be executed in the place, the order in which the places were perceived, the referent set of places activated in the mind of the perceiver, and the control condition against which the plant manipulation was compared. Compared with other furnishings, plants made places seem more natural, soft, a l i v e , pleasant, and suitable for getting away from i t a l l . The results of the t h i r d study, in which an actual place served as stimulus, v e r i f i e d the findings of the second study. In the fourth study, the same place that served as stimulus in the t h i r d study was used to assess the impact of a place with plants on behavior-in-place. The place with plants increased pleasure mood response, decreased arousal l e v e l , f a c i l i t a t e d persistence at a puzzle task, and worsened qua l i t y of performance on a proofreading task. Table of Contents Page Abstract i i Table of Contents i v r List of Tables vi List of Figures v i i i Acknowledgement ix INTRODUCTION 1 The Role of Single Environmental Variables in Person-Environment Interactions 1 . Place Quality and its Impact on Human Behavior 3 The Role of Indoor Plants in Person-Environment Interactions • • 7 The Interaction of Indoor Plants with Other Variables.... 18 Overview of the Present Study 23 STUDY 1: ATTITUDES TOWARD AND INVOLVEMENT WITH INDOOR PLANTS 2k-Method 2h Subjects 2k. Questionnaire 23 Procedure • 2? Results and Discussion 2^7 General Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants 27 Preference for Different Kinds of Indoor Plants 32 Involvement with Indoor Plants 32 Indoor Plants and Place Quality 37 Preference for Places with Indoor Plants 39 Mood Response in Places with Indoor Plants *+3 Reasons for Liking and Disliking Indoor Plants...... kk Intercorrelations Among Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants k7 Other Variables and Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants 30 STUBJf 2: IMPACT OF INDOOR PLANTS ON PLACE QUALITY 60 Method 60 Subjects 60 Stimuli 60 Procedure 63 Results and Discussion.. 66 Three-Way Analysis of V a r i a n c e : . . . . . Decor = Within-Subjects Factor 66 Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Decor = Between-Subjects Factor 7k Indoor Plants versus Other Furnishings 79 V Page i STUDY 3: IMPACT OF INDOOR PLANTS ON PLACE QUALITY— A VALIDATION OF STUDY 2 °5 Method °5 Subjects Stimuli °5 Procedure ° 6 Results and Discussion °7 STUDY. ^: IMPACT OF A PLACE WITH PLANTS ON BEHAVIOR-IN-PLACE .... , 9 2 Method 9 2 Subjects 9 2 Stimuli 9 2 Procedure 9^ Results and Discussion .' 9? Mood Response 9? Task Persistence 1 0 1 Complex Task Performance 1 0 2 Helping Behavior 1 0 3 Postexperiment Questionnaire CONCLUSIONS 1 0 6 Reference Notes 'i References Appendix A Appendix B • ^35 Appendix C Appendix D ^ 37 Appendix E 1 3 ° Appendix F . . ^39 Appendix G ^5 4 List of Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table J>: Table k: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7-Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table Ik: Principle-Components Analysis of 17 General Attitude Items Response Frequencies and Means for the 17 General Attitude Items Preference for Different Kinds of Indoor Plants: Response Frequencies Principle-Components Analysis of 16 Involvement Items Response Frequencies and Means for the 16 Involvement Items Places With Plants Compared to Places Without: Means and t-ratios for 17 Place Quality Dimensions Principle-Components Analysis of 27 Place Preference Items Place Preference for 27 Activities: Response Frequencies and Means 21 Reasons for Liking Indoor Plants: Response Frequencies and Means 11 Reasons for Disliking Indoor Plants: Response Frequencies and Means Correlation Matrix on 9 Summary Measures of Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants Correlation Matrix: 9 Summary Measures of Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants x -6 Personal Variables Correlation.Matrix: 7 Reasons for Liking Indoor Plants and 2 Involvement Components x 9 Personal Variables F-Satios corresponding to 9 Summary Measures of Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants Broken Down by 5 Criterion Variables Page 29 30 33 35 36 38 ko k2 <*5 kG kS 51 53 56 Table 15 = Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: F-Ratios Corresponding to 7 Reasons for Liking Indoor Plants and 2 Involvement Components Broken Down by 5 Criterion Variables F-Ratios: 2-Way 2(Decor) x 2(Slide Order) Analyses of Variance on 35 Place Quality Dependent Variables: Decor = Within-Subjects Factor F-Ratios: 2-Way 2(Decor) x MPlace) Analyses of Variance on 35 Place Quality Dependent Variables: Decor = Between-Subjects Factor * Comparison of Means for Three Decor Conditions on 35 Place Quality Dependent Variables: Slide Order 1 Comparison of Means for Three Decor Conditions on 35 Place Quality Dependent Variables: Slide Order 2 F-Ratios: 2-Way, 2(Decor) x 2(order) Analyses of Variance on 35 Place Quality Dependent Variables: Decor = Within-Subjects Factor Comparison of Means of 2 Decor Conditions on 35 Place Quality Variables: Decor = Between-Subjects Factor V v i i i List of Figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3 ' Figure k : Figure 5: Figure^6: Figure 7: Place 1 without plants, with plants, and with other furnishings. Place 2 without pTants, with plants, and With other Furnishings. Place 3 without plants and with plants. Place k without plants and with plants Decor x order interaction for outdoors ratings. Soluble and insoluble puzzles. Decor x time interaction for arousal mood response» Page 61 62 63 6 k 72 96 99 ix Acknowledgements Above a l l I wish to thank my wife, Denise, for her support, for the countless hours she put into t h i s thesis, and especially for her perserverence in typing a l l those damn tables. I want to thank my advisor, Larry Ward, for his expert guidance, and for not laughing when I told him that I wanted to study indoor plants., I wish to thank the other members of my committee, Ray Corteen and Del Paulhus, for their constructive suggestions. And I wish to acknowledge the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada for the scholarship that supported this thesis. 1 INTRODUCTION The Role of Single Environmental Variables in Person- Environment Interactions Environmental psychology i s concerned with providing a systematic account of the relationship between person and environment. Two major approaches to environmental psychology can be i d e n t i f i e d . One approach i s to isolate and study the impact of pa r t i c u l a r environmental variables on human behavior. A myriad of isolated variables have been studied, including noise (e.g., Glass and Singer, 1972,) density (e.g., Freedman, 1975), seating arrangement (e.g., Sommer, 1969), c e i l i n g height (e.g., Baird, Kassidy, and Kurr, 1978), and so on. The other approach is to investigate the general underlying relationships between people and their molar environments. Craik (1970) described environmental psychology as a study of the "physical setting of molar behavior" (p. 15). More recently, Russell and Ward (1982) characterized the f i e l d as an extension of the boundaries of psychology "beyond the study of an immediate response to an immediate stimulus to include a study of behavior as organized over a large span of time and in rel a t i o n to the large-scale environment" (p. 652). Research representing t h i s molar approach to environmental psychology includes Barker's (e.g., 1968) work on behavior settings, work on 2 spat i a l cognition and way/finding (e.g., Downs and Stea, 1977), research on the meaning attributed to places (e.g., Ward and Russell, 1981), and cross- c u l t u r a l research on human settlements (e.g., Rapoport, 1980). For these researchers, the unit of environmental analysis has been an entire molar environment (or to use a simpler expression, place) such as a beach, a school, or a neighborhood, rather than a single environmental variable. Taken to their extremes, these two . approaches to environmental psychology seem incompatible. For instance, Proshansky (1976) has f o r c e f u l l y argued from the molar perspective that the complexity of person-environment interactions necessitates an approach divorced from laboratory studies and from a concern with how one isolated variable causes effects in another, an approach instead committed to the observation of patterns of relationships between real world settings and reactions of people in those settings. It i s obvious from current research in environmental psychology that many are unwilling to accept Proshansky's r a d i c a l proposals and continue to rely on the accepted s c i e n t i f i c method of studying isolated variables in controlled laboratory settings. Can these two approaches to environmental psychology be reconciled? If so, how? I suggest they can be reconciled by recognizing 1) that i t i s important to study single environmental variables., 2) that people t y p i c a l l y respond not on the molecular l e v e l to a single environmental variable in i s o l a t i o n but rather on the molar l e v e l to the entire combination of environmental features that constitute a place, ,and 3 ) that i t i s thus necessary to conceptualize and study the impact of single environmental variables on human behavior in terms .of how such variables influence the ove r a l l quality of places, and how places of varying quality in turn influence human behavior. Given t h i s perspective on the role of single environmental variables in person-environment interactions, the two approaches to environmental psychology can be reconstrued as serving two complementary goals. At one l e v e l , we wish to determine the impact of single environmental variables on the quality of places; at a more molar l e v e l , we wish to determine the impact of places of varying quality on human behavior. Place Quality and Its Impact on Human Behavior The perspective outlined above prompts two questions. F i r s t , how are we to define "place quality"? This question must be answered before the task of determining the impact of single variables on place quality can begin. Second, how are we to conceptualize the influence of place quality on human behavior? It i s important to answer th i s question, for without a coherent conceptual framework, empirical research on thi s issue may well proceed in an unsystematic, less than optimally productive manner. As has frequently 4 been noted, environmental psychology as a f i e l d suffers from disorder, and lack of integration stemming; from lack of integrative , conceptual frameworks (e.g., Altman, 1973; Craik, 1973,1977; Ward and Russell, Note 1). Place quality can be . defined as the meaning people att r i b u t e to a place.. Ward and Russell (1981) i d e n t i f i e d three d i s t i n c t components of place meaning: 1) a perceptual-cognitive component, involving d i r e c t l y perceived and cognized objective attributes of a place, such as naturalness, scale, and information rate (e.g., Ward, 1977); 2) an a f f e c t i v e component, which can adequately be represented by the two dimensions pleasant-unpleasant and degree of arousal (Russell, 1980; Russell and Pratt, 1980; Russell, Ward and Pratt, 1981); 3) a behavioral component, involving such aspects as reasons for going to a place, place s u i t a b i l i t y for everyday a c t i v i t i e s , and expected behaviors of others in a place (Genereux, Ward, and Russell, Note 2). Given t h i s description of place q u a l i t y , the impact of a single environmental variable on place quality can be seen as an a l t e r a t i o n of any one or a number of perceptual-cognitive , a f f e c t i v e , or behavioral parameters; for example, the introduction of noise to a place would simultaneously increase the information rate and arousing quality of that place and decrease i t s pleasantness and s u i t a b i l i t y for a c t i v i t i e s such as sleeping. How does place quality influence behavior? Russell and Ward (1982) presented a model of the relationship between people and places that suggests two major ways in which place quality exerts an impact. F i r s t , place quality affects place choice . A noisy, arousing place w i l l be avoided by a person planning to sleep. On the other hand, that same place may be the f i r s t choice of a person planning to party. Thus, places are opportunities for a c t i v i t i e s , and the quality of a place determines the a c t i v i t y plans, i f any, that people w i l l choose to execute in that place. People w i l l select a place only for those a c t i v i t i e s with physical, a f f e c t i v e and social-behavioral requirements that are s a t i s f i e d by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of that place. Of course, mismatches do occur between places and a c t i v i t i e s , since people frequently have l i t t l e choice about where to perform a c t i v i t i e s such as work at one's job. Second, place quality a f f e c t s behavior-in-place Behavior-in-place encompasses internal responses such as place perception and person perception as well as overt a c t i v i t i e s such as talking and walking. A p a r t i c u l a r l y useful d i s t i n c t i o n can be made between a person's emotional response to a place and his or her overt behavior in a place. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) proposed that stimuli, in the environment d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a person's emotional state, which in turn influences overt behavior. For instance, they report a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the information rate of a place (the t o t a l amount of 6 environmental information per unit time a person receives) and the arousal l e v e l in the perceiver. Arousal l e v e l in turn correlates with such behaviors as task performance, a f f i l i a t i o n , and drug use (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974; Russell and Bond, 1979; Russell and Mehrabian, 1977, 1978). Emotional response i s probably also a key element in place choice; we often return to a part i c u l a r place--a p a r t i c u l a r nightclub, for example—because we r e c a l l having had a pleasant time there before. Given the prominent role emotional response plays.in the impact of places on human behavior, a question worth considering i s t h i s : How can a place, or more generally, any environmental stimulus, a l t e r mood? I suggest the impact of environmental stimuli on mood i s best conceptualized within the following framework. There are four d i f f e r e n t levels at which environmental stimuli can influence mood. F i r s t , a stimulus can po t e n t i a l l y exert an impact on the basic neurochemical processes of the body. Imagine the impact of a place f i l l e d with i n v i s i b l e , non-odorous "laughing gas". Or consider the effect of atmospheric ions, minute e l e c t r i c a l l y charged a i r p a r t i c l e s that apparently a l t e r mood by changing the le v e l of serotonin in the blood and brain (Charry, 1976). Second, mood effects can occur at the le v e l of di r e c t sensory stimulation. Certain sensations per se seem inherently pleasant (e.g., those associated with eating, sex, a 7 c o l o r f u l sunset, the scent of a rose); others seem inherently unpleasant (e.g., those associated with rotten food, extreme temperatures, the scent of a skunk). Third, a stimulus can affect mood at the symbolic l e v e l . This l e v e l involves higher cognitive processing of . the stimulus, including labeling, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , analysis, r e l a t i n g to other items in memory, and symbolic interpretation. A man smiles broadly as he enters a lounge to find a casino-like decor; he recently won $30,000 in Vegas. The next man through the door suffers a f i t of depression; he recently lost $30,000 in Vegas. The fourth l e v e l of potential impact of a stimulus on mood i s the behavioral level--the l e v e l at which the stimulus engages the person in some a c t i v i t y , which in turn a f f e c t s mood. Recreational stimuli and places, such as snowmobiles, tennis courts, and aquatic centers, exert their influence primarily at thi s overt behavioral l e v e l . Note that places can both 1) engage people in overt behavior that influences mood and 2) exert a direct impact on mood that influences overt behavior; this attests to the complexity of the relationship between person and environment. The Role of Indoor Plants in Person-Environment Interactions The purpose of the present study i s to examine the role of one p a r t i c u l a r environment v a r i a b l e — i n d o o r greenery—in person-environment interactions,. This variable i s worth studying for several reasons. F i r s t , the popularity of 8 ' indoor plants has blossomed in recent years; annual expenditure in the USA sprang from 74 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s in 1970 to 750 m i l l i o n in 1978 (Mastick, 1981). Plants are everywhere these days: in o f f i c e s , shopping centers, restaurants, lounges, schools, l i b r a r i e s , l i v i n g rooms, and. even bathrooms. New companies, professional associations, trade journals, and university training programs have been created in response to the public's desire to f i l l buildings with begonias. Second, indoor plants seem capable of producing a dramatic impact on place q u a l i t y , and thus can be expected to exert a considerable impact on human behavior. Third, despite the potential impact and the current popularity of indoor plants, there has been l i t t l e research on their effects.. Indeed, there has been comparatively l i t t l e research on the ef f e c t s of natural environmental stimuli in general (Stokols, 1978). Perhaps thi s i s because natural environmental stimuli are generally considered to be positive environmental features, while environmental psychologists are preoccupied with studying environmental variables that are p o t e n t i a l l y harmful. This preoccupation i s understandable, but not e n t i r e l y desirable. For in the future i t may be impossible to d i r e c t l y reduce level s of harmful variables such as noise and crowding; i f so, the only means to improve place q u a l i t y w i l l be to manipulate variables of b e n e f i c i a l value. As such, time spent beforehand to identif y benefical variables would be time well spent. The f i r s t step in assessing.the role of indoor plants in person-environment interactions is to address the following question: What impact do indoor plants exert on the three components of place quality? Robinette (1972) and others (e.g., Lewis, 1977; Thayer and Atwood, 1978) have offered a number of suggestions as to how plants influence perceptual-cognitive a t t r i b u t e s of places. Plants improve a i r q uality by converting carbon dioxide to oxygen and by f i l t e r i n g out pollutants such as s u l f u r i c dioxide and n i t r i c oxide. They also act as humidifiers and as a i r temperature modulators. Plants can change the odor of a place, can add v i s u a l balance and interest to a place, can mask ugly features of a place, can a l t e r the textural quality of a place, can d e l i n i a t e separate areas within a place, and aff e c t the apparent scale of a place and the objects within i t . Plants add green color to a place, and a l t e r l i g h t patterns by casting shadows and reducing glare. They serve to make a place more representative of exotic lands, l i f e , growth, seasonal rythyms, and nature. To Robinette's (1972) l i s t can be added the following hypotheses: plants influence a i r q u a l i t y by being sharp, pointy objects, which are supposed to affect a i r ion l e v e l s (Charry, 1976); costly indoor plants enhance the apparent expensiveness of a place; plants increase the information rate of a place. With respect to the a f f e c t i v e quality of places, the 10 p o p u l a r i t y of indoor p l a n t s i m p l i e s they, have a p o s i t i v e impact on. p l a c e p l e a s a n t n e s s , and other evidence suggests they may decrease the a r o u s a l l e v e l of p l a c e s . Why p l a n t s produce such e f f e c t s i s addressed l a t e r w i t h i n the context of the impact of p l a c e s with p l a n t s on mood. Regarding the b e h a v i o r a l component of p l a c e q u a l i t y , Genereux, Ward, and R u s s e l l (Note 2) found a strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t i n g s of plac e s u i t a b i l i t y f o r everyday a c t i v i t i e s and r a t i n g s of plac e p l e a s a n t n e s s . As such, p l a n t s should g e n e r a l l y serve t o i n c r e a s e p l a c e s u i t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s . And i f p l a n t s do decrease a r o u s a l l e v e l , they should serve to i n c r e a s e p l a c e s u i t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s most f o r those p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t e s t h a t r e q u i r e a p l e a s a n t , unarousing atmosphere ( a c t i v i t i e s such as m e d i t a t i n g , having an i n t i m a t e c o n v e r s a t i o n , and r e l a x i n g ) . P l a n t s might a l s o r e s u l t i n r e l a t i v e l y high p l a c e s u i t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s f o r those a c t i v i t i e s with symbolic value matching the symbolic value of p l a n t s ( a c t i v i t i e s such as pl a n n i n g a nature hike and r e c u p e r a t i n g from an i l l n e s s ) . On the other hand, f o r some a c t i v i t i e s p l a n t s may serve to decrease p l a c e s u i t a b i l i t y ; by making a workshop more c l u t t e r e d , they i n t e r f e r e with the task of working with machinery, and by making a classroom more a t t r a c t i v e , they i n t e r f e r e with the task of l i s t e n i n g to a l e c t u r e . Having now c o n s i d e r e d the impact of indoor p l a n t s on pl a c e q u a l i t y , the next step i s to t a c k l e t h i s q u e s t i o n : How 11 do places with plants, as compared to those without, in turn influence human behavior? Or, more generally, how do the modifications in place quality outlined above, which could conceivably be effected not only by indoor plants but also by other environmental variables or combinations of such, influence human behavior? With respect to place choice, since place s u i t a b i l i t y i s a key c r i t e r i o n in place choice (Genereux, Ward, and Russell, Note 2), what was said above about the impact of plants on place s u i t a b i l i t y can be said here about the impact of places with plants on place choice. Thus, other factors being equal, we can expect people to select places with plants for most everyday a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those such as meditating, v i s i t i n g , and relaxing, but to select places without plants for a c t i v i t i e s such as lecturing and working with machinery. Regarding the other major d i v i s i o n of human behavior, behavior-in-place, l e t ' s f i r s t consider mood response. A person's mood at any moment can be captured by reference to two dimensions—pleasure and arousal (Russell, 1978, 1979). For example, "relaxed" can be defined as high pleasure, low arousal, and "anxious" as low pleasure, high arousal. Popular belief and the scant empirical evidence that exists indicate places with plants increase pleasure and decrease arousal. From the popular front, Heriteau (1977) boldly asserts "Plants make you fee l good . That's a fact." (p. 4). On the empirical side, Howes and Schwimmer (1981) .•'."12 surveyed 207 o f f i c e workers; 89% agreed or strongly agreed they f e l t good having plants next to their work area, and 72% agreed or strongly agreed that plants next to their work area helped them fe e l relaxed. Thayer and Atwood (1978) found an increase in pleasant mood response with the addition of plants to outdoor settings. And students in Campbell's (1979) study said they would fe e l more comfortable and welcome in a professor's o f f i c e that contained l i v i n g things (four potted plants and two aquariums with fish) than in the same o f f i c e that contained no l i v i n g things or instead contained art objects. As to how places with plants can increase pleasure and decrease arousal, the e a r l i e r discussion of perceptual-cognitive e f f e c t s of indoor foliage suggests places with plants can produce mood eff e c t s at a l l four levels of potential impact. F i r s t , since places with plants have fresher, cleaner a i r than those without, they may well have a pleasurable impact on mood at the basic neurochemical l e v e l . Second,^ since plants can improve various properties of a place related to v i s i o n , touch and smell, places with plants l i k e l y increase pleasure at the sensory l e v e l of impact. That plants add green to a place may play a key role at t h i s sensory l e v e l ; compared to other colors, green i s rated high on pleasantness and low on arousing qu a l i t y (e.g., G u i l f o r d and Smith, 1959). Also relevant at t h i s l e v e l i s the hypothesized increase in information rate due ' 13 to indoor f o l i a g e . According to Mehrabian and Russell (1974), th i s should lead to increased, rather than decreased arousal. Perhaps the i n t u i t i o n i s simply wrong, and plants do not increase information rate of a place. Or perhaps other factors outweigh the arousing effect of increased information rate. Third, places with plants influence mood at the symbolic l e v e l by triggering a f f e c t i v e l y r i c h associations. L i f e , growth, and wealth a l l are pleasurable associations. An exotic land can be a pleasurable thought, too, although a person surrounded by rubber trees imagining a hot sweaty jungle may well feel unpleasant. Being reminded of the timeless progression of seasonal rythyms seems to drain off the anxiety produced by the hectic pace of modern day l i f e . And, of course, places with plants provide that c r u c i a l symbolic link to nature. The natural versus manmade d i s t i n c t i o n i s a highly salient feature of places (Ward and Russell, 1981). As well, several studies have revealed a strong p o s i t i v e bias toward natural environments (Kaplan, 1975, 1977; Kaplan, Kaplan and Wendt, 1972; Wohlwill, 1973, 1976; Zube, Brush, And Fabos, 1975). Why people prefer natural places is controversial. The most popular view t i e s nature preference to man's evolutionary origins (e.g., Dubos, 1971; l i t i s , 1973; l i t i s , Louks and Andrews, 1970:; Kozlovsky, 1974; Lewis, 1977; Stainbrook, 1973). This view has been expressed in a variety of ways. Stainbrook (1973) 14 writes of "man's psychic need, for nature". Dubos (1971) suggests "Like the giant Antaeus in the Greek legend, man loses his strength when he loses contact with the earth" (p. 53).. Kozlovsky (1974) states the assumption underlying t h i s view as follows: ...the organism is most interesting and healthiest when i t i s exposed to an environment fundamentally in harmony with the environments that, in the evolutionary process, were responsible for producing the bundle of adaptations that the individual represents. (p. 74) Proponents of this view are quick to point out that the environments to which most of us are now ex p o s e d — c i t i e s f i l l e d with concrete, steel and h i r i s e towers--are not at a l l l i k e the natural ones in which we evolved. In thi s l i g h t , the current indoor plant craze can be seen as a reaction to the f e l t lack of earth contact, and as an attempt to regain earth contact and thereby regain our strength and v i t a l i t y . In opposition to the thesis that man has a b u i l t - i n a f f i n i t y to nature, Kreiger (1973) proposes "the way in which we experience nature i s conditioned by our society" (p. 411). Thus, he boldly argues, people can and should learn to enjoy a r t i f i c i a l substitutes for nature produced by technology; hence the t i t l e of his paper—"Up the P l a s t i c Tree". Although Kreiger's p l a s t i c trees seem a l i t t l e f a r -15 fetched, his assumption that nature experience i s c u l t u r a l l y conditioned seems to have some v a l i d i t y . Tuan's (1974) thorough h i s t o r i c a l study reveals considerable influence of c u l t u r a l values in attitudes toward nature. For example, much of western history i s characterized by the view of wilderness as an opponent to man's survival and to his higher' r e l i g i o u s s t r i v i n g s , as a force not to be cherished, embraced, and preserved, but to be hated, conquered, and eliminated. This attitude was so deeply ingrained during the middle ages that i t led to such disastrous consequences as destruction.of the greater part of Europe's forests. A t h i r d explanation of preference for natural environments intimates what i s inherently pleasurable i s not nature per se, but p a r t i c u l a r stimulus properties (e.g., complexity, coherence, mystery, i d e n t i f i a b i 1 i t y ) that happen to correlate highly with naturalness in the real world (e.g., Wohlwill, 1973). Although reasonable, t h i s argument is not supported by the evidence to date. For example, Thayer and Atwood (1978) found a consistent increase in pleasure response to outdoor places with the addition of plants, yet f a i l e d to find a corresponding general increase in complexity. S i m i l a r l y , Kaplan et al.. (1972) report that wilderness and natural places were rated more pleasurable as a group than man-made places, regardless of complexity. Such results prompted Kaplan (1978) to assert that nature content per se ij; an important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of preferred 16 scenes. It i s possible, however that there are stimulus properties yet to be i d e n t i f i e d that do correlate highly with both naturalness and pleasure. But even i f such a property is discovered, there remains a problem of interpretation. Is preference for nature simply a manifestation of the inherent pleasurableness of stimulus property "x", or is i t the other way round, that preference for stimulus property "x" i s simply a manifestation of the inherent pleasurableness of nature? Clearly, the issue of why people prefer natural environments i s complex and cannot be settled here. The c r i t i c a l point is a strong nature bias does exi s t , and since indoor plants increase the perceived naturalness of a place, they can be expected to thereby increase pleasantness of mood. Places with plants can also affect mood at the fourth l e v e l of impact, the overt behavioral l e v e l . Montague (1979) aptly describes how indoor plants a c t i v e l y engage people: One has the feeling of something of a chemist when compounding s o i l s and f e r t i l i z e r s ; a budding n a t u r a l i s t when dealing with the bugs that may infest them; very much a craftsman when he successfully performs the operations of making cuttings; and a creative a r t i s t when he sets up an indoor garden or terrarium. (p. 18) Through such involvement people can experience enhanced 1 7 feelings of success, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a c t u a l i z a t i o n , nurturance f u l f i l l m e n t , and self-esteem. Kaplan (1973) and Lewis (1977) have documented the psychological and so c i o l o g i c a l benefits of gardening in the c i t y , which include, besides the above, improved community s p i r i t , reduction of vandalism, and tenan t - i n i t i a t e d improvement of buildings. " H o r t i c u l t u r a l therapy" is being employed as an adjunct to treatment in mental hospitals, physical r e h a b i l i t a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s , g e r i a t r i c centers, schools for exceptional children, drug and alcohol r e h a b i l i t a t i o n centers, and correctional i n s i t u t i o n s (Lewis,'. 1977) . Some empirical evidence for the ef f i c a c y of horticulture therapy was provided by Langer and Rodin (1976). They found elderly nursing home residents given the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of caring for their own plant, compared to those in a control group who had their plant cared for by the s t a f f , showed a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement in alertness, active p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and a general sense of well-being. Unfortunately, the plant manipulation was confounded with other variables in their study; residents in the experimental group were also given extra freedom to make choices plus a communication emphasizing their r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for themselves, while those in the control group were not. Given places with plants influence mood by r a i s i n g pleasure and lowering arousal, how might such mood effects in turn influence overt behavior-in-place? A number of 18 hypotheses are supplied by Mehrabian and Russell (1974; Russell and Bond, 1979; Russell and Mehrabian, 1977, 1978). They propose the combination of heightened pleasure and lowered arousal should i n h i b i t interpersonal h o s t i l i t y , and f a c i l i t a t e cooperation, a f f i l i a t i o n , complex task performance, desire to work, to solve problems, to drink alcohol, and to smoke marijuana. Suggestive evidence that places with plants per se can produce such results comes from two sources. Howes and Schwimmer (1981) found 53% of survey respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that plants next to their o f f i c e work area helped them do a better job. In Campbell's (1979) study, which bears on a f f i l i a t i v e behavior, students were required to infer what a professor would be l i k e from the appearance of his o f f i c e . Presence of four plants and two aquariums with f i s h in the o f f i c e served to increase ratings of how similar the professor's interests were to those of the student and how much the professor would welcome student v i s i t o r s . The Interaction of Indoor Plants with Other Variables The impact of any environmental variable on place quality and human behavior can depend on a host of other variables, including h i s t o r i c a l - c u l t u r a l , personal, and environmental variables. Indoor greenery i s no exception. Concerning h i s t o r i c a l - c u l t u r a l factors, i f we accept the hypothesis that man has an inherent need for nature, we would expect eras and cultures in which people l i v e 19 r e l a t i v e l y isolated from nature to r e f l e c t greater involvement with and a f f i n i t y to indoor, leafage than eras and cultures in which people l i v e close to nature. The popularity of. indoor plants in modern technological s o c i e t i e s , as compared to more primitive s o c i e t i e s , tends to confirm t h i s expectation. So does Seddon's (1980) report that the f i r s t record of bringing plants indoors comes . from ancient Greece, a highly technological ancient culture. On the other hand, there i s some evidence that h i s t o r i c a l -c u l t u r a l trends in response to indoor foliage are largely i d i o s y n c r a t i c , as would be expected i f response to nature was learned. Scrivens (cited in Middlebrook, 1981) describes the Dutch, who are not exceptionally i n d u s t r i a l i z e d , as a culture nonetheless exceptionally involved with indoor greenery; in the Netherlands i t i s common practice for each worker in an o f f i c e area to maintain the plants near his or her desk and for there to be in addition an inhouse h o r t i c u l t u r a l o f f i c e r who oversees a l l the plants. Also, the history of indoor gardening in Europe (Seddon, 1980) i s replete with s t o r i e s of famed plant c o l l e c t o r s who traversed the globe r i s k i n g (and often losing) l i f e and limb in order to f i l l V i c torian parlors with the exotic species currently in vogue; i t reads more l i k e a chapter from a chronicle of human fads than from a chronicle of human needs. Personal variables that might influence response to 20 indoor foliage include sex, so c i a l status, environmental background, general environmental preference, and basic personality t r a i t s . Given the t r a d i t i o n a l role females assume in performing, indoor chores, they can be expected to be more act i v e l y involved with indoor plants than men. Also, since the emotional impact of environments is greater for females than males (Campbell, 1979; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974), females should respond to indoor plants manipulations to a greater degree than males. High s o c i a l status correlates with the presence of large potted plants in the home (Laumann and House , 1972). An obvious explanation i s that people of high status can afford large indoor plants, while those of low status cannot. This correlation may r e f l e c t , however, a more subtle relationship involving s o c i a l status and one's view of the home. As Rainwater (1966) notes, lower class people view the home primarily as a haven from noise, odor, d i r t , and violence, while "Only in the advanced working class does one find a more elaborate conception of the house as a private domain that offers opportunities for recreation and expressive s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t and a stage for the display of affluence" (p. 23). Thus, although higher class people may construe indoor greenery as symbolic of self and of wealth, and be attracted to i t primarily for t h i s reason, lower class people may not attach such meaning to indoor greenery 21 at a l l . Concerning personal background experience, the extent to-, which a c h i l d ' s parents are involved with indoor plants w i l l l i k e l y bear on how he or she responds to them as an adult. Also, compared to born-and-bred c i t y folks, people of rural background currently l i v i n g in the c i t y may be more sensitive bo the a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the c i t y and, as such, should f e e l a greater need to naturalize their environments with indoor greenery. General environmental preference is probably the best predictor of response to indoor leafage; t h i s i s implied by Kaplan's (1973) finding that general environmental preference i s the best predictor of perceived benefits of gardening. Preference for natural environments should predict p o s i t i v e response to indoor plants and l i k i n g of plants primarily for the reason that they symbolize nature. But what about those people who savour raw, untouched wilderness, who shun c i t y parks and neatly mowed lawns? Such purists may well respond negatively, rather than p o s i t i v e l y , to the domestication of plants. Regarding personality t r a i t s , two seem especially relevant to indoor greenery—nurturance and sentience. A high score on either of these t r a i t s should predict p o s i t i v e response to indoor plants. In addition, high nurturance should predict l i k i n g of plants for the sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and .joy derived from taking care of them, 22 while high sentience should predict l i k i n g of plants for the pleasure derived from their sensory q u a l i t i e s . Other environment variables l i k e l y play a c r u c i a l role in the impact of indoor greenery on place q u a l i t y and human behavior. For instance, the addition of many plants to an already cluttered room may have a negative, rather than positive e f f e c t . Also, since salience i s an important determinant of the degree of impact of environmental manipulations (Campbell, 1979), we can expect any environmental feature that reduces the salience of plants (e.g., c l u t t e r , high information rate, large scale) to also reduce the impact of plants. In a relevant study, Thayer and Atwood (1978) found the addition of plants to outdoor places served to increase information rate only for those places o r i g i n a l l y low in information rate; plants had no si g n i f i c a n t effect on places of intermediate or high information rate. F i n a l l y , given that man has an inherent, need for nature, one would predict indoor plants to be more popular and i n f l u e n t i a l in places r e l a t i v e l y isolated from nature (windowless rooms, highrise apartments, and c i t i e s ) than in places r e l a t i v e l y close to nature (rooms with windows, houses with yards, and farms). Such a finding would be consistent with urban dwellers being overrepresented in various outdoor recreation a c t i v i t i e s and in organizations oriented to conservation of natural places (Kaplan, 1978). 23 Overview of the Present Study In the present investigation, a series of four empirical studies was undertaken to test a number of the hypotheses put forth above concerning the role of indoor greenery in person-environment interactions. In the f i r s t study, a survey was conducted to e l i c i t people's attitudes toward indoor greenery and to determine the relationship between other variables and response to indoor plants. In the second study, color s l i d e s of places were used to assess the impact of plants on place qu a l i t y . In the t h i r d study, an experimental room was used to assess the impact of plants on place quality and thus validate the findings of the second study. In the fourth study, the same experimental room was used to examine the impact of places with plants on behavior-in-place. Note that the fourth study was actually conducted prior- to the second and t h i r d studies; the studies are reported here in an order that l o g i c a l l y meshes with the conceptual framework presented above, rather than in chronological order. 24 STUDY 1: ATTITUDES TOWARD AND INVOLVEMENT WITH INDOOR PLANTS Method Subjects Subjects were recruited from a variety of sources, including the following: participants in an undergraduate psychology course in perception at the University Of B r i t i s h Columbia (UBC); participants in an undergraduate course in environmental . psychology at UBC; graduate students and professors at UBC; students and their spouses l i v i n g in a married student residence at UBC; employees of a large Vancouver department store where the author's wife was employed; and non-student friends and aquaintances of the author. A l l subjects volunteered to pa r t i c i p a t e without pay, except those from the environmental psychology cl a s s , who participated for course c r e d i t . Of 120 questionnaires di s t r i b u t e d , 100 were completed and returned. Of the 100 respondents, there were 51 males and 49 females ranging in age from 17 to 63 years (mean = 26.11). Although the sample consisted primarily of Canadians (81), a t o t a l of 12 d i f f e r e n t n a t i o n a l i t i e s were represented, including B r a z i l i a n , Figian, Chinese, I t a l i a n , and I r i s h . Besides 69 students, the sample contained 31 non-students of various occupations, including welder, farmer, salesman, teacher, nurse, and engineer; the non-students scored from 14-85 (mean = 50.94) on Duncan's Socioeconomic Index (Reiss, 25 1961).. Half of the respondents l i v e d with their mates, 27 with their parents or other r e l a t i v e s , 12 with their friends, and 11 li v e d alone. The subjects were broken down according- to type of dwelling as follows: house—49; apartment--28, basement -suite—-8; townhouse — 2; bachelor suite--2; other—.8. The majority of subjects (79) resided in a c i t y , while 10 l i v e d on a farm, 6 in a town, 4 in a suburb, and 1 in a backwoods area. The respondents had spent an average of 10.07 years in. a c i t y , 4.84 in a suburb, 6.37 in a town, 4.39 on a farm, and 0.20 in a backwoods area. On Kaplan's (1977) Environmental Preference Questionnaire (EPQ), respondents' mean scores on the seven subscales were as follows: Nature--55.23; Romantic Escape--1.53; Passive Stress Release--18.53; Social--20.86; Suburbs--28.99; City—13.17; Modern Development—negative 4.21. With respect to personality t r a i t s , respondents' mean scores were 10.65 and 10.37 respectively on the Nurturance and Sentience subscales of Jackson's (1967) Personality Research Form (PRF), Form E. Questionnaire To assess attitudes toward and involvement with indoor plants, a 233-item questionnaire was constructed, consisting of four main parts. Only the fourth part contained items dealing s p e c i f i c a l l y with plants. The f i r s t three parts dealt with c u l t u r a l , personal, and environmental 26 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents, and were included to examine the .relationships between these factors and response to indoor greenery. A copy of the questionnaire i s included as Appendix.A of t h i s thesis. The items in Part 1 are self-explanatory, Part 2 i s Kaplan's (1977) 60-item EPQ with i t s seven subscales, and Part 3 is the Nurturance and Sentience subscales of Jackson's (1967) PRF, Form E. Part 4 of the questionnaire consists of several sections, each of which deals with a p a r t i c u l a r aspect of human response to indoor f o l i a g e . Section 4A includes a variety of items r e f l e c t i n g general attitudes toward indoor f o l i a g e . Section 4C assesses which kinds of plants people prefer. Sections 4F and 4G were included to determine how involved people are with plants in their homes. Section 4B deals with preference for places with plants versus places without plants for performing everyday a c t i v i t i e s . It is relevant to the impact of indoor plants on place choice and on the behavioral component of place q u a l i t y . Section 4D deals with the impact of indoor plants on other aspects of place q u a l i t y . Included are four items representing the four subscales of Russell and Pratt's (1980) scale for measuring the a f f e c t i v e quality of places, four items pertaining to perceptual-cognitive attributes of places, and a number of miscellaneous items. Section 4E assesses mood response in places with plants 27 versus places without, plants. Excluding the two items friendly-unfriendly and at home-not at home, thi s section consists of Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) mood scales for pleasure and arousal. Section 4H was included to determine which features of indoor plants people think make the greatest contribution to pleasant mood and l i k i n g . Various items correspond to a l l four potential levels of impact of indoor plants on mood: the basic neurochemical l e v e l , the sensory l e v e l , the symbolic l e v e l , and the overt behavioral l e v e l . F i n a l l y , section 41 assesses reasons for d i s l i k i n g indoor leafage. It contains items concerning sensory, sybmolic, and behavioral aspects of plants that could conceivably exert a negative impact on mood and l i k i n g . Procedure Most of the questionnaires were delivered to respondents in person; the rest were mailed. Respondents were allowed to complete and return the questionnaire at their l e i s u r e . They were informed that the survey was part of a large research project dealing with general environmental attitudes and with attitudes toward s p e c i f i c environmental features such as indoor greenery. Results and Discussion  General Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants To reduce the 17 general attitude items from Section 4A of the questionnaire to a more manageable set, a p r i n c i p l e -components analysis with an orthogonal (varimax) rotation 28 was carried out. There were f i v e components with eigenvalues greater.than 1.00, which together accounted for 63.35% of the t o t a l variance. The results are shown in Table 1. The fiv e rotated factors appeared quite meaningful. The f i r s t was interpreted as a general l i k e versus d i s l i k e factor. The second was interpreted as a l i v e versus a r t i f i c i a l indoor plants factor. The t h i r d was indoor plants serving as a status symbol. The fourth was interpreted as an indoor plants versus other decorations factor. The f i f t h factor involved items pertaining to number of indoor plants. Response frequencies for the 17 general attitude items are displayed in Table 2. Since sample size was 100, the frequencies are equivalant to percentages. Thus, for example, 74% of respondents strongly disagreed with, 21% disagreed with, and 5% responded neutrally to the "I hate indoor plants" item. Also shown in Table 2 are a mean and a standard deviation for each item. The mean for any item was calculated by assigning integer values from one (indicating least positive response to indoor plants) through fiv e (indicating most positive response to indoor plants) to the fiv e response categories. For those items worded p o s i t i v e l y toward l i v e indoor plants (e.g., "I l i k e indoor plants"), the "strongly disagree" category was assigned a value of i 29 Table 1 Principle - Components Analysis of 17 General Attitude Items Component Item I II III IV V h 2 Like IP .72 -,k0 .70 IP create moods .69 .56 IP are pretty .67 •58 Hate IP .65 .59 IP are ugly •55 .55 Prefer no IP .51 - .4? .63 Notice IP .51 • 39 A r t i f i c i a l IP as nice .88 .81 Prefer no IP to ar t i f i c i a l .86 .79 IP are status symbol .86 .75 Prefer sculpture to IP .78 .Gk Prefer ornaments to IP •73 .67 Prefer IP to paintings .61 .97 IP help with stress .57 .63 * More IP the better - 7 7 .61 Wish home was fu l l of IP -.77 .72 IP clutter a place - .62 .60 Note. Loadings below are omitted. IP = indoor plants. 30 Table 2 Response Frequencies and Means for the 17 General Attitude Items Response Category Attitude Item SA N D SD Mean (Standard Devia] Component 1 Hate IP Prefer no IP IP are ugly Like LP IP are pretty IP create moods Notice LP Component 2 Artifical LP as nice Prefer no IP to a r t i f i c i a l Component 3 LP are status symbol Component k Prefer sculpture to IP Prefer ornaments tp IP Prefer LP to paintings IP help with stress Component 5 More IP the better Wish home was fu l l IP clutter a place 0 0 5 21 7k 0 0 2 35 63 1 0' 3 30 66 48 44 7 1 0 44 48 7 1 0 20 63 12 5 0 6 48 18 26 • 2 0 5 k 36 55 43 27 Ik 15 0 2 27 29 33 9 2 3 17 k6 32 1 1 20 59 19 10 35 39 14 2 8 30 39 18 5 7 23 26 41 3 of IP 18 24 16 36 6 0 2 11 k6 41 4.6905$) if."61 (.53) 4.60065) 4.39067) 4.35066) 3.980-72) 3.30C.99) 4.41 (.79), 3.39(1.09) 2.80(1.01) 4.03C89) 3 .9M.72) 3.37 0 92) 3.180 99) 2.90(1.02) 3.12(1.25) 4.26073) Note. SA = Strongly Agree. A = Agree. N = Neutral. D = Disagree. SD = Strongly Disagree. Items are divided into components in accord with principle-components analysis. Calculation of means is explained in text. 31 one, and the "strongly agree" category was assigned a value of f i v e . For negatively worded items (e.g., "I hate indoor plants"), the "strongly agree" category was valued one and the "strongly disagree" category was valued f i v e . Thus, the larger the mean in Table 2, the more positive was response to indoor plants on that item across the 100 subjects. The mean could range from a minimum of 1.00 to a maximum of 5.00, with a value of 3.00 indicating neutral response. Inspection of Table 2 reveals that attitudes toward indoor plants were generally very p o s i t i v e . Data for Factor 1 items indicate a large majority of subjects agreed that they l i k e d indoor.plants and that indoor plants are pretty and can create d i f f e r e n t moods. Not quite as many respondents agreed that when they go to a new home or restaurant they note how many plants are there. With respect to Factor 2, a strong preference was shown for l i v e indoor plants over a r t i f i c i a l ones. The Factor 3 item, "Indoor plants serve as a status symbol", was one of only two items with a mean less than 3.00; more people disagreed than agreed with t h i s statement. The other item with a mean less than 3.00 was "The more plants in any indoor place, the better", a Factor 5 item. Another Factor 5 item received a mean close to the neutral point, indicating that for many people there i s a l i m i t to the number of plants they wish to see-in indoor places. Data for Factor 4 items show a large majority of 32 respondents preferred indoor plants to ornaments, and an indoor tree in their l i v i n g room to a piece of sculpture. Also, about three times as many subjects agreed than disagreed that they preferred a place with plants over a place with paintings. Thus, for subjects in this study, plants ranked high compared to other kinds of furnishings. F i n a l l y , 38% of subjects agreed indoor plants helped them deal with stress. Preference for Different Kinds of Indoor Plants Responses to the six kind-preference items from Section 4C of the questionnaire are shown in Table 3. The frequencies in Table 3 indicate people generally do not prefer small plants, creeping plants, or plants with small or roughly textured leaves. Preference for species type seems largely i d i o s y n c r a t i c . Indeed, 11 subjects chose the "other" category and each named a d i f f e r e n t species of indoor plant. Among those named were baby's breath, wandering jew, gold f i s h plant, and marijuana. Involvement with Indoor Plants In Section 4F of the questionnaire, respondents reported having from 1 to 150 indoor plants in their home (mean = 14.44, standard deviation = 16.23). To reduce the 16 involvement items from Section 4G of the questionnaire to a more manageable set, a principle-component analysis with an orthogonal (varimax) rotation was performed. Two components emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.00, which Table 3 Preference for Different Kinds of Indoor Plants: Response Frequencies Preference Dimension and Response Category '_ Frequency Size of Plant Small 1 Medium 45 Large 22 No preference 32 Shape of Plant  Hanging 22 Standing < 23 Creeping 9 No preference 46 Flowering vs Nonflowering  Flowering 34 Nonflowering 26 No preference 40 Species of plant ,  Fern 19 Ivy 6 Palm 11 Cactus 2 Rubber Plant 6 Fig tree 5 Evergreen tree - 5 Jade 2 Other 11 No preference 33 Texture of leaves Rough 1 Feathery • 18 Waxy 23 No preference 58 Size of leaves Small 15 Big 33 No preference 52 c 34 together accounted for 58.06% of the t o t a l variance. The results are shown in Table 4. The two rotated factors were e a s i l y interpretable. The f i r s t was interpreted as a general maintenance factor, and involved items such as repot, water, feed, and cut dead leaves o f f . The second factor was one suggesting appreciation and more intimate interaction; moderately loading items ; were touch, smell, and gaze at plants, while heavily loading items were talk to plants and give them names. Response frequencies for the 16 involvement items are presented in Table 5. Also included are a mean and standard deviation for each item. The mean for any item was calculated by assigning integer values to the five response categories. The minimum value of one (indicating least involvement) was assigned to the "never" category, and the maximum value of five (indicating most involvement) was assigned to the "very often" category. The larger the mean, the greater the involvement with indoor plants on that a c t i v i t y across the 100 subjects. Inspection of Table 5 indicates few respondents performed any of the Factor 1 a c t i v i t i e s very often. Indeed, for each item, a sizable percentage of subjects (between 13% and 34%) reported never having done that maintenance a c t i v i t y . Thus, few people are fa n a t i c a l about, and a considerable proportion apparently have l i t t l e to do 35 Table 4 Principle-Components Analysis of 16 Involvement Items Component Item I II h 2 Hepot \ 8 1 .68 Water .77 .59 Feed .75 .57 Cut dead leaves off .74 .66 Trim .71 .58 Turn to the sun .71 .60 Grow new plants from shoots .67 .53 Inspect for bugs' .63 .44 • 59 Spray with water .62 .46 Wipe leaves clean .62 .44 .58 Move about room .60 .^5 .56 Talk to .84 .71 Give names .77 .61 Touch .54 .>56 .61 Gaze .48 .53 .51 Smell .42 .52 •^5 Note. Loadings below .40 are omitted. 36 Table 5 Response Frequencies and Means for the 16 Involvement Items Response Category M e a n ( s t a n d a r d Involvement Item VO 0 S R N Deviation) Component 1 Water 7 42 22 16 1 3 3.14 (1.17) Cut dead leaves off 3 37 32 13 15 3.00 (1.11) Turn to sun 4 51 35 14 16 2.93 (1.12) Move about room 1 13 39 27 20 • 2.48 (.99) Trim 0 14 4.1 23 22 2.47 (.99) Feed 2 15 32 20 31 2.37 (1.13) Inspect for bugs 1 13 25 32 29 2.25 (1.05) Grow new plants from v shoots i 3 14 21 28 2.24 (1.16) Repot 1 5 34 32 28 2.19 (.94) Wipe leaves clean 0 9 31 27 33 2.16 (.99) Spray with water 1 6 32 2°. 31 2.12 (1.00) Component 2 Gaze 16 32 23 23 6 3.29 (1.17) Touch 5 30 35 23 ' 7 3.03 (1.01) Smell 0 5 35 35 25 2.20 (.88) Talk to 2 4 11 20 63 1.62 (.97) Give names 1 1 9 14 75 1.39 (.78) Note. VO = Very Often. 0 = Often. S = Sometimes. R = Rarely. N = Never. Items are divided into components in accord with principle-component analysis. Calculation of means is explained in text. 37 with, caring for the plants in their home. Responses to the Factor 2 items were quite revealing. Only a few respondents had never gazed at or touched the plants in their home; the . means indicate these two a c t i v i t i e s were among the top three in frequency of performance. This suggests passive appreciation of indoor plants i s a more popular pasttime than taking care of indoor plants. Also, while "talking to plants" was surpassed only by "giving them names" as the least-frequently performed a c t i v i t y , a surprising percentage of respondents (37 and 25, respectively) admitted having talked to or named their plants on some occasion. Indoor Plants and Place Quality Section 4D of the questionnaire e l i c i t e d people's attitudes concerning the impact of indoor greenery on 17 dimensions of place q u a l i t y . A mean score for each dimension was calculated by assigning integer values of one to nine to the nine steps of the bipolar scale. For each dimension, the highest value of nine was assigned to that end of the scale that represented the expected direction of impact of indoor plants on place q u a l i t y . For example, the "more pleasant" end of the "more pleasant-more unpleasant" scale was assigned a value of nine. To determine whether the means d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the neutral scale value of 5.00, a t-test was performed for each dimension. The results are shown in Table 6. 38 - Table 6 Places With Plants Compared to Places Without: Means and t-ratios for 17 Place Quality Dimensions Place Quality Dimension Mean(SD) t-ratio Perceptual-Cognitive Smell better (vs smell worse) 7.14 (1.37) 15.54*** Fresher air (vs staler air) , 7.14 (1.50) 14.16*** More curvy (vs more angular) 6.99 (1.34) 14.81*** More humid (vs more dry) 6.41 (1.44) 9.77*** Affective More pleasant (vs more unpleasant) 7.79 (1.42) 19.61*** More restful (vs more tense) 7.48 (1.23) ° 20.11*** More exciting (vs more gloomy) 6.54 (1.31) 11.04*** More sleepy (vs more arousing) 5.40 (1.61) 2.48* Miscellaneous More inviting (vs more uninviting) 7.76 (1.97) 25.54*** More beautiful (vs more ugly) 7.71 (1.34) 20.18*** More friendly (vs more unfriendly) 7.70 (1.42) 18.95*** More peaceful (vs more hostile) 7.57 (1.23) 20.88*** More personal (vs more impersonal) 7.36 (1.45) 16.24*** Softer (vs harder) 7.25 ( m 3 ) 19.78*** Warmer (vs colder) 7.17 (1.35) 16.01*** More expensive (vs more cheap) 6.66 (1.26) 13.24*** More casual (vs more formal) 6.65 (1.48) 11.09*** Note. SD = standard deviation. Calculation of means and t-ratios is explained in text. * p £ .05 *** p < .001 39 Respondents d e f i n i t e l y , f e l t indoor plants, exert an impact on perceptual-cognitive, a f f e c t i v e , and miscellaneous dimensions of place quality. Furthermore, a l l effects were in the expected d i r e c t i o n . The only hypotheses not confirmed at a highly s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .001) l e v e l was that plants serve to decrease the arousing quality of places; subjects showed least agreement on t h i s item, and on average they believed plants just s l i g h t l y reduce the arousing quality of places. Preference for Places with Indoor Plants To reduce the 27 place preference items from Section 4B of the questionnaire to a more manageable set, a p r i n c i p l e -components analysis with an orthogonal (varimax) rotation was undertaken. Seven components emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.00, which together accounted for 63.67% of t o t a l variance. Table 7 displays the r e s u l t s . Although the rotated factors were generally not as interpretable as the general attitude or involvement factors, fi v e of the seven appeared quite meaningful. The f i r s t factor was interpreted as a relaxing a c t i v i t y factor and the t h i r d as a l i s t e n to lecture factor. The fourth factor involved a c t i v i t i e s that require quiet concentration. The sixth factor was interpreted as an explore factor and the seventh as a watch TV and party factor. Thus, meaningful sets of a c t i v i t i e s can be distinguished on the .basis of preference for places with or without plants. This 4o Table 7 Principle-Components Analysis of 27 Place Preference Items Component Item I II III IV- V- VI VII h 2 Be alone .81 .71 Relax .75 .80 Play/listen to music .65 .52 .75 Spend free time .60 .62 Entertain guests .57 .51 Chat with friends .45 .55 Bathe .70 .63 Recuperate from illness .61 .57 Eat .55 .54 Work with machinery .53 .54 Intimate conversation .45 .52 Listen to lecture .71 .63 Attend meeting .71 .61 Sell merchandise .64 .57 Sleep .40 .56 ' .58 Meditate .68 .73 Do book work .65 .68 Study .54 .59 .72 Read .47 .51 .57 Stand in line .83 ' .73 Play cards .63 .58 Shop .57 .40 .62 Explore .81 .74 Plan hiking trip .71 .74 Watch TV .71 .64 Drink alcohol .42 .62 .66 Party .41 .56 .60 Note. Loadings below .40 are omitted. 41 supports the hypothesis that preference for places with plants depends.on the kind of a c t i v i t y involved. Response frequencies and means for the 27 place preference items are shown in Table 8. Means serve as an. average measure of preference for places with plants, and were calculated by assigning integer values from one to three to the "without plants", "no preference", and "with plants" response categories, respectively. The means indicate respondents generally preferred to perform everyday a c t i v i t i e s in places with plants. Greatest preference for places with plants was shown, as predicted, with respect to relaxing a c t i v i t i e s (Factor 1 ) . Also as predicted, a large majority of subjects preferred to recuperate from an i l l n e s s , but few preferred to work with machinery, in a place with plants. Most respondents preferred to perform a c t i v i t i e s requiring quiet concentration (Factor 4) in places with plants, which was consistent with their b e l i e f that plants make a place more peaceful. The majority of subjects responded "no preference" to the following items: l i s t e n to a lecture, sleep, play cards, drink alcohol, party and watch TV. Apparently, plants have l i t t l e relevance in settings where attention i s drawn away from the immediate physical environment by some highly sa l i e n t feature of the setting such as a lecturer, a TV program, a card game, or other people at a party. Overall, the response frequencies 42 Table 8 Place Preference for 2? Activities: Response Frequencies and Means Preference Category Activity WP N WOP Mean (SD) Component 1 88 2.88 (.33) Relax 12 0 Entertain guests 88 12 0 2.88 (.33) Be alone 86 13 1 .2*85 (.33) Play/listen to music 80 18 2 2.78 (.46) Spend free time 77 23 0 2.77 (.42) Chat with friends 69 30 1 2.68 (.49) Component 2 80 16 2.76 (.52) Recuperate from illness 4 Intimate conversation 74 23 3 2.71 (.52) Eat 59 39 2 2.57 (.54) Bathe 35 49 16 2.19 (.69) Work with machinery •19 35 46 1.73 (.76) Component 3 63 2.59 (.57) Attend meeting 33 4 Sell Merchandise 60 34 6 2.54 (.61) Listen to lecture 34 53 13 2.21 (.66) Sleep 33 54 13 2.20 (.65) Component 4 2.65 (.52) Read 67 31 2 Study 68 27 5 2.63 (.58) Meditate 64 35 1 2.63 (.51) Do book work 50 44 6 2.44 (.61) Component 5 38 2.56 (.56) Stand in line 59 3 Shop 59 37 4 2.55 (.58) Play cards ^3 55 2 2.41 (.33) Component 6 2.69 (.53) Explore 72 25 3 Plan hiking trip 64 32 4 2.60 (.57) Component 7 45 2.43 (.54) Drink alcohol 53 2 . Party 45 51 4 2.41 (.57) Watch TV 39 60 1 2.38 (.51) Note. WP = With Plants. N = No Preference. WOP = Without Plants. Items are divided into components in accord with principle-components analysis. Calculation of means is explained in text. 43 f u r t h e r support the hypothesis that p r e f e r e n c e f o r p l a c e s with p l a n t s i s dependent on a c t i v i t y type. Mood Response i n Places with Indoor P l a n t s Two items in S e c t i o n 4E of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were t r e a t e d . a s two separate n i n e - s t e p - b i p o l a r s c a l e s . For the "at home" item, the steps were valued from.one ( f o r f e e l i n g l e a s t at home) through nine ( f o r f e e l i n g most at home). A mean of 7.20 was obtained. A t - t e s t a g a i n s t the n e u t r a l s c a l e value of 5.00 showed respondents f e l t s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p < .001) more at home in a p l a c e with indoor p l a n t s than in a pl a c e without, t(99) = 15.97. S i m i l a r l y , respondents f e l t s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p < .001) more f r i e n d l y i n a place with p l a n t s than i n a place without, t(99) = 16.64. The remaining 12 items i n S e c t i o n 4E c o n s i s t e d of Mehrabian and R u s s e l l ' s (1974) 6-item mood s c a l e s f o r pl e a s u r e and a r o u s a l . These s c a l e s were scored so that a value of 30.00 represented a n e u t r a l response. The means for p l e a s u r e and a r o u s a l were 41.07 and 26.26, r e s p e c t i v e l y . T - t e s t s a g a i n s t the n e u t r a l value of 30.00 i n d i c a t e d s u b j e c t s f e l t s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p < .001) higher p l e a s u r e , t(99)=17.14, and lower a r o u s a l , t(99) = 8.71, i n a p l a c e with p l a n t s than i n a p l a c e without. Thus, the hypothesized r e l a x i n g impact of p l a c e s with p l a n t s on mood was confirmed, at l e a s t with respect to people's s e l f - r e p o r t s . But note that the means i n d i c a t e the p l e a s u r e e f f e c t was l a r g e r than the a r o u s a l e f f e c t ; t h i s c o i n c i d e s with the place q u a l i t y 44 r e s u l t s . Reasons for Liking and D i s l i k i n g Indoor Plants Table 9 shows response frequencies and means for the 21 reasons for l i k i n g indoor plants, grouped according to the conceptual schema of four lev e l s of impact of environmental s t i m u l i . Table 10 shows comparable results for the 11 reasons for d i s l i k i n g plants, except that the neurochemical l e v e l i s not represented. Means were calculated by assigning integer values from one (for "not at a l l a reason") through six (for "very much a reason") to the six response categories. The larger the mean, the more important the reason across the 100 subjects. Perusal of Table 9 reveals several engaging findings. F i r s t , the prettiness of indoor plants came out as the winner in terms of the single most popular reason for l i k i n g . That plants make nice decorations ranked high, too, indicating the simple fact that plants are pleasing to look at i s an important factor in their popularity. But i t i s ce r t a i n l y not the only factor. Symbolic l e v e l items concerning the outdoors, nature, l i f e , growth, and change also ranked high. As did a couple of miscellaneous items, one involving that intangible but apparently quite important dimension—"hominess". None of the behavioral l e v e l items ranked high as a reason for l i k i n g . Inspection of overall means for the four le v e l s of impact shows, indeed, that the behavioral l e v e l i s 45 Table 9 21 Reasons for Liking Indoor Plants: Response Frequencies and Means Response Category Reason VM M MO S SL N Mean (SD) Neurochemical Level 3.46 (1.48) Freshen the air 10 16 22 26 14 12 3.46 (1.48) $ensory Level 3.57 (.78) Prettine'ss 25 39 29 4 2 1 4.78 (1.00) Nice decorations 22 36 21 13 7 1 4.50 (1.23) Smell nice 5 10 19 26 25 15 2.99 (1.38) Greeness 3 10 25 13 24 25 2.80 (1.46) Nice to touch 4 12 14 22 23 25 2.77 (1.48) Symbolic Level 0 3-71 (1.06) Outdoors 23 39 13 16 4 5 4.46 (1.38) Nature 23 31 21 14 5 6 4.35 (1.42) Life and growth 24 24 22 11 12 7 4.16 (1.55) Growth and change 29 18 19 12 13 9 4.11 (1.68) Counter art i f i c i a l i t y 16 10 21 19 15 19 3.39 (1.69) Wealth 3 11 21 19 24 22 2.84 (1.43) Tropical places 7 11 13 14 22 33 2.68 (1.63) Behavioral Level 2.25 (1.07) Enjoy caring for 3 14 21 15 21 26 2.85 (1.51) Enjoy nursing to health 4 10 7 19 23 37 2.42 (1.48) Successful at growing 1 6 13 20 15 45 2.23 (1.36) Enjoy responsibility 1 7 11 15 18 48 2.14 (1.36) Are good listeners 4 4 2 6 6 78 1.60 (1.33) Miscellaneous Make house more homey 28 28 21 16 6 1 ' 4.53 (1.28) Make place more . . relaxing 21 ' 26 27 15 7 4 . 4.27 (1.36) Are inherently • . _ 16 3.44 (1.55) interesting 12 14 25 21 12 Note. VM = Very Much a Reason. M = Much So. MO = Moderately So. S = Somewhat So. SL = Slightly So. N = Not At All A Reason. Calculation of means is explained in text. 46 Table 10 11 Reasons for Disliking Indoor Plants: Response Frequencies and Means Reason Response Category VM M MO SL N Mean (SD) Sensory level Ugliness Stink Greenness Symbolic level Belong in natural habitat Bugs Belong outside Sweaty jungle Cheapness Behavioral level Can't be bothered to care for them Clutter up a place Always die—failure 1.24 (.47) 0 0 4 2 14 80 1.30 (.70) 0 1 2 3 12 82 1.28 (.71) 0 0 1 4 3 92 1.14 (.51) 1.40 (.58) 2 1 3 8 22 64 1.61 (.56) 0 4 4 6 15 71 1.55 (1.05) 0 2 0 6 11 81 1.31 (.76) 0 0 1 4 11 84 1.22 (.56) 0 0 0 2 16 82 1.20 (.45) 2.19 (1.31) 12 9 8 12 20 39 2.64 (1.78) 3 3 6 10 33 45 1.98 (1.25) 6 5 6 6 i t 63 1.94 (1.54) Note. VM = Very Much a reason. M = Much so. MO = Moderately so. S = Somewhat so. SL = Slightly so. N = Not at a l l a reason. Calculation of means is explained in text. 47 the least important with respect to popularity of indoor greenery. This concurs with the involvement data, which suggested people would, rather passively appreciate indoor plants than actively.take care of them. This trend i s further substantiated by the data concerning reasons for d i s l i k i n g . The ove r a l l mean for the behavioral l e v e l was considerably higher than the means for the sensory and symbolic l e v e l s . And the "can't be bothered to care for them" item was a clear winner as. the most popular reason for d i s l i k i n g indoor plants. Intercorrelations Among Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants To examine inte r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the various measures of attitude toward indoor plants, nine summary attitude measures were calculated. Actually, three of these measures—number of plants in the home, pleasure mood response, and arousal mood response—had already been calculated. Each of the other measures corresponded to one section from Part 4 of the questionnaire, and was calculated by summing scores on a l l items in that section. Thus, a single measure was obtained for each of the following: the 17 general attitude items, the 16 involvement items, the 17 place qu a l i t y items, the 27 place preference items, the 21 reasons for l i k i n g , and the 11 reasons for d i s l i k i n g . Pearson product-moment correlations among the nine summary measures across the 100 subjects are presented in Table 11,. Although the nine summary measures were generally Table 11 Correlation Matrix on 9 Summary Measures of Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants Measure 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 1. Positive General Attitudes— Overall 1.00 2. Number of Plants in Home 1.00 3 . Involvement—Overall .32*** 1.00 k. Positive Impact on Place Quality—Overall .39*** .25** 1.00 5. Preference for Places with Plants—Overall .52*** .kk*** 1.00 6. Mood Response—Pleasure .ko*** .36*** .77*** A3*** 1.00 7. Mood Response—Arousal - .29** .23** 1.00 8. Reasons for l i k i n g — Overall .ko*** .55*** .k3*** .38*** .55*** 1.00 9. Reasons for Disliking— Overall -.29** -.32*** - . 3 0 * * * - .29** - .23** 1.00 Note. Only correlations significant at p < .0 are entered. ** p < .01 ***p £ .001 -p-0 0 49 intercorrelated, number of plants in the home f a i l e d to correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with any other measure. Quite l i k e l y t h i s was an a r t i f a c t of the population examined in th i s study, which included, a large number of students. Students t y p i c a l l y move around a great deal, and for t h i s reason try to keep their personal trappings to a minimum. As well, for the student respondent who s t i l l l i v e d with his or her parents, number of plants in the home was more l i k e l y determined by the parents than by the student. Arousal mood response also f a i l e d to correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with most other measures. Thus, the impact of indoor foliage on arousal apparently has l i t t l e bearing on posit i v e attitude toward and involvement with indoor fo l i a g e . On the other hand, the r e l a t i v e l y high correlations between pleasure mood response and other measures suggest, as would be expected, that the impact of indoor foliage on pleasure has considerable bearing on positive attitude and involvement with indoor fo l i a g e . Another expected trend in Table 11 concerns the negative correlations between ov e r a l l reasons for d i s l i k i n g and several measures of positive response to plants. Note that most of the correlations, although s i g n i f i c a n t across 100 subjects, are not a l l that high. This suggests the various sections of the questionnaire represent components of attitudes toward plants that are at least somewhat d i s t i n c t , and not t o t a l l y redundant. 50 Other Variables and Attitudes Towards Indoor Plants In the introduction, a number of hypotheses were put forth . concerning the relationship between other variables and response to indoor plants. A major purpose, of. t h i s survey was to test some of these hypotheses. Tables 12 through'15 present the relevant findings. , Pearson correlations in Table 12 r e f l e c t relationships among the summary attitude measures and various personal variables. A t o t a l of 16 personal variables were analysed, 10 of which f a i l e d to correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with any attitude measure. With respect to environment background, years spent in backwoods correlated negatively with posi t i v e general attitude and with o v e r a l l reasons for l i k i n g , and p o s i t i v e l y with o v e r a l l reasons for d i s l i k i n g indoor greenery. This supports the hypothesis that nature purists would show disdain for the attempt to replace nature with potted palms. With respect to environmental preference, three subscales of Kaplan's (1977) EPQ figured in the corr e l a t i o n s . As predicted, the Nature subscale was most important, cor r e l a t i n g with four of the nine attitude measures, including pleasure mood response in places with plants. The Romantic subscale, which r e f l e c t s preference for the backwoods, caves, and windy days, and a distaste for c i t y parks, front lawns, and quiet r e s i d e n t i a l streets, correlated p o s i t i v e l y with reasons for d i s l i k i n g . This Table 12 Correlation Matrix: 9 Summary Measures of Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants x 6 Personal Variables Personal Variable » o » » § o M e g 6 S 2 H o te <+ 1 c r 3 2 O W H- 0J 2 5 01 <D 2 ffi Attitude Measure 3 . ® 1. Positive General Attitudes— Overall - .23** , 2 6 " .29** 2. Number of Plants in Home »25 Involvement—Overall .29** .34 3-4. Positive Impact on Place Quality—Overall .30* 5. Preference for Places with Plants—Overall *** .28* 6. Mood Response—Pleasure .32*** 7. Mood Response—Arousal 8. Reasons for Liking—Overall -.24** .32*** .36*** -34*** .33* 9. Reasons for Disliking—Overall .26** •'• .27** Note. The following personal variables were analysed but failed to correlate significantly with any attitude measure: age, social status, years spent in city, years spent in suburbs, years spent in town, years spent on farm, EPQ—passive stress release, EPQ—social, EPQ—city, and EPQ—modern development. Only correlations significant at p < .01 are entered. **p < .01 ***p <^  .001 52 agrees with the findings for years spent in backwoods.. And the Suburbs subscale correlated p o s i t i v e l y with overall reasons for l i k i n g , suggesting that indoor plants f i t in p a r t i c u l a r l y well with suburban values. Regarding personality t r a i t s , both nurturance and sentience predicted o v e r a l l involvement with and overall reasons for l i k i n g indoor leafage. Sentience was the only personal variable to predict number of plants in the home or ove r a l l preference for places with plants. The r e l a t i v e importance of. sentience over nurturance accords with the finding that aesthetic aspects of plants figure more importantly as reasons for l i k i n g than behavioral aspects of plants. To uncover relations among the same set of personal vaiables on the one hand and more s p e c i f i c components of response to indoor greenery on the other hand, seven components of reasons for l i k i n g and two involvement components were chosen for analysis. The two involvement components were those derived from the principle-components analysis. The seven reasons for l i k i n g components included the four le v e l s of impact of environmental st i m u l i , plus three s p e c i f i c reasons for l i k i n g (symbolize nature, symbolize class, enjoy nurturing plants) that were p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to hypotheses presented in the introduction. Pearson correlations are shown in Table 13. Contrary to expectation, s o c i a l status f a i l e d to Table 13 Correlation Matrix: 7 Reasons for Liking Indoor Plants and 2 Involvement Components x 9 Personal Variables Personal Variables Reason for Liking 1. Neurochemical Impact— (freshen the air) 2. Sensory Impact—Overall 3. Symbolic Impact—Overall 4. Symbolic Impact—Nature 5. Symbolic Impact—Class 6. Behavioral Impact— Overall 7. Behavioral Impact— Nurturance > OB tu Sa a> o 0 t. 0} o o CO a 0) ent -.24< .23** .24** P> «© c I .26** .34*** .37*** rt- rt (5 <0 01 I 01 I W 9> (D 0) M 0) (0 H-OJ < 01 (D CO .27* a1 «o e I 01 .24** .29** .30*** .24** .32* * * .34*** PT O *e c + I ( D O M < °- 53 a> a> «o M >-j 1 o 3 1 1 CD P rt-3 TI rt- I o .35*** .29** .24** .31*** .36*** ~xn— CD 3 w rt- £ j H- I a> 1 P o .27** •33** * .28** •23* Involvement Component 1. Maintenance 2. Intimate Interaction • 31' - .28* .27** .27** .27** .44*** Note. Only correlations significant at p£_ .01 are entered. The following personal variables were ana-lysed but failed to correlate significantly with any reason or component: years spent in suburbs, years spent in town, EPQ—romahfcld-, and EPQ-^social. **p < .01 ***p < .001 54 predict l i k i n g plants for the reason that they, symbolize c l a s s . However, the nature of the subject population, which contained many persons of the same occupation ( i . e . , student), may well underly the negative findings in t h i s study with respect to so c i a l status. Two s i g n i f i c a n t correlations for age indicated, older subjects l i k e d plants for their sensory and symbolic aspects more than did younger people. Years spent in backwoods again entered the picture; nature purists showed p a r t i c u l a r scorn for the suggestion that they l i k e d indoor plants because indoor plants help freshen the a i r . General environmental preference for nature was again a r e l a t i v e l y important predictor of response to indoor greenery. As hypothesized, the Nature subscale of the EPQ correlated most highly with l i k i n g plants for the reason that they symbolize nature. In contrast to nature preference, which correlated p o s i t i v e l y with intimate involvement with indoor plants, c i t y preference correlated negatively with intimate involvement. Perhaps for those who seek excitement and enjoy the hustle and bustle of c i t y l i f e , the least enticing pasttime i s to s i t down and have a relaxing chat with Betty Begonia and Harry Hibiscus. Preference for suburbs correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with f i v e of seven reasons for l i k i n g indoor plants, including reasons related to their o v e r a l l sensory impact, their s a t i s f a c t i o n of the need for nurturance, and their 55 symbolization of c l a s s . Again, the values esteemed by suburbanites ( i . e . , aesthetic appreciation, nurturance, and display of wealth) seem p a r t i c u l a r l y conducive to positive response to indoor greenery. Concerning personality t r a i t s , nurturance correlated r e l a t i v e l y highly with the nurturance-related reason for l i k i n g , as hypothesized, but correlated just as high with the sensory impact items. Results for sentience were even less supportive of the hypotheses that sentience would correlate highest with sensory impact items. Nurturance and sentience were the only variables in this set to correlate with involvement in maintaining plants. And sentience was the best predictor of intimate involvement with indoor plants, which i s not surprising, since the intimate involvement component included items d i r e c t l y related to touch, v i s i o n , and smell. In addition to the 16 personal variables included in the above c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis, f i v e other variables were investigated. Since these other variables were discrete rather than continuous, one-way analyses of variance were used to examine their role in response toward indoor greenery. The results are summarized in Tables 14 and 15. As expected, sex was an important factor. Females were more involved than males with the plants in their home, with respect to both maintenance and intimate interaction. Females scored lower than males on o v e r a l l reasons for 56 Table 14 F-Ratios Corresponding to 9 Summary Measures of Attitudes Toward Indoor Plants Broken Down by 5 Predictor Variables Predictor Variable Attitude Measure Sex Nationality Dwelling Whom Lived Present With Location 1. Positive General Attitude—Overall 2. Number of Plants in Home 3. Involvement— Overall 2.41* 15.05*** 2.69* 4. Positive Impact on Place Quality— 2.85' Overall 5. Preference for Places with Plants—Overall 6. Mood Response— Pleasure 2.25* 7. Mood Response— Arousal 4.54* 8. Reasons for Liking— o. ^  Overall ' 9. Reasons for Dis-liking—Overall 3.76* Note. Only F-Ratios significant at p £ .05 are entered. *p < .05 ***p < .001 57 Table 15 F-ratios Corresponding to 7 Reasons for Liking Indoor Plants and 2 Involvement Components Broken Down by 5 Predictor Variables Pr»dictor Variable Reason for Liking 1. -Neurochemical Impact (freshen the air) s 2. Sensory Impact'— Overall 3. Symbolic Impact— Overall 4. Symbolic Impact— Nature 5. Symbolic Impact— Class 6. Behavioral Impact— Overall 7. Behavioral Impact— Nurturance Sex Nationality Dwelling Whom Lived Present With Location 5.27* 6.52** 3.04* 3.97** Involvement Component 1. Maintenance 15.67*** 2. Intimate Inter** action 7«62 2.76' 2.97* Note. Only F-ratios significant at p £ .05 are entered. *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 58 d i s l i k i n g , and females l i k e d plants for their behavioral impact, especially for their nurturance-satisfying quality,, more so than males. Consistent with these findings, females scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p < .001) higher on the Nurturance subscale of Jackson's (1967) PRF, F(1,98) = 15 .98. In addition, the e f f e c t of places with plants reducing arousal l e v e l was greater for females than males. This agrees with the findings of Campbell (1979) and Mehrabian and Russell (1974) that the emotional impact of environments is greater for females than males. Likely the difference in emotional impact is due to the fact that females, to a greater extent than males, notice and appreciate smells, sounds, sights, tastes, and the way things f e e l ; Jackson's (1967) results indicate that female's score higher than males on the Sentience subscale of the PRF, and this trend was confirmed in the present study, F(1,98) = 5.52, p < .05. That there was no e f f e c t of na t i o n a l i t y on response to indoor plants should be taken l i g h t l y , since 81% of the subjects in this study were of the same nationality (Canadian). With respect to environmental variables and response to indoor greenery, two s i g n i f i c a n t e f f ects were obtained for type of dwelling unit. Inspection of means revealed those l i v i n g in apartments f e l t more pleasant in places with plants and were more involved with caring for th e i r plants, than those who l i v e d in houses or townhouses. In a follow-59 up of these findings, apartment dwellers were found to score s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p,< .05) higher on the Nature subscale of the EPQ than house or townhouse dwellers F(5,94) = 2.38. These results comply with the hypothesis that people who are r e l a t i v e l y isolated from the outdoors, and nature (e.g., people l i v i n g in apartments), compared to those who are-less isolated (e.g., those l i v i n g in houses with yards), w i l l f e e l a greater need for nature contact, and hence w i l l show greater a f f i n i t y towards indoor greenery. Whom the respondent l i v e d with also turned out to be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor. The trend was for those people who l i v e d with their mates to respond more p o s i t i v e l y toward indoor greenery than other people, es p e c i a l l y those who l i v e d alone. This unpredicted finding is somewhat counterintuitive; one would expect people who l i v e alone to perhaps compensate for their loneliness with l i v i n g things such as plants. On the other hand, this finding may r e f l e c t a d i s t i n c t i o n between those who have accepted s e t t l i n g down and a l l that i t e n t a i l s , which includes having potted palms in one's l i v i n g room, and those who have not. F i n a l l y , as with so c i a l status and n a t i o n a l i t y , the general lack of s i g n i f i c a n t results for present location should be interpreted with caution due to l i m i t a t i o n s of the population surveyed in this study (only 21% of respondents l i v e d outside the c i t y ) . 60 STUDY 2: IMPACT OF INDOOR PLANTS ON PLACE QUALITY The purpose of thi s study was to more thoroughly assess the impact of indoor plants on place quality by having subjects rate color s l i d e s of several places on a variety of place quality dimensions. Method Subjects Subjects were 68 UBC undergraduates who were enrolled in either an introductory psychology course (N=34) or a second-year experimental psychology course (N=34) and who volunteered to pa r t i c i p a t e in research. Stimuli Stimuli were color slides of the following four indoor places: 1) the l i v i n g room in the home of a friend of the author; 2) the author's l i v i n g room; 3) the private o f f i c e of a psychology professor at UBC; 4) the psychology graduate student lounge at UBC. Two color s l i d e s of each place were obtained; one of the place without plants, the other of the place with plants. In addition, for each of the two l i v i n g rooms, a t h i r d s l i d e showing the room decorated with furnishings other than plants was obtained. This provided an additional control condition against which to compare the impact of plants. Photographs corresponding to the 10 stimuli are displayed in Figures 1-4. To ensure that the photographs of each place under Figure 3. Place 3 without plants and with plants. Figure k. Place k without plants and with plants. 65 d i f f e r e n t decor conditions were otherwise i d e n t i c a l , a tripod was used to support the camera (a 35 mm Canon.with a wide angle lens) in one place during shooting, and a f l a s h unit was used to obtain consistent l i g h t i n g l e v e l s . Procedure To assess impact of indoor plants on place quality, two experimental sessions were run. Session 1 involved the experimental psychology students; Session 2 involved the introductory psychology students. In each session, subjects were randomly assigned to two groups of 17 subjects . each. One group in each session rated a l l 10 s l i d e s on Russell and Pratt's (1980) scales for pleasantness and arousing quality (Appendix B) and on Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) scale for information rate (Appendix C); the other group rated a l l 10 sl i d e s on perceptual-cognitive and miscellaneous dimensions (Appendix D) and on place s u i t a b i l i t y for a variety of everyday a c t i v i t i e s (Appendix E). The ratings were s p l i t up in t h i s manner to decrease the time required of each subject from approximately two hours to one. In Session 1, subjects rated the s l i d e s in the following order: the author's friend's l i v i n g room, the author's l i v i n g room, the o f f i c e , and the lounge, a l l with plants; the same sequence of places, a l l without' plants; the author's friend's l i v i n g room and the author's l i v i n g room, both with other furnishings. In Session 2, subjects rated the s l i d e s in the same order, except they rated the four 66 slides without plants before the four s l i d e s with plants. With this order manipulation, the study incorporated both a between and a within-subjects design, with respect to the f i r s t two.decor types (Without Plants and With Plants). That i s , a s t r i c t l y within-subjects analysis could be performed by collapsing across order (as would be appropriate i f no order e f f e c t s were found), or, al t e r n a t i v e l y , a s t r i c t l y between-subjects analysis could be performed by using only the data from the f i r s t four s l i d e s rated in each session (as would be appropriate i f order effects were found). With respect to comparisons among a l l three types of decor, the design allowed only for within-subjects analysis. In each session, subjects c o l l e c t i v e l y performed the ratings in their regular classroom. They were informed the purpose of the study was to people's responses to di f f e r e n t places and i n t e r i o r designs; they were not informed s p e c i f i c a l l y about the manipulation of indoor foliage u n t i l the end of the experiment, when they were debriefed. The slid e s were presented i n d i v i d u a l l y , for about five minutes each, u n t i l a l l subjects had finished rating a l l ten s l i d e s . Results and Discussion  Three-Way Analyses of Variance: Decor = Within-Subjects  Factor Three separate sets of analyses were performed on the data from t h i s study. The f i r s t set consisted of a 3-way, 2 67 (decor) x 4 (place) x 2 (slid e order) analysis of variance on each of the 35 place q u a l i t y dependent variables. To allow for a completely crossed design, the Other Furnishings decor condition was excluded from th i s set of analyses. Decor was treated as a within-subjects factor. Results of the f i r s t set of analyses are summarized in Table 16. The essential findings are as follows. F i r s t , the main ef f e c t s for decor were in general agreement with the hypothesized e f f e c t s of indoor greenery on place q u a l i t y . With respect to perceptual-cognitive dimensions, the addition of plants made the places seem of higher information rate and more outdoorsy, natural, curvy, f u l l , and soft. On miscellaneous dimensions, plants made the places appear more fr i e n d l y , a l i v e , expensive, vibrant, peaceful, i n v i t i n g , warm, and personal. Plants also made the places more suitable for the following 6 out of 15 a c t i v i t i e s : study, relax, spend free time, have an intimate conversation, and party. These place s u i t a b i l i t y findings further support the hypothesis that plants influence only certain types of a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those a c t i v i t i e s related to relaxation. Regarding the main effects of decor on a f f e c t i v e q u a l i t y , plants served to increase place pleasantness, as predicted. Contrary to prediction, however, plants served to increase, rather than decrease, the arousing quality of places. This discrepant finding i s discussed in more d e t a i l Table 16 F-ratios: 3-Way, 2(Decor) x 4(Place) x 2(Slide Order) Analyses of Variance on 35 Place Quality Dependent Variables: Decor = Within-Subjects Factor Effect Place Quality Variable Perceptual-Cognitive Information rate Enclosed Outdoors Natural (vs Manmade) Curvy Puny Full Soft Natural (vs Artificial) Affective " Pleasure Arousal D(Decor) P(Place) O(Order) D x P 32.86*** 15.41*** 34.03*** 24.34*** 112.40*** 54.54*** 35-24*** 29.78*** 6.53* 47.16*** 25.07*** 12.89*** 7.60*** 4.01** 57.13*** 13.15*** 13.13*** 21.69*** 42.80*** 10.36* 7.75** 17.05*** 14.30*** 5.18* 3.71 4 1 * 3.11* 6.24*** 8.86*** 4.67** D x 0 4.46* 8.99** 9.37** 5.08* 6.29** 7.19** P x 0 2.89« D x P x 0 6.38 5.27' 2.67* 8.69*** Note. Only F-ratios significant at p £ .05 are entered. Table continued on next two pages. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 ' • * CO Table 16 (continued) E f f e c t Place Qu a l i t y Variable D x P D x O P x O D x P x O Behavioral (Place S u i t a b i l i t y ) Study Chat with f r i e n d s Work on puzzle Sleep Relax L i s t e n to leature Eat Proofread Spend free time Intimate conversation Explore Help Argue Get away Party 19.15*** 18.02*** 18.54*** 4.54* 19.65*** 15.85*** 42.98*** 3.75* 6.08*** 6.61*** 9.90** 27.79*** 4.59* 38.50*** 38.75*** 2.75* 8.01** 15.26*** 7.94** 34 .97*** 3.93** 21.43*** 5.70*** 15.54*** 5.02** 9.21** 6.50*** 6 .84** 4 .24** 3.14* 7.54** 4.36** 10.91** 8.21*** 3.29* 10.32** 9.81** 2.91* 4.62** 3.83** 7.66*** 3.57* 3.21* 4.66** o> Table 16 (continued) Effect Place Quality Variable D P 0 D x P D x 0 P x 0 D x P x I Miscellaneous Friendly 42.54*** 8.22*** 14.98*** 6.21*** 5.77*** Alive 66.83*** 6.30***. 10.00** 5.27** 2.92* Casual 10.02*** Expensive 39.60*** 13.44*** 5 .40** 2.76* Vibrant 39.11*** 3.55* 8.26** 12.62*** Peaceful 29.77*** 9 .14*** 3.01* 4.81** Inviting - 35.14*** 6.59*** 8.06** 6.89*** Warm 48.07*** 6.97*** 14.93*** 4.69** Personal 19.56*** 4.22** 8 .44** 3 .42* 3.16* 071 l a t e r . A s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for place was-discovered for almost every place quality dimension; subjects c l e a r l y f e l t the four places d i f f e r e d in place quality. Also, 23 of a possible 35 decor x place interactions were-significant. Thus, as hypothesized, the impact of indoor greenery on place quality largely depended on the par t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the place involved. Inspection of means for the s i g n i f i c a n t interactions further revealed that, in each case, addition of plants to the already cluttered o f f i c e had l i t t l e or no impact compared to addition of plants to the other, less c l uttered places. This substantiates Campbell's (1979) report of a positive co r r e l a t i o n between the salience and the impact of environmental manipulations. Surveying Table 16, one i s struck by the number of si g n i f i c a n t order e f f e c t s . Inspection of means showed that the order effects tended to be in the same di r e c t i o n ; subjects' who rated the sl i d e s without plants before the sli d e s with plants gave higher o v e r a l l ratings across the 10 sl i d e s (order main e f f e c t ) , and reported greater impact of plants on place quality (decor x order interaction e f f e c t ) , than subjects who rated the s l i d e s with plants f i r s t . An i l l u s t r a t i o n of the decor x order interaction, effect is provided in Figure 5. In t h i s example, places with plants were rated as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more outdoorsy than places 1 OH CO « O «< o E H a 8 8 More Outdoors 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 .2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 Less Outdoors Order 2: Without Plants, With Plants Order 1: With Plants, Without Plants With Plants Figure 5« Without Plants DECOR Decor x order interaction for outdoors ratings. 73 without plants, but only by those subjects who rated the places without plants f i r s t . What is the significance of this unexpected, yet consistent effect of order? At least three alternative interpretations are possible. F i r s t , subjects were not randomly assigned into the two order conditions. Instead, students in one undergraduate psychology course were assigned to one order, while students in a d i f f e r e n t undergraduate course were assigned to the other order. Thus, the order effect may simply r e f l e c t a fundamental difference in the two populations. To rule out t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , a similar experiment would have to be carried out in which subjects were randomly assigned to order condition. In fact, Study 3 of t h i s thesis represents such an experiment. The same consistent order effect emerged in Study 3; hence, th i s interpretation i s untenable. Interpretation number two concerns demand ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the task. At the beginning of the second set of four s l i d e s , which were i d e n t i c a l to the f i r s t set except for the presence or absence of plants, the purpose of the experiment became transparent to the subject. Subjects may thus have rated the remaining s l i d e s according to their b e l i e f s about what the experiementer expected or hoped to f i n d . But t h i s explanation f a i l s to account for the p a r t i c u l a r order e f f e c t that emerged here, whereby subjects in one order condition consistently reported larger 74 differences among the two decor types than subjects in the other order condition. The t h i r d p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the order effect i s not a r t i f a c t u a l at a l l , but instead represents a v a l i d , enlightening discovery concerning the relationship between persons and places. Interpreted in thi s l i g h t , the order eff e c t implies people are most impressed by the special features of a place when they perceive that place immediately after having perceived a place with no special features. It further suggests that the t r a n s i t i o n from a dramatically decorated to a p l a i n l y decorated place has less impact r e l a t i v e to the t r a n s i t i o n from a p l a i n l y to a dramatically decorated place. Salience could be the key to such an asymetry; people seem much more l i k e l y to notice what, has been added to their environment than what has been subtracted from i t . The order effect found in this study may r e f l e c t this fundamental human -bias in response to environmental change. Two-Way Analyses of Variance: Decor = Between-Subjects  Factor Since the f i r s t set of analyses uncovered numerous order e f f e c t s , a second set of analyses was carried out on only those data from the f i r s t four slides rated by each subject. The second set consisted of a 2-way, 2 (decor) x 4 (place) analysis of variance on each of the 35 place qua l i t y dimensions. Decor served as a between-subjects factor in 75 th i s set of analyses, since the f i r s t four s l i d e s rated by half of the subjects corresponded to the four places decorated without plants, while the f i r s t four s l i d e s rated by the other half of the subjects corresponded to the four places decorated with plants. Results from the second set of analyses are presented in Table 17. A quick glance at Table 17 uncovers the central finding: when only the between-subjects data for decor are considered, plants seem to have l i t t l e impact on place q u a l i t y . This finding is perhaps best understood in l i g h t of Garner's (1974) work on the effect of stimulus set on human judgments. Three p r i n c i p l e s i d e n t i f i e d by Garner are p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant here. F i r s t , an individual's evaluation of a stimulus is always dependent on the set of stimulus alternatives that he or she has in mind. Second, when subjects are asked to rate a p a r t i c u l a r set of s t i m u l i , they almost invariably use that set of stimuli as the set of alternatives against which to evaluate any single stimulus in the set. And, t h i r d , the only stimulus dimensions to emerge as i n f l u e n t i a l in stimulus ratings are those that di s t i n g u i s h among the members of the set of stimulus a l t e r n a t i v e s . These three p r i n c i p l e s can adequately explain the discrepancy in this study between the within-subjects and between-subjects analyses of decor. The within-subjects Table 17 F-ratios: 2-Vay, 2 (Decor) x k (Place) Analyses of Variance on 35 Place Quality Variables: Decor = BetveennSubjects Factor Effect Place Quality Variable Perceptual-Cognitive Information rate Enclosed Outdoors Natural (vs Manmade) Curvy Puny Full Soft Natural (vs A r t i f i c i a l ) Affective Pleasure Arousal Behavioral (Place Suitability) Study Chat with friends Work on puzzle Sleep Relax Listen to lecture Eat Proofread Spend free time Intimate conversatio Explore Help Argue Get away Party Miscellaneous Friendly Alive Casual Expensive Vibrant Peaceful Inviting Warm Personal Decor 5.59' 8.56* 7.22* 5.37 Place *f2.35*** 20.'»0*** 8.59"* 5.11** 8.16*** 36.61*** 19.55*** 9.31*** 2^.41*** ^7.87*** 22.Sk*** 22.89*** 3.72* 15.10*** 30.73*** if.16** 3-55* 7.0k*** Zk.Qk*** 22.8't*** 30.67*** <\k.O0*** 36.56*** 10.32*»« 8.02*** 8.98*** 12.53*** 3.21* 11.77*** *t.8l*** 7.0^*** 5.80»»* Decor x Place 2.66* Note. Only F-ratios significant at p < .05 are entered. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 77 analyses included data from the f i r s t eight s l i d e s rated by each subject; according to p r i n c i p l e two, these eight s l i d e s served as the relevant referent set of s t i m u l i . The stimuli in this referent set d i f f e r e d on two obvious dimensions: place and decor. And in accord with p r i n c i p l e three, numerous s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c ts were found for place and decor. The between-subjects analyses included only the f i r s t four s l i d e s rated by each subject; for any subjects, the referent set of stimuli was either the four slides with plants or the four s l i d e s without plants. In either case, the stimuli in the referent set d i f f e r e d on only one obvious dimension—place. Accordingly, numerous ef f e c t s were found for place (see Table 17), but few were found for decor. In other words, in rating the f i r s t four s l i d e s , subjects ' took their task to be discrimination of the four places; to better perform this task, they ignored redundant features among the four places, including the presence (or absence) of indoor plants. What are the implications of the discrepancy between these two sets of analyses with respect to the impact of plants on place quality in the real world? The chief implication i s that the impact of plants on perceived place quality (and hence on behavior) w i l l largely be determined by the set of referent places currently active in the mind of the perceiver.. For instance, a person who has just been in a series of places without plants w i l l be more influenced 78 by a v i s i t to a lounge nicely decorated with plants than a person who v i s i t s the very same lounge after having been in a series of places with plants.. This effect of referent set, especially i f . i t holds for environmental features in general, i s surely an e f f e c t worthy of the attention of environmental psychologists. It means, among other things, that in order to predict a p a r t i c u l a r person's response to a p a r t i c u l a r place, we would have to know the person's currently active referent set of places.. Although i t may be possible in a controlled experiment to manipulate the referent set by manipulating exposure to previous places, to predict a person's current referent set in the real world seems l i k e a formidable task. Just knowing a person's history of places for the day, which would be a complication in i t s e l f , would not be enough. For the process of choosing a referent set for any place l i k e l y varies from place to place, and i s probably influenced by a number of factors, as yet unmapped. For example, during a sightseeing tour, we may well compare each new sight with the set of sights previously seen that day. When we go to a restaurant, however, we are more l i k e l y to compare i t to memories of previous v i s i t s there, or to other restaurants, than to other places we have seen that day. Unfortunately, l i t t l e research has been done on t h i s i n t r i g u i n g aspect of the relationship between people and places. Somewhat relavant is Shank and Abelson's (e.g., 79 1977) work on the " s c r i p t s " people use as references for t y p i c a l experiences such as dining in a restaurant or v i s i t i n g the doctor. More relevant, perhaps, i s Ward and Russel's (Note 2) adaptation of Minsky's (1975) frame theory to environmental psychology. Their analysis is. plan orientated--that i s , they f e e l that people's interactions with places, including place evaluations, are largely determined by the plans they s t r i v e to execute in those places. Ward and Russell's analysis implies that the referent set of places t y p i c a l l y activated by a person in any place would consist not of a set of places per se, but rather of the prototypical or "best" place for executing the pa r t i c u l a r plan the person has in mind. Thus, the person's evaluation of the quality of the place would be commensurate with his or her evaluation of how suitable the place was for execution of the plan. Indoor Plants versus Other Furnishings A t h i r d set of analyses was conducted to compare ratings across a l l three decor conditions. This set of analyses included responses to the six s l i d e s of the two l i v i n g rooms. Two separate sets of analyses were actually performed, one for each s l i d e order; s l i d e order could not be included as a factor, since i t was not completely crossed with the three types of decor. The set of analyses for each sl i d e order consisted of a one-way, within-subjects analysis of variance, plus two planned pairwise comparisons among 80 means (Other Furnishings versus Without Plants, and Other Furnishings versus With Plants), for each of the 35 place quality dimensions. Bonferroni t s t a t i s t i c , otherwise known as Dunn's procedure, was used to assess the planned comparisons (see Kirk, 1968). The analysis for each dimension was treated as a separate experiment , and an experiment-wise error rate of p < .10 was used. Tables 18 and 19 display the results of the t h i r d set of analyses. Of p a r t i c u l a r relevance are the planned comparisons between the With Plants and Other Furnishings decor conditions. Although the means reveal a very consistent trend for the With Plants condition to score higher than the Other Furnishings condition on almost every place quality dimension, only a few of these differences reached sign i f i c a n c e . For Slide Order 1 (With Plants, Without Plants, Other Furnishings), the two l i v i n g rooms were rated as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more natural and as more suitable for getting away from i t a l l when they were decorated with plants than when they were decorated with other furnishings. For Slide Order 2 (Without Plants, With Plants, Other Furnishings), the l i v i n g rooms were rated as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more soft, natural, pleasant, and a l i v e when they were decorated with plants. One possible interpretation of these findings is that l i t t l e i s unique about the impact of indoor greenery on place qu a l i t y . On the other hand, given the importance of 8V Table 18 Cbmparisori of Means for 3 Decor Conditions on 35 Place Quality Dependent Variables: Slide Order 1 M e a n Overall Difference F-ratio Between Means Place Quality Variable WOP WP 0 0-WOP WP-0 Perceptual-Cognitive Information rate 56.8 59.6 66.7 8.9"* 10.0' Enclosed 4.4 5.5 5.7** 1.1* Outdoors 1.7 2.1 2.1 Natural (vs Man-made) 2.8 4.0 3-2 7.0** Curvy .2.8 3.6 3.7 Puny 6.1 5.5 5.6 3.8; Full 2.7 4.8 •5.8 33-1*** 3-1* Soft 3.3 5.3 4.7 13.2*** 1.38* Natural (vs A r t i f i c i a l ) 3.1 5.2 3.6 13-9*** 1.5* Affective Pleasure -7.7 10.2 2.9 26.7*** 10.65* Arousal -8.6 -5.3 -1.2 7.48** 7.36* Behavioral (place suitability) Study 3-3 3.9 3.8 Chat with friends 3I8 5.8 5.2 28.36*** 1.4* Work on puzzle 3.7 4.6 4.1 3-7* Sleep 2.9 3.5 3.0 Relax 3.7 5.6 4.9 13.1*** Listen to lecture 3-3 2.9 3-1 Eat 3-7 3-8 ' 3.7 Proofread 4.1 4.8 4.4 • Spend free time 2.9 5.1 4.1 11.9*** Intimate converstion 4.0 5.5 5.2 7.3" Explore 2.3 3.1 2.9 6.6" Help 4.1 5.3 4.5 7.0»» Argue 5.1 4.5 4.5 Get away 2.6 4.6 3.3 15-9*** 1.3* Party 3.4 5-1 • 3-9 8.3»»* Miscellaneous Friendly 3.2 5.8 5.7 32.7*** 2.5* Alive 2.9 5.4 5.1 24.8*** 2.2* Casual 5.7 6.7 6.3 3.3* Expensive 3.5 5.5 4.5 11.1*** Vibrant 2.6 4.7 4.0 25.79*** 1.4* Peaceful 4.3 6.3 5.4 12.1*** Inviting 3.3 5.5 5.1 25.1*** 1.9* Warm 3.0 5.5 5-3 39.0*** 2.3* Personal 3.0 4.8 5.2 19.59*" 2.2* Note. WOP = Without Plants. WP = •p < .05 **p < .01 '"p < .001 With Plants. 0 = Other Furnishings. 82 Table 19 Comparison of Means for 3 Decor Conditions on 35 Place Quality Dependent Variables: Slide Order 2 Mean Place Quality Variable WOP WP 0 I Perceptual-Cognitive Information rate 60.0 69.7 70.5 31.6»»» Enclosed 5 . * 5.2 6.0 Outdoors 1.6 3.2 2.6 10 .1 * * * Natural (vs Man-made) 3.8 5.6 3-5 17 .2* * * Curvy 2.7 4.6 3 ^ 1 2 . 4 » » * Puny 5.6 6.2 6.0 Full 4.1 6.2 5-2 16.3*** Soft 4.7 6.0 4.4 15 .2* * * Natural (vs A r t i f i c i a l ) 3-7 5-4 3.5 13-9*** Affective Pleasure 1.6 7.1 -4.9 8.3*** Arousal -9.2 - 1 . 7 -3.0 9-9*** Behavioral (Place Suitability) Study 4.1 3-5 3.5 Chat with friends 5.4 5.6 5.3 Work on puzzle 4.5 4.2 4.2 Sleep 3.5 3.7 3.5 Relax 5.0 5.6 4.8 Listen to lecture 2.7 3.1 2.8 Eat 4.1 3-8 3.2 5-0* Proofread 4.5 4.5 4.0 Spend free time 4.9 4.5 4.2 3.5* Intimate conversation 4.4 5-3 4.8 Explore 2.8 3-5 3.4 Help 5.1 5.0 5.0 Argue 4.1 3-7 3-8 Get away 3-3 3.2 Party 4.7 4.8 4.4 Miscellaneous Friendly 5 - 1 6.3 5.1 4.3* Alive 4.1 6.2 4.4 14 .1 * * * Casual 6.9 6.3 5.8 5 .5* Expensive 4.0 4.7 4.6 Vibrant 3.7 5-4 4.2 1 0 . 1 * * * Peaceful 5.6 6.1 5.4 Inviting 4.4 5.8 4.9 5.6* Warm 4.8 6.1 5.2 3-4* Personal 4.3 5.2 4.6 Overall Difference F-ratio Between Means 0-WOP WP-0 1.0s 1.6* 1.9* 12.0* 6.3* 1.8* -1.2* Note. WOP = Without Plants. WP *P 1 -05 **P < .01 ***p < .001 = With Plants. 0 = Other Furnishings. 83 the natural versus man-made dimension in response to places (e.g.., Kaplan et a l . , 1 972; Ward and Russell, 1981), the greater impact of plants on t h i s one dimension, in and of i t s e l f , represents an important difference between plants and other furnishings. And the corresponding greater impact of plants on the pleasure dimension i s equally s i g n i f i c a n t . Of course the point can be made that the other furnishings used here were hardly spectacular and had a professional i n t e r i o r decorator supplied and arranged other furnishings, they l i k e l y would have had much greater impact on place pleasantness. But had a professional interiorscaper supplied and arranged indoor plants, they too l i k e l y would have had much greater impact on place pleasantness. Thus the point seems to be a moot one. Perhaps i t is best to conclude that, although environmental features other than indoor greenery can surely effect dramatic improvements in place quality, none i s l i k e l y to have exactly the same impact across the various dimensions of place quality as indoor greenery. Note although a difference in pleasure was found between plants and other furnishings for Slide Order 2, there was no difference between the two decors in terms of information rate. This provides further evidence for Kaplan's (1978) assertion that the impact of natural stimuli on pleasure i s largely independent of the impact of natural stimuli on environmental complexity. 84 The comparisons between the Without P l a n t s and Other F u r n i s h i n g s decor c o n d i t i o n s are i n f o r m a t i v e in. the. f o l l o w i n g sense. An order e f f e c t i s apparent; the two decor c o n d i t i o n s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on three times as many dimensions i n Order 1 as i n Order 2. Thus, s u b j e c t s who r a t e d the p l a c e s decorated with other f u r n i s h i n g s immediately a f t e r having r a t e d the p l a c e s decorated i n a sparse manner repo r t e d g r e a t e r impact of other f u r n i s h i n g s on p l a c e q u a l i t y than s u b j e c t s who r a t e d the p l a c e s decorated with other f u r n i s h i n g s immediately a f t e r having r a t e d the p l a c e s decorated with p l a n t s . T h i s order e f f e c t i s c o n s i s t e n t with the order e f f e c t found i n the f i r s t set of a n a l y s e s , and indeed i m p l i e s that the e a r l i e r f i n d i n g can be g e n e r a l i z e d to f u r n i s h i n g s other than indoor p l a n t s . 85 STUDY 3: IMPACT OF INDOOR PLANTS ON PLACE QUALITY--A VALIDATION OF STUDY 2 The purpose of t h i s study was to use an actual place to validate the findings of Study 2. Of p a r t i c u l a r interest was whether th i s study would replicate the findings regarding place order, referent set of places, and arousing q u a l i t y . An additional purpose of t h i s study was to obtain dire c t ratings of the place used to examine behavior-in-place in Study 4. Method Subjects Subjects were 28 UBC undergraduates, 19 males and 9 females, who were enrolled in an introductory psychology course and who volunteered to p a r t i c i p a t e in research. The 28 subjects were randomly assigned to two groups of 14 subjects each. Stimuli The place used was the same UBC psychology graduate student lounge that served as photographic stimulus in Study 2. The lounge measured 23 feet long by 10 feet wide by 7 feet high. It contained no windows and was lighted by overhead flourescent bulbs. At the end of the room opposite the door was a large portable chalk board. Two decor conditions were used in t h i s study: With Plants and Without Plants. For each condition, the lounge was decorated 86 exactly the same way as in the corresponding decor condition in Study 2 (see Figure 4). . Procedure A two (decor) x two (order) f a c t o r i a l design was used in t h i s study. Each group of subjects rated the quality of the lounge under both decor conditions, but in a diff e r e n t order. For each decor condition, each subject rated the lounge on a l l the scales used in Study 2: Russell and Pratt's (1980) scales for pleasantness and arousing quality (Appendix B); Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) information rate scale (Appendix C); perceptual-cognitive and miscellaneous dimensions (Appendix D), and place s u i t a b i l i t y for various a c t i v i t i e s (Appendix E). The ratings were performed in four consecutive sessions l a s t i n g about 10 minutes each. In the f i r s t and t h i r d sessions, one group of subjects rated the lounge with plants and without plants, respectively. In the second and fourth sessions, the other group of subjects rated the lounge without plants and with plants, respectively. While one group performed the ratings, the other group waited in a large undergraduate student lounge that contained no plants. Subjects were informed that the purpose of the study was to investigate people's responses to d i f f e r e n t i n t e r i o r designs; they were not informed s p e c i f i c a l l y about the manipulation of indoor foliage u n t i l the end of the experiment, when they were debriefed. Although the lounge 87 contained a number of raters at a time, subjects were asked to imagine and to rate the lounge as i f i t contained no people, which i s how the lounge appeared to subjects in Study 2. Results and Discussion Two separate sets of analyses were carried out on the data from th i s study. The f i r s t set consisted of a 2-way, 2 (decor) x 2 (order) analysis of variance on each of the 35 place q u a l i t y dimensions. Decor served as a within-subjects factor. In the second set, only the data from the f i r s t decor condition rated by each subject was analysed. Thus, the order factor was dropped, and decor served as a between-subjects factor. This set of analyses consisted simply of a t-test comparing means for the two decor conditions on each of the 35 place quality dimensions. Results for the two sets of analyses are summarized in Tables 20 and 21, respectively. As a scan of these tables reveals, results of t h i s study in large part confirm the findings of Study 2. With respect to the decor main ef f e c t s for the within-subjects analyses, precisely the same perceptual-cognitive, a f f e c t i v e , and miscellaneous place quality dimensions were found to be influenced by indoor plants, and in the same di r e c t i o n , as in Study 2. Of p a r t i c u l a r note i s the finding concerning arousing quality; again, contrary to prediction, Table 20 F-ratios: 2-Way, 2 (Decor) x 2 (Order) Analyses of Variance on 35 Place Quality Variables: Decor = Witain-Subjects Factor 88 Effect Place Quality Variable Perceptual-Cognitive Information rate Enclosed Outdoors Natural (vs Manmade) Curvy Puny Full Soft Natural (vs A r t i f i c i a l ) Affective Pleasure Arousal Behavioral (Place Suitability) Study Chat with friends Work on puzzle Sleep Relax Listen to lecture Eat Proofread Spend free time Intimate conversation Explore Help Argue Get away Party Miscellaneous Friendly Alive Casual Expensive Vibrant Peaceful Inviting Warm Personal Decor 15.94*** 13.09*** 79.29*** 28.87*** 12.83*** 20.08*** 56.79*** 58.96*** 7.66** 7.55* 4.70 10.77** 13.00*** 7.98** 4.75* 13-62*** 57.64*** 14.75*** 13.60*** 22.99*** 30.25*** 45.51*** 21.11*** Order 6.4V 4.91* 5.82* 18.29* 4.51* 13.93*** 11.76** 6.90* 7.14* Decor x Order 10.27** 19.37*** 23.25*** 7.92* 13.90*** 5.04* 5.79* Note. Only F-ratios significant at p < .05 are entered. • p < .05 *• p < .01 ••• p £ .001 89 Table 21 Comparison of Means of 2 Decor Conditions on 35 Place Quality Variables: Decor = Between-Subjects Factor Mean t-ratio Place Quality Variable Perceptual-Cognitive Information rate Enclosed Outdoors Natural (vs Manmade) Curvy Puny Full o Soft Natural (vs A r t i f i c i a l ) Affective Pleasure Arousal Behavioral (Place Suitability) Study Chat with friends Work on puzzle Sleep Relax Listen to lecture Eat Proofread Spend free time Intimate conversation Explore Help Argue Get away Party Miscellaneous Frinedly Alive Casual Expensive Vibrant Peaceful Inviting Warm Personal .. Without plants With Plants 61.57 7.^3 1.07 1.64 1.89 6.79 6.07 3-21 2.14 -5 .29 -13-29 5.43 5.50 5.64 4.57 4.43 3.64 4.29 5-93 2.07 4.71 1.71 5.36 4.93 3.36 2.50 4.43 2.86 6.36 2.64 3-43 5.79 3.97 4.14 3.00 62.71 6.86 2.29 3.93 2.50 7.00 6.50 5.40 4.29 5.86 V12.07 5.21 5.00 4.71 4.14 4.71 4.50 3-93 5.64 2.64 4.29 2.00 5.31 3-93 3-50 2.36 4.93 4.43 5.86 3.50 4.14 5.71 4.43 5.14 3.64 6.66» 8.87* 7.45* 12.25" 7.62* Note. Only t-ratios significant at p £ .05 are entered. • 05 " p f .01 90 addition of plants served to increase the perceived arousing quality of a place. Concerning the impact of plants on place s u i t a b i l i t y , although the sets of relevant behaviors that emerged across the two studies were not i d e n t i c a l , the general trend was the same; plants had an impact on place s u i t a b i l i t y only for certain behaviors. In this study, plants increased place s u i t a b i l i t y for relaxing, eating, spending free time, intimate conversation, exploring, and helping or cooperating with other people. Once again, there were a number of s i g n i f i c a n t order e f f e c t s , a l l of which were in the same di r e c t i o n as those found in Study 3. That i s , plants exerted a greater impact on perceived place quality for subjects who saw the lounge with plants after having f i r s t seen the lounge without plants (decor x order i n t e r a c t i o n ) . Correspondingly, the same subjects tended to rate the lounge higher on the various dimension across the two decor conditions than subjects in the other order condition (order main e f f e c t ) . And once again, when only the between-subjects data were considered, plants appeared to have considerably less impact on place q u a l i t y . As with Study 2, t h i s discrepancy can be explained by the d i f f e r e n t sets of reference places involved in the two analyses. In the present case, however, i t i s harder to pinpoint the referent set involved in the between-subjects analyses; since the subject rated only one place, he or she had to infer a set of alternative places. 91 This set could have consisted of other places in general, other places the subject had v i s i t e d that day, other student lounges, or other imagined decoration schemes for the same lounge. Furthermore, which of these referent sets was activated l i k e l y varied from subject to subject. The essential point i s , for any of these referent sets, presence of plants was not the only or even a p a r t i c u l a r l y salient dimension, while for the referent set involved in the within-subjects analysis ( i . e . , the lounge with and without plants), presence of plants was the only dimension that d i f f e r e n t i a t e d among the two members of the set. The particular place quality variables that did come through as s i g n i f i c a n t in the between-subjects analyses are worth noting, since they represent the aspects of place q u a l i t y upon which indoor greenery exerts the most powerful impact. Thus, indoor plants are especially e f f e c t i v e at making a place seem more outdoorsy, more natural, more a l i v e , and more pleasant. 92 STUDY 4: IMPACT OF A PLACE WITH PLANTS ON BEHAVIOR-IN-PLACE The purpose of t h i s study was to assess the impact of a place with plants on mood response, task persistence, \task performance, and helping behavior. It was predicted the place . with plants would increase pleasure and. thereby f a c i l i t a t e task persistence and helping behavior. It was uncertain whether the place with plants would decrease arousal, in l i n e with reports of Study 1 respondents that they f e l t less aroused in places with plants, or increase arousal, in l i n e with ratings of Study 2 and 3 subjects that places with plants are more arousing than places without plants. Complex task performance was expected to be f a c i l i t a t e d by low arousal, or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , worsened by high arousal, in accord with Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) discussion. Method Subjects Subjects were 15 male and 9 female UBC undergraduates. Of the 24 subjects, 17 participated in the study for c r e d i t towards an environmental psychology course, while the others participated for pay. Subjects were randomly assigned to two groups of 12 subjects each. Stimuli The stimulus for any participant in t h i s study was the experimental room in which the participant found himself or 93 herself. The experimental, room was. the same UBC psychology graduate student lounge used.and described in Studies 2 and 3. Two decor conditions were used: With Plants and Without Plants (see Figure 4). Table 21 provides a detailed description of the lounge under both conditions. Table 21 implies that in this study, subjects in the With Plants condition would perceive the lounge as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more outdoorsy, natural, pleasant, and a l i v e than subjects in the Without Plants condition. Procedure A between-subjects design was used; behavioral measures were obtained for one group of subjects under the With Plants decor condition and for the other group of subjects under the Without Plants decor condition. Subjects were tested i n d i v i d u a l l y and received i d e n t i c a l instructions irrespective of which condition they were i n . The procedure was also i d e n t i c a l for a l l subjects, except that subjects in the With Plants condition completed a postexperiment evaluation of the plants while those in the Without Plants condition did not, and that half of the subjects in each group performed the persistence task before the complex task while the other half performed the complex task f i r s t . After entering the experimental room, the subject was seated behind the wooden desk and informed that "the purpose of the study is to determine the ef f e c t s of noise on task performance and mood". To make this more plausible, a tape 94 deck , amplifier, and set of headphones sat on a bench beside the subject. The subject was then informed that he .or she had been randomly assigned into the control condition and thus would not be exposed to noise, but would simply s i t doing nothing for the f i r s t 10 minutes of. the experiment, the - comparable time during which subjects in the experimental condition were exposed to noise. The experiment proper then proceeded, according to the following sequence of events: 1) 10 minutes of passive exposure to the room, 2) completion of a mood scale (Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) scale for pleasure and arousal); 3) performance of either the persistence task or the complex task; 4) completion of a mood scale; 5) fi v e minutes of passive exposure to the room; 6) performance of the second task; 7) completion of a mood scale. Throughout the experiment the experimenter (the author) was present in the room in order to instruct the subject and to time the various phases of the experiment; during periods when the subject sat doing nothing, the experimenter busied himself studying. After completion of the sequence described above, the subject was taken to a d i f f e r e n t room where he or she completed a postexperiment questionnaire (Appendix F) and was then debriefed. Included in the postexperiment questionnaire was a written request that the subject volunteer to parti c i p a t e without pay in a future experiment. The amount of time volunteered was used as a measure of 95 helping.behavior. The persistence task and complex task are described below in d e t a i l . To assess task persistence, the insoluble puzzle task originally,proposed by Feather (1961) and used extensively in environmental studies by Glass and Singer (e.g., 1972), was used. On the desk in front of the subject, sheets were placed in four p i l e s , each p i l e containing one of the four geometric designs shown in Figure 6. Subjects were to l d the task was to trace over a l l the l i n e s of each diagram without tracing any l i n e twice or l i f t i n g their pencil from the figure. They were told that i f unsuccessful, they were to turn the sheet they were working on face down and pick up a fresh sheet from the p i l e in front of them for a further try . Subjects were instructed that after having solved a puzzle or deciding they could not solve i t , they were to move on to the next one. They were to l d that once they had started a new puzzle, they could not go back and work on previous puzzles. The f i r s t and t h i r d puzzles were insoluble, the second and last soluble. The experimenter timed how long the subject worked on each p i l e of puzzles by means of a stop watch. If a subject worked on one p i l e of puzzles for 15 minutes, he or she was t o l d to go on to the next puzzle. Actually, due to time contraints, the task was terminated after the subject finished the second puzzle. The duration Soluble Soluble 1 97 of time the subject spent on the.insoluble puzzle was used as the measure of task persistence. Note th i s puzzle task has been variously interpreted as a measure of persistence (e.g., Feather, 1961), of tolerance for f r u s t r a t i o n (Glass and Singer, 1972), and of resistance to f r u s t r a t i o n (Wohlwill, Nasar, DeJoy, and Foruzani, 1976). To assess complex task performance, a proofreading task was used. Subjects were required to proofread a two-page passage of text (Appendix G) containing numerous errors including misspellings, grammatical mistakes, incorrect punctuation, transpositions, and typographical errors. They were told to read each page c a r e f u l l y , detect and underline, but not actually correct, the errors, and place check marks in the margin at the l e v e l of the errors. They were instructed to work as quickly as possible, and were stopped afte r having worked on the task for five minutes. Quality of performance was measured as a percentage of errors that could have been detected at the point the subject was t o l d to stop work. Quantity of performance was measured as the number of errors found. Results and Discussion Mood Response A three-way analysis of variance (decor x time x task order) was performed separately for each of the two mood dimensions—pleasure and arousal. Results for pleasure revealed the following. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect 98 (p < .05) for decor,. F (1,20) = 5.58; subjects in the With Plants condition f e l t more pleasant than those in the Without Plants condition. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main effect (p < .05) for time, F (2,40) = 3.60; pleasure was lower at Time 2 and Time 3 (after the tasks) than at Time 1 (after i n i t i a l passive, exposure to the room). And there was a highly s i g n i f i c a n t interaction effect (p < .001) for time x task order, F (2,40) =7.82; subjects f e l t more pleasant after performing the puzzle task ( i . e . , at Time 2 in the p u z z l e - f i r s t order condition or Time 3 in the proofreading-f i r s t order condition) than after performing the proofreading task ( i . e . , at Time 3 in the p u z z l e - f i r s t order condition or Time 2 in the proofreading-first order condition). As an aside, t h i s l a t t e r finding argues against interpretation of the puzzle task, at least as performed here, as a p a r t i c u l a r l y f r u s t r a t i n g experience. Results for arousal revealed two highly s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s (p < .001). The time main e f f e c t , F (2,40) = 48.81, showed arousal l e v e l was higher after performing either of the two tasks than after i n i t a l passive exposure to the room. The decor x time interaction e f f e c t , F (2,40) = 8.35, i s i l l u s t r a t e d in Figure 4. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons of means showed subjects in the With Plants decor condition f e l t s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p < .05) less aroused at Time 1, t(20) = 2.76, and marginally (p < .07) more aroused at Time 2, t (.20) = 2.02, and at Time 3, t(20) = 1.96, than ho L exposure to room TIME Figure 7. Decor x Time i n t e r a c t i o n for arousal mood response. 100 subjects in the Without Plants condition. This implies subjects in the With Plants condition were rendered p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive to the arousing impact of the tasks by i n i t i a l l y experiencing very low arousal l e v e l . This interesting rebound effect suggests, counter i n t u i t i v e l y , that taking short work breaks in a calming environment may serve to heighten rather than lower arousal level during subsequent work periods. To summerize, after the i n i t i a l 10 minutes of passive exposure to the room, subjects in the With Plants condition f e l t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more pleasant and less aroused than subjects in the Without Plants condition. These findings support the o r i g i n a l hypotheses put forth in the introduction and are consistent with respondent's reports in Study 1 concerning how they f e l t in places with plants. On the other hand, the arousal e f f e c t i s inconsistent with the results of Studies 2 and 3, in which places with plants were judged to be, i f anything, more arousing than places without plants. Why t h i s discrepancy? One explanation suggested i t s e l f upon comparison of the two scales in question. Russell and Pratt's (1980) scale for measuring arousal quality of places contains an " a l i v e " item, while Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) scale for measuring arousal mood response does not. Since plants exert a powerful impact on the " a l i v e " dimension of place qu a l i t y (see Studies 2 and 3), t h i s 101 difference in the. two scales may have caused the discrepancy. Inspection of the raw data indicated, however, that t h i s factor could not f u l l y account for the discrepancy. Perhaps, in addition, the calming effect of indoor greenery occurs only after a person has spent some time s e t t l i n g into a place. Task Persistence Since several subjects persisted at the insoluble puzzle task for the maximum 15 minutes, comparison of the mean time spent on the puzzle was deemed inappropriate for testing the hypothesis that subjects in the With Plants condition would show greater task persistence than those in the Without Plants condition. Instead, the number of subjects who persisted for the maximum 15 minutes in the two decor c o n d i t i o n s — 7 of 12 in the With Plants condition (4 from one task order condition plus 3 from the other) and 2 of -12 in the Without Plants condition (1 from each task order c o n d i t i o n ) — were compared using the Pirie-Hamden formula for chi-square with small frequencies (Downie and Heath, 1974). The difference was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the p < .05 l e v e l , X 2 (1) = 4.37, indicating greater persistence in the With Plants condition. It i s possible that t h i s finding r e f l e c t s a basic difference between the two groups of subjects in puzzle solving a b i l i t y rather than a mood-related difference due to the plant manipulation; more subjects in the With Plants 102 condition may have persisted simply because they had less a b i l i t y to detect whether the puzzle was soluble or not. During debriefing, however, no more subjects in the Without Plants condition than in the With Plants- condition reported having detected the insoluble nature of the puzzle (there were two such subjects in each condition).. As well, a l l subjects were able to solve the soluble puzzle in less than two minutes, and a two-way (decor x task order) analysis of variance showed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among . the conditions in mean time required to solve that puzzle. Thus, the two groups of subjects appeared comparable in puzzle solving a b i l i t y , and the task persistence difference i s best interpreted in terms of the plant manipulation. Complex Task Performance A two-way (decor x task order) analysis of variance was conducted separately for quality of performance and quantity of performance on the proofreading task. No s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were found for quantity of performance; subjects in d i f f e r e n t conditions detected the same number of errors. For q u a l i t y of performance, however, a s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .05) main effect was found for decor, F (1,20) =5.79, and for order, F (1,20) = 4.03. Subjects in the With Plants decor condition, compared to those in the Without Plants dondition, performed worse; their percentage of errors found of the t o t a l number that could have been detected in the amount of text covered was lower. This finding i s contrary 103 to hypothesized relationship between presence of plants, reduced arousal, and improved performance on complex tasks., Possibly, the proofreading task used here requires a higher l e v e l of arousal for optimal performance than was experienced by subjects in the With Plants condition. That the proofreading task requires a f a i r l y high l e v e l of arousal for optimal performance i s supported by the s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for order; subjects performed worse when the task immediately followed 10 minutes of calming, passive exposure to the room than when the task was preceded by performance of the arousing puzzle task. Helping Behavior There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two decor conditions in either number of subjects who volunteered to par t i c i p a t e in future research (four subjects in the With Plants condition, three in the Without Plants condition), or mean time volunteered (11.25 and 12.50 minutes, respectively). Failure to find the hypothesized relationship between presence of plants, increased pleasantness of mood, and increased helping behavior may be attributable to the time at which helping behavior was measured. The request for volunteer time occurred at the conclusion of the experiment; the mood response results indicate that by then, the difference in pleasure between the two decor conditions had been greatly reduced -by mood effe c t s of the two tasks. If helping behavior had been 104 assessed instead at Time 1, a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of decor may have been found. Postexperiment Questionnaire As a check against the effectiveness of the cover story used in this study, at the end of the experiment subjects were asked to write down their b e l i e f s concerning the hypotheses the experimenter was testing. None of the subjects mentioned indoor plants. A l l subjects were also asked to describe the experience of p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the experiment on four mood dimensions; distressing-relaxing, exciting-gloomy, pleasant-unpleasant, and arousing-unarousing. Although group means suggested that subjects in the With Plants decor condition rated the experience as more relaxing, exciting, and pleasant than those in the Without Plants condition, these trends were not s i g n i f i c a n t ; a two-way (decor x task order) analysis of variance for each dimension revealed only one s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t — s u b j e c t s in the With Plants decor condition rated the experience as (p < .05) more arousing than- those in the Without Plants condition, F (1,20) = 4.08. This i s consistent with the higher arousal l e v e l reported by With Plants subjects at the end of the experiment. Subjects in the With Plants decor condition were asked several questions dealing s p e c i f i c a l l y with plants. As an extra check on the cover story, they were d i r e c t l y asked whether they suspected the manipulation of plants in the 105 experiment; 4 of 12 subjects said they had. Their suspicions were aroused by the lack of windows in the room, but were allayed by the subsequent observation that the room was.lighted by flourescent lamps which they took to be "grow" lamps (special flourescent l i g h t s used for growing plants). The.subjects' estimates of how - many plants had been in the experimental room ranged from 2 to 7, mean = 4.75 (the actual number was 7). They reported gazing at the plants from 1 to 10 minutes, mean = 5.75 minutes. When asked the extent to which the presence of plants affected their mood, only 1 answered "not at a l l " , 2 answered " s l i g h t l y " , 4 answered "moderately", and 3 answered "much so". When asked what effect the plants had on their proofreading performance, 2 said the plants made their performance s l i g h t l y worse, 7 said plants had no e f f e c t , and 3 said the plants made their performance at least s l i g h t l y better. With respect to performance on the puzzle task, half the subjects reported the plants had no e f f e c t , while the other half reported the plants made their performance at least s l i g h t l y better. On the average, subjects rated the plants on 9-step bipolar scales as follows: 6.00 relaxing (versus d i s t r e s s i n g ) , 5.75 exciting (versus gloomy), 8.17 pleasant (versus unpleasant), and 5.50 arousing (versus unarousing). F i n a l l y , when asked to indicate on a 9-step bipolar scale how much they l i k e d indoor plants in general, subjects scored a mean of 8.25 l i k e (versus d i s l i k e ) . 106 CONCLUSIONS Prior to t h i s thesis, l i t t l e was known empirically about the role of indoor greenery in person-environment interactions. This thesis has f i l l e d that void, at least in part. Along the way, engaging facts were discovered not only about indoor plants per se, but also about more general underlying relationships between persons and places. Are people t r u l y crazy .about indoor plants? In many respects, yes they are. Study 1 found people to be generally very pos i t i v e in their attitudes toward indoor plants. Respondents evinced a high degree of l i k i n g of indoor plants, and ranked plants above alternative furnishings such as ornaments, sculpture, and paintings. But few people are crazy about taking care of plants. Instead, they appreciate the aesthetic q u a l i t i e s of plants; they enjoy gazing at, touching, and smelling them. On the odd occasion, they may even name or talk to their plants. People also derive s a t i s f a c t i o n from the symbolic link plants provide to the outdoors, nature, l i f e , and growth. And some people are more crazy about indoor foliage than others. To produce a plant "nut", combine the following ingredients: member of the female sex, strong general environmental preference for nature and for the suburbs, and high scores on sentience and nurturance personality t r a i t s . Then, for optimal r e s u l t s , ensure that 1 07 the person l i v e s in an apartment rather than a house, and with a mate rather .than alone. Do indoor plants exert a . dramatic impact on place quality? Well to a large extent, i t depends. This i s the pr i n c i p l e message of Studies 2 and 3. It depends, for one thing, on the place involved. Plants had l i t t l e impact on the q u a l i t y of an o f f i c e that was very cluttered and high on information rate compared to other places. This highlights the importance of salience in response to environmental features (see also Campbell, 1979). It depends, for another thing, on the referent set of places currently active in the mind of the perceiver. When the referent set contains places that d i f f e r c h i e f l y with respect to the presence of indoor plants, the impact on perceived place quality i s s t r i k i n g . When the referent set contains places that do not vary with respect to indoor plants, or places that vary with respect not only to indoor plants but to a number of other features as well, the impact on perceived place quality is much less s t r i k i n g . This too highlights the importance of salience in response to environmental features. And i t also depends on the order in which a person experiences places. People perceive greater impact of indoor greenery on place q u a l i t y when they experience places with plants after having experienced places without plants than when they experience the two kinds of decor in the 108 opposite order. Perhaps th i s r e f l e c t s an inherent . bias of people to take greater note of what has been added to their environment than what has been subtracted.from i t . If so, salience once again is implicated as a key factor in person-environment interactions. Concerning the impact of indoor greenery on the behavioral component of place q u a l i t y , i t depends on the a c t i v i t y involved. Plants increase place s u i t a b i l i t y only for certain a c t i v i t i e s , most of which are related to relaxation. This is consistent with the relaxing impact of places with plants in mood. In a di f f e r e n t sense, though, thi s finding is interpretable in terms of referent set. When we evaluate the s u i t a b i l i t y of a place for executing a c t i v i t y plans, d i f f e r e n t referent sets, of places are l i k e l y activated for di f f e r e n t plans. For instance, for sleeping, the set of other places where we have slept would be activated, while for eating, the set of other places where we have eaten would be activated. For some plans, such as sleeping and l i s t e n i n g to a lecture, the presence of indoor plants i s not a salient feature of the referent set, while for other plans, such as eating or relaxing, i t i s . We would expect indoor plants to influence judgments of place s u i t a b i l i t y with respect to the l a t t e r type of a c t i v i t y plans only.. The impact of indoor greenery on place quality depends, furthermore, on the control condition being considered. Not' 109 surpris i n g l y , plants showed greater impact in rel a t i o n to places sparsely decorated than to places decorated with other furnishings. S t i l l , in comparison to other furnishings examined here, plants did exert greater impact on several dimensions of place q u a l i t y : naturalness, softness, aliveness, pleasantness, and s u i t a b i l i t y for getting away from i t a l l . One thing the impact of indoor greenery on place • q u a l i t y did not depend on was whether the stimuli were d i r e c t l y perceived places or color s l i d e s of places; the results of Study 3 in large part validated the findings of Study 2. This complies with previous findings that photographic stimuli provide a good approximation to actual environments (Appleyard and Craik, 1978; Seaton and C o l l i n s , 1972; Wood, 1975, c i t e d in G i f f o r d , 1976). What impact do places with plants exert , in turn, on human behavior? Study 4, although e s s e n t i a l l y exploratory in nature, provided some engaging suggestive evidence. I n i t i a l passive exposure to a place with plants served to increase pleasure mood response and decrease arousal, as predicted. An int r i g u i n g rebound effect was discovered for arousal, whereby subjects in the With Plants condition, who i n i t i a l l y experienced lower arousal than control subjects, experienced higher arousal than controls after performance of subsequent tasks. As well, the place with plants f a c i l i t a t e d persistence 1 10 at a puzzle task, as predicted. Remarkably, i t also worsened quality of performance on a proofreading task, possibly because i t lowered arousal l e v e l below that required for optimal performance of that task. The findings of Study 4 are more impressive in that, since a between-subjects design was used and since there was a deliberate e f f o r t to keep the plants from being too salient a feature in the lounge, Study 4 represents a conservative test of the impact of places with plants on human behavior. On the other hand, provisos regarding these findings are in order with respect to the small number of subjects, the use of verbal rather than physiological measures of mood, and the f a i l u r e to investigate d i f f e r e n t places, referent sets of places, and place orders, a l l of which seem to be important factors in response to indoor greenery. Hence, research to replicate and extend these findings is c l e a r l y warranted. Also warranted i s future research to examine the impact of places with plants on the other major d i v i s i o n of human behavior—place choice. Although place preference results from Study 1 and place s u i t a b i l i t y results from Studies 2 and 3 are suggestive, place choice was not d i r e c t l y assessed in this thesis. Does indoor greenery play a s i g n i f i c a n t role in the restaurants a person chooses, in the lounges he selects for relaxing and chatting with friends, or in which special place he goes to get away from i t a l l ? These are 111 interesting questions, worthy of answers. Are there any p r a c t i c a l implications to be drawn from the present research with respect to i n t e r i o r design of places? Indeed there are. Plants are most appropriate in places involving the execution of plans that are best performed in a relaxed mood. Such places include restaurants,, lounges, pubs, shops, l i v i n g rooms, and other informal gathering places. Task performance results from. Study 4 caution against the use of plants in places, such as some o f f i c e s , where a r e l a t i v e l y high degree of arousal i s required for optimal work performance. If one's goal, on the other hand, i s to lower o v e r a l l arousal l e v e l of workers during the day, the rebound ef f e c t found in Study 4 cautions against the practice of providing very calming, f o l i a g e - f i l l e d lounges in which to take work breaks; t h i s practice may produce just the opposite of the desired e f f e c t . Results from Study 1 suggest having o f f i c e workers take care of the plants in their work area i s not l i k e l y to go over big in North America. Also, the important impact of plants at the symbolic l e v e l , plus the fact d i f f e r e n t kinds of plants can symbolize d i f f e r e n t things, suggests a way in which designers could use plants to convey a p a r t i c u l a r message in a p a r t i c u l a r place. For instance, a stark arrangement of c a c t i in the waiting room of an executive's o f f i c e could serve to warn v i s i t o r s of the austere, formal 1 1 2 manner in which the executive intends to do business. The same plants would be t o t a l l y inappropriate in a p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s o f f i c e , however, or in a travel agency, where an a l l u r i n g display of exotic palms would be i d e a l . From the present findings a designer could determine how to exert . the greatest possible impact with indoor greenery. The findings suggest a scenario in which a person moves from one or several places p l a i n l y decorated to a similar place dramatically decorated with medium and large sized plants. One can imagine such a scenario unfolding in a private home, with a guest being received in a r e l a t i v e l y bare entry, being led down a s i m i l a r l y bare hallway, around a corner, and only then discovering a lush oasis of palms, ferns and f i g trees. Or consider a v i s i t to the dentist's o f f i c e , which, at least for me, represents a situation that could benefit much from the relaxing impact of indoor greenery. T y p i c a l l y , one waits in an outer room that contains indoor greenery before moving to a bare o f f i c e . The present findings suggest that, in d i r e c t opposition to current practice, maximum benefit from indoor plants would accrue from waiting in a plain outer room before moving to an o f f i c e blessed with plants. Thus, my hypothesis i s confirmed; dentists r e a l l y are s a d i s t i c . F i n a l l y , what are the p r i n c i p a l contributions of t h i s research with respect to environmental psychology in 113 general? F i r s t , in deciding how best to construe and assess the role of indoor greenery in person-environment interactions, I developed a conceptual framework and experimental paradigm that can be applied in determining the role of other, single environmental variables in person-environment interaction. Second, th i s research indicates the impact of single environmental variables on place quality and human behavior depends on a host of factors, most of.which are related to salience. The findings with respect to referent set of places and place order are p a r t i c u l a r l y noteworthy. They emphasize the c r i t i c a l necessity of an environmental psychology that considers a person's cognitive representations of places as equally important as his or her immediate enviromment, and that studies human behavior as organized in time as well as in space. 114 ; Reference Notes 1. Ward, L.M. and Russell, J.A. Frames, plans and scripts in environ-mental psychology. Unpublished manuscript, University of Bri t i s h Columbia, 1982. 2. Genereux, R., Ward, L.M., and Russell, J.A. Behavior as a component of place meaning. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, 1982. 115 References Allen, O.E., and the Editors of Time-Life Books. Decorating with plants. Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books, 1978. Altman, I. Some perspectives on the study of man-environment phenomenon. Rep. Res. Soc. Psychol. /~1973g 4009-126. Appleyard, D. and Craik, K.H. The Berkeley Environmental Simulation and i t s research program. Int. Rev. Appl. Psychol., 1978,27, 53-55. Baird, J. t Cassidy, B., and Kurr, J. Room preference as a function of architectural features and user activities. J. Appl. Psychol. 1978, 63(6), 719-727. Barker, R. Ecological psychology. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1968. » Campbell, D.E. Interior office design and visitor response. J. Appl. Psychol., 1979, 64. 645-653. Charry, J.M. Meteorology and behavior: The effects of positive air ions on human performance, physiology and mood. Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 1976. Pis. Abstr. Int., Vol. 37. University Microfilms No. 77-5290. Craik, K.H. Environmental psychology. In K.H. Craik, B. Kleinmuntz, R.L. Rosnow, R. Rosenthal, J.R. Cheyne and R.H. Walters, (Eds.) New[directions in psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Dubos, R. Man overadapting. Psychol. Today, 1971;, Feb>, 50-53. Downs, R.M. and Stea, D. Maps in minds: Reflections on cognitive mapping. New York: Harper and Row, 1977. Feather, N.T. The relationship of persistence at a task to expectation of success and achievement related motives. J. Abn. Soc. Psychol., 1971, 63., 552-561. Freedman, J.L. Crowding and behavior. San Fransisco: Freeman, 1975* Garner, W.R. The processing of information and structure. Potomac, Maryland: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., 1974. Gifford, R. Personal and situational factors in the judgement of typical architecture. Doctoral Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, 1976. Disj-Mhsmift>°Int,,1976, 37, 6303B. Glass, D. and Singer, J. Urban Stress. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Guilford, J.P., and Smith P.C. A system of color-preferences. Am. J. ,V;i Psychol., 1959, 72, 487-502. Heriteau, J. The office gardener. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1977. • Howes, P. and Schwimmer, S. Survey of living plants in office areas. Landscape and Turf, 1981, 26(6), p. 42. l i t i s , H.H., Louks, O.L., and Andrews, P. Criteria for an optimum human environment. Bull. Atomic Scientists, 1970, 26(1), 2-6. Jackson, D.N. Personality Research Form manual. Goshen, N.Y.: Research Psychologists Press, 1967. Kaplan, S. An informal model for the prediction of preference. In E.H. Zube, R.O. Brush, and J.G. Fabos (Eds.) Landscape assessment. Strousburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1975* Kaplan, R. Patterns of environmental preference. Environ. Behav., 1977, 9, 195-216. Kaplan, R. The green experience. In S. Kaplan and R. Kaplan (Eds.) Humanscqpe:&Environments for People. North Scituate, Mass.: Doxbury Press, 1978. 186-194. 117 Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. and Wendt, J.S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and psychophyBicsfv,. 1972, 12, 354-356. Kirk, RiE«ff Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1968. Kozlovsky, D.G. An evolutionary and ecological ethic. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1974. Kreiger, M.H. Up the plastic tree. Landscape Architecture,aJuly, 1973? 349-360. Langer, E.J. and Rodin, J. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting. J.P.S.P., 1976, 3jt(2), 191-198. Laumann, E. and House, J. Living room styles and social attributes: Patterning of material artifacts in an urban community. In E. Laumann, P. Siegal and R. Hodge (Eds.) The logic of social hierarchies. Chicago: Markham Publishing, 1972, ..189-203. Lawson, F. Restaurant planning and design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinfold Co., 1973. . Lewis, CA. People/plant proxemics: A concept for humane design. In P. Soedfeld, and J. Russell, (Eds.) The behavioral basis of design. Book 1. Strousburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1977. Mastick, D. On being professional. Landscape and Turf, 1981, 26(5)1 26G-28G. Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1974. 118 • Middelbrook, A. Interview with Stephen Scrivens. Landscape and Turf, 26(6), 1981, 35-51. Milgram, S. The experience of living in cities. Science, 1970, 16?, 1461-68. Minsky, M.A. A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston, (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Montague, F. Al l about house plants. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1979. Proshansky, H. Environmental psychology and the real world. Am. Psychol., ^ ^1976, April, 303-310. Rainwater, L. Fear and the house-as-haven in the lower class. J. Am. Inst, of Planners, 1966, 3_2, 23-31. Rapoport, A. Towards a cross-culturally valid definition of housing. In Optimizing environments: Research, practice and policy. (EDRA 11). Washington, D.C.: EDRA, 1980, 310-316. Reiss, A.J. Occupations and social status. N.Y.: Free Press, 1961. » Robinette, G.O. Plants/people/and environment quality: A study of plants and their environmental functions. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, 1972. Russell, J.A. S^±deM«Qof^oavtegb6fs$xalidity on the dimensions of affect. J. Per. Soc. Psychol., 1978, 36(10), 1152-68. Russell, J.A. Affective space is b i p o l a r . J. Per. Soc. Psychol;!/f97/9, 37(3), 345-346. Russell, J.&. A circumplax model of affect. J. Per. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 39, 1161-1178, Russell, J.A. and Bond, C.R. Beliefs among college students on settings and emotions conducive to alcohol and marijuana use. International  Journal of the Addictions, 1979, 1 M 7 ) , 977-986. Russell, J.A. and Mehrabian, A. Environmental effects on drug use. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1977, 2(2) , 109-123. Russell, J.A. and Mehrabian, A. Approach-avoidance and affiliation as functions of the emotion-eliciting quality of an environment. Environ. Behav,, 1978, §0(3), 355-387. Russell, J.&. and Pratt, G.A.^ A description of the affective quality attributed to environments^ J.(4^Bt^}Skxe&f^B^bol^^980 , 38, 311-22. Russell, J.A. and Ward, L.M. On the psychological reality of environ-mental meaning: Reply to Daniel and Ittleson. J. Exp. Psychol: General, , 110, 163-68. Russell, J.A. and Ward, L.M. Environmental psychology. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 1982, 33, 651-88. Russell, J.A., Ward, L.M. and Pratt, G.A. The affective quality attribu-Sai'tSd £0 environments: A factor-analy'tTiD study. Environ. Behav. 1981, 13, 259-288. Seaton, R.W. and Collins, J.B. Validity and reliability of ratings of simulated buildings. In W.J. Micheal (Ed&) Environmantal design: Research and practice. (EDRA3/AR8) L.A.: U. of California, 1972. Seddon, G. The best plant book ever. N.Y.: Rand-McNally, 1980. Shank, R.C. and Abelson, R.P. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977. Sommer, R. Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. 120 Stainbrook, E. Man's pegrdhic need for nature. National Parks and Conservation- Magazine, 1973,47(9), 22-23. Stokols, Daniel. Environmental psychology. Ann. Rev. Psychol,, 1978, 29, 233-95. Thayer, R.L. and Atwood, B.G. Plants, complexity and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. Environ. Psychol. Nonverbal Behav. 1978, 3 , 67-76. Tuan, Y.F. Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974. Ward, L.M. Multidimensional scaling of the molar physical environment. Multivariate Behavioral Res., 1977 12, 23-42. Ward, L.M. and Russell, J.A. The psychological representation of molar physical environments. J. Exg. Psychol.: General, 1981, 110, 121-52. Wohlwill, J.F. The environment is not in your headt In W.F.E. Prieser, (Ed.), Env. Des. Res. Vol. 2 . Strousburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1973. Wohlwill, J.F. Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman and J.F. Wohlwill, (Eds.) Human [Behavior and Environment. Vol. 1. New York: Penum, 1976. Wohlwill, J.F., Nasar, J.L., DeJoy, D.M. and Foruzani, H.H. Behavioral effects of a noisy environment: Task involvement versus passive exposure. J. AppAygPsychol., 1976, 6(1) , 67-74. Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., and Fabos, S.G., Eds. Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources., Strousburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. 1975. 121 Appendix A EMVIRONKENTAL ATTITUDES SURVEY *';Ms> This&^urveyais part of a large research project dealing with people"^ attitudes toward the environment. It contains a series of questions on various subjects. We would appreciate i t i f you would help us out by f i l l i n g in this survey. It takes about 20 minutes to complete. Please note that the survey is anonymous; we do not ask for your name or address. Thank you. 122 PART I General Information Age: Sex: M F Nationality: Occupation: Occupation of husband or wife, i f married: Where do you live now? (Please check one) basement suite apartment (above ground) house bachelor's suite townhouse other (please specify) Approximately how many years have you spent living in each of the following? city suburbs ©ml.Ismail town or village i?• farm or rural country side backwoods area Whom do you live with? (Please check one) by myself with my parents with my spouse or mate with friend(s) with other relatives (brother, sister, aunt, uncled etc.) Where do you live now? city suburbs small town or village farm or rural country side backwoods area 123 PART II Instructions Using the r a t i n g scale given below, answer the following questions by w r i t i n g a number from 1-6 i n the space provided beside each item. Please give an answer f o r each item, even though you may not be com-p l e t e l y sure of some of your answers. A. Please i n d i c a t e how much you prefer each of the following moods or a t o t a l l y woodland area the deserted s t r e e t of a large c i t y at night a front lawn i n a suburban area a farmland region an i n d u s t r i a l area a c i t y park a modern housing development a quiet r e s i d e n t i a l s t r e e t a c l e a r i n g or opening i n the woods a walk through a woodsy area or along a deserted beach the bustle and excitement of,a large c i t y B. How much do you l i k e each of the following things? 1 - not at a l l 2 - s l i g h t l y 3 - somewhat k - moderately 5 - much 6 - very much se t t i n g s . s e t t i n g sun beachcombing campfire _ windy days c o l l e c t i n g acorns or pine cones f i r e i n the f i r e p l a c e bright sunny days lakes, r i v e r s wilderness rainy days caves snow open spaces w a t e r f a l l s 124 1 - not at a l l 4 - moderately 2 - slightly 5 - much 3 - somewhat 6 - very much C. If you were guaranteed a comfortable income regardless, how much would you like to spend most of your l i f e in each of these? city suburbs small town or village rural countryside or backwoods area D. Please indicate how much satisfaction you get from each of the following: babies, enjoyment of ~ 1V» parties bargaining, buying and selling people cities physical exercise conversation, a l l kinds religion food routine activities gardening, farming self-adornment caring for those who are i l l sports-watching nature, enjoyment of odors, perfumes, etc. ownership of property E. How important do you consider each of the following major issues? population law and order environmental decline inflation generation gap 125 1 - not at a l l 2 - slightly 3 - somewhat k - moderately 5 - much 6 - very much When you have been harried ot under pressure, to what degree would each of the following help make you feel better? going to the movies going for a walk in the city or in a residential neighborhood going for a walk on the beach, in the woods, ot in some other natural setting being with friends eating sleeping going for a ride in the country going for a ride in an urban or industrial area watching TV 126 PART III Instructions Below are a series of statements that a person might use to K C i y ^ . - i l ? ; describe himself or herself. Read each statement and decide whether or not i t describes you. If you aggree with a statement or decide i t describes you, circle T for TRUE. If you disagree with a statement or decide that i t is not descriptive of you, circle F for FALSE. Please answer every statement either true or false, even i f you are not completely sure of your answer. I feel no great concern for the troubles of other people. T F The motion of water in a river can almost hypnotise me. T F I would rather have a job serving people than a job making something. T F I rarely notice the texture of a piece of clothing. T F It doesn't affect me one way or the ohter to see a child being spanked. T F I like the feel of sculptured objects. T F Babysitting would be a rewarding job for me. T F I have never seen a statue that reminded me of a real person. T F I have never done volunteer work for charity. T F Sometimes I feel like stepping into mud and letting i t ooze between my toes. T F I often take young people under my wing. T F I don't care whether I drink water from a fine glass or a paper cup. T F Caring for plants would be a waste of my time. T F One of my favorite pasttimes is sitting before a crackling fire. T F Sometimes when a friend is in trouble I cannot sleep because I want so much to help. T F I don't get any particular enjoyment from sitting in the sun. T F If someone is in trouble, I try not to become involved. T F 127 Certain pieces of music remind me of pictures or moving patterns T F of color. People like to t e l l me their troubles because they know I will feali© tkMlt help them. T F I don't get any particular enjoyment from having my neck massaged. T F If I could, I would hire a nurse to care for a sick child rather tffef® than do i t myself. T F I think that my sense of touch is more sensitive than that of most people. T F It is very important to me to shwo people I am interested in their troubles. T F I could not possibly identify flowers just by their fragrance. T F I don't like i t when friends ask to borrow my possessions. T F I like to run through heaps of fallen leaves. T F Seeing an old or helpless person makes me feel that I would like to take care of him. T F I would never spend my money on a steam bath. T F I am not always willing to help someone when I have other things to do. T F I enjoy the feeling of mist and fog. T F I feel most worthwhile when I am helping someone who is disabled. T F I rarely sit and watch the water at a beach or stream. T F 128 PART IV Part of our research is aimed at discovering peopleis attitudes toward specific features of indoor places. Plants seem to be a common feature of many indoor places these days. This section of the questionnaire is de-signed to tap your attitudes toward indoor plants. (Unless otherwise stated, the questions refer to living plants, not ar t i f i c i a l ones). A. Please indicate pour agreement with each of the following statements by circling the appropriate letters. SA * Strongly Agree A = Agree N = Neutral D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagrre I hate indoor plants. SA A N D SD Indoor plants are pretty. SA A N D SS Indoor plants just clutter up a place. SA A N D SD I wish my home was like a greenhouse - ful l of plants. SA A N D SD Indoor plants are ugly.a SA A N D SD I'd rather have a piece of sculpture standing in my living room than an indoor tree. SA A N D SD Having large plants in one's home is a status symbol ' these days. SA A N D SD The more plants in any indoor place, the better. SA A N D SD Plants in my indoor surroundings help me deal with stress SA A N D SD If I had my way, there wouldn't be any plants in my home. SA A N D SD I prefer a place with plants over a place with paintings. SA A N D SD Different kinds of indoor plants create different "moods" or "atmospheres". SA A N D SD I like indoor plants. SA A N D SD Ornaments make better decorations than indoor plants. SA A N D SD When I go to a new place such as a home or res&aurant, I note how many plants are there. SA A N D SD Artif i c i a l indoor plants are just as nice as real indoor plants. SA A N D SD I'd rather have no plants in my home than ar t i f i c i a l ones. SA A N D SD 129 B. For each of the activities listed below, please indicate by circling the appropriate letters whether you would prefer to do that activity in an indoor place with plants or in an indoor place without plants. W = with plants N = no preference WO = without plants Eat ' N ; m WO Relax W N WO Party w N WO Work with machinery W N WO Shop w N WO Have an intimate conver-sation W N WO Attend a meeting w N WO Spend free time W N WO Study w N WO Explore w N WO Listen to a lecture w N WO Meditate w N WO Play cards w N WO Plan a hiking trip w N WO , Be alone w N WO Entertain guests w N WO Read w N WO Drink alcohol w N WO Sleep w N WO Play or listen to music w N WO Chat with friends w: N WO Take a bath w N WO Stand in line w N w o Recuperate from an Do book work w N w o illness w N WO Sell merchandise w N w o Watch TV w N WO What kinds of plants do you prefer? (a,b,c,...) for each item. Please circel one choice 1. 2. 3. a. small size b. medium size c. large size d. no preference a. b. c. 'f-. a. b. c. flowering plants non-flowering plants no preference plants with small leaves plants with big leaves no preference a. hanging plants b. standing plants c. creeping ifolimbing) plants d. no preference 6. a. fern b. ivy c. palm d. cactus e. rubber plant f. fig tree g. evergreen tree h. jade tree i . other (please name) j . no preference a. rough texture b. feathery texture c. waxy texture d. no preference 130 D. What effect does the addition of a number of indoor plants have on a place? Use the following adjectivespairs to describe your impressions. Put a check mark somewhere along the line (Example; : : ) to indicate your answer. Please be sure that you have put one check on each line. The addition of a number of indoor plants makes a place: smell worse more friendly more cheap-looking more formal more beautiful more arousing have fresher air harder cQ&der more pleasant more humid more hostile more curvy more inviting more gloomy more restful More impersonal smell better more unfriendly More expensive-looking more casuai)}. more ugly more sleepy have staler air softer warmer more unpleasant more dry more peaceful more anguiar more univiting more exciting more tense more personal 131 E. What effect does being in a place with a number of plants have on you? Compared to being in an indoor place with no plants, being in an indoor place withra number of plants makes me feel: more unhappy more relaxed more pleased more excited more dissatisfied more at home more sluggish more contented more jittery more unfriendly more sleepy more relaxed more aroused more happy more stimulated more annoyed more calm more satisfied less at home more frenzied more melancholic more dull more friendly more wide awake more bored more unaroused F. Approximately how many plants ar there in your home? G. How often do you do each of the following things with the plants in your home? Answer each item by circling the appropriate letters. (If you have no plants, go on to question H) VO = very often 0 » often S = sometines R =. rarely N = never Gaze at them VO 0 s R N Smell them VO 0 s R N Touchftthem VO R N Water them VO 0 s R N Feed them VO 0 s R N Spray them with water VO 0 s R N Repot them VO 0 s R N Turn them to the sun VO 0 s R N Move them about the room VO 0 s R N Wipe their leaves clean VO 0 R N Inspect them for bugs VO 0 s R N Trim them VO 0 s R N Cut dead leaves off VO 0 s R N Talk to them VO 0 s R N Give them names VO 0 s R N Grow new plants from shoots VO 0 s R N 133 H. Why do you like indoor plants? Below is a l i s t of reasons why people might like indoor plants. Using the 1-6 rating scale, given below, indicate the extent to which each item is a reasoi why you might like indoor plants. Please be sure to give an v> answer for each item. Because they are pretty to look at. Because they make a place look more "classy". Because they represent l i f e and growth. Because they are nice to smell. Because they help bring the outdoors inside. Because they are pleasant to touch. Because I enjoy taking care of them. Because they are great listeners, and never critisize me. Because they make nice^decoration. Because t&ey provide a link to nature. Because they freshen the air. Because I love to see things grow and change. Because they help make up for the art i f i c i a l world we live in. Because I'm really successful at growing nice plants. Because I like the color green. Because I like being responsible for things. Because it's gratifying to nurse an unhealthy plant back to l i f e . Because they make a house feel more like a home. Because they remind me of far off, tropical places. Because they are inherently interesting. Because they make a place more relaxing. Other (Please specify) 1 2 3 k 5 6 not at a l l a reason slightly so somewhat so moderately so much so very much a reason 134 I. Below is a l i s t of reasons people might dislike indoor plants. Using the 1-6 rating scale given below, indicate the extent to which each item is a reason why you dislike indoor plants. Please be sure to give an answer for each item. Because they are ugly. Because they cheapen a place. Because they stink. Because they remind me of bugs. Because they clutter up a place. Because I can's be bothered to take care of them. Because plants are like dogs- they belong outside. Because the dumb things always die on me. Because they remind me of a hot sweaty jungle. Because plants belong in their natural habitat, not plastic pots. Because I hate the color green. Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5 6 not at a l l a reason slightly so somewhat so moderately so much so very much a reason J. Please use the space below i f you wish to make additional comments concerning any aspect of indoor plants. 135 Appendix B Slide No. Description of Place (1) Below is a l i s t of words that can be used to describe places. We would like you to rate how accurately each word below describes this place. Use the 1 - 8 rating scale given below for each answer. Please be sure that you have given an answer for each word. 1 - extremely inaccurate 2 - very inaccurate 3 - quite inaccurate 4 - slightly inaccurate 5 - slightly accurate 6 - quite accurate 7 - very accurate 8 - extremely accurate 1. _ Pleasant 11. Repulsive 2. Inactive 12. Active 3. _ _ Dissatisfying 13. Pretty 4. Intense 14. Lazy 5. _ _ Nice 15. Unpleasant 6. _ _ Drowsy 16. Alive 7. _ _ Displeasing 17. Beautiful 8. Arousing 18. Slow 9. Pleasing 19. Uncomfortable 10. Idle 20. Forceful 136 Appendix C Description of Place (2) Slide No. Please use the following adjective pairs to describe this place. Each of the following adjective pairs helps define a place or the the relation among the various parts of a place. Put a check mark somewhere along the line (Example: : : ) to indicate what you think i s an appropriate description. Please be sure that you have put one check on each l i n e . Varied Simple Novel Small Similar Dense Intermittent Usual Heterogeneous Uncrowded Asymmetrical Immediate Common Patterned Redundant Complex Familiar Large Contrasting Sparse Continuous Surprising Homogenous Crowded Symmetrical Distant Rare Random 137 Appendix D Slide No. Description of Place (3) Please use the following adjective pairs to describe this place. Put a check mark somewhere along the line (example : : ) to indi-cate what you think is an appropriate description. Please be sure that you have put one check on each line. P.C* open : : : : : : : : enclosed P.C indoors : : : : : : : 'J outdoors P.C. natural : : : : : : : : manmade P.C. angular : : : : : : : : curvy P.C puny : : : : : : : : grand scale P.C. fu l l : :_ : : : : : : empty P.C soft :__: : : : : : : hard P.C. a r t i f i c i a l : :_ : : :: : : : natural M.*» friendly : : : : : : : |_: unfriendly M. dead : : : : : : : : alive M. casual : : : : : : : : formal M. . cheap : : : : : : : :; expensive M. vibrant : : : : : : : : dull M. hostile : : : _: : : : : peaceful M. inviting . : : : : : : : : uninviting M. impersonal : : : : : : : : personal Ml. warm : : : : : : cold * perceptual-cognitive item ** miscellaneous item Appendix E 138 Slide No. Place Suitability Ratings Below is a l i s t of activities. We would like you to rate how suitable this place is for engaging in each activity. Use the 1 - 8 rating scale given below for each answer. Please be sure that you have given an ' answer for each word. 1 - extremely unsuitable 2 - very unsuitable 3 - quite unsuitable k - slightly unsuitable 5 - slightly suitable 6 - quite suitable 7- - very suitable 8 - extremely suitable 1. Study 2. Chat with friends 3. Work on a frustrating puzzle h. Sleep 5. Relax 6. Listen to a lecture 7. Eat 8. Proofread 9. Spend free 'time 10. Have an intimate conversation 11. Explore 12. Help or cooperate with someone 13- • Argue or fight with someone 14. Get away from i t a l l 15. Party Appendix F Expectations about the Experiment P a r t i c i p a n t s i n an experiment sometimes form t h e i r own ideas about what hypothesis the experimenter i s t e s t i n g and about what r e s u l t s the experimenter expects to f i n d . 1. What hypotheses do you think I am t e s t i n g i n t h i s experiment? 2. What r e s u l t s do you think I expect tm find? 1^0 General Evaluation of the Experiment 1. In general, how would you describe the experience o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s experiment? For each of the items below, place a checkmark somewhere along the l i n e to i n d i c a t e your answer (e.g. : ^  : ) re l a x i n g gloomy pleasant arousing d i s t r e s s i n g e x c i t i n g unpleasant una rousing 2. Please use the space below f or any a d d i t i o n a l comments you may have about t h i s experiment. Sign-up Request . I require voluteers to p a r t i c i p a t e , without pay, i n another, separate experiment on task performance. Please i n d i c a t e below whether you would be s i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s experiment next week. I f so, please also i n d i c a t e how much time you can spare (from 1 5 - 9 0 minutes). I f you do volunteer, I w i l l contact you early next week to arrange a time, i f I require your services (depending on how many people volunteer). No Yes Minutes 1V| Evaluation of the Plants Aside from the purpose of studying the e f f e c t s o f noise on mood and performance, another purpose of t h i s research i s to study the e f f e c t s of indoor plants on mood and performance. Did you suspect that the e f f e c t s of indoor plants were being studied i n t h i s experiment? t I f your anwer i s yes, please i n d i c a t e why you suspected s o ) . NO YES How many plants were there i n the experimental room? Approximately how much time, i n minutes, did you spend gazing at the plants during the experiment? minutes To what extent do you think the presence of plants i n the ex p e r i -mental room a f f e c t e d your mood? (please c i r c l e one l e t t e r ) . a. Not at a l l b. S l i g h t l y c. Somewhat d. Moderately e. Much so r . Very much so What e f f e c t do you think the presence of plants had on your perform-ance?of each of the tasks i n the experiment? Using the 1 - 7 r a t i n g scale given below, provide an answer f o r each task by w r i t i n g a number i n the space provided by eaeh task. 1 made my perfonnaneeyjrauch worse ' 2 » made my performace much worse 3 a made my performance s l i g h t l y worse km had no e f f e c t on my performace 5 « made my performance s l i g h t l y b e t t e r 6 = made my performance much better 7 • made my performance very much better _ 1st proofreading task _ 2nd proofreading task 3rd proofreading task Puzzle task 142 6. The plants in the experimental room were: (for each of the 4 items below, place'a checkmark somewhere along the line to indicate your answer: e.g. : y / ' : ) . relaxing gloomy pleasant arousing distressing exciting unpleasant unarousing 7. In general, how do you feel about indoor plants? (Place a checkmark somewhere along the line below to indicate your answer). dislike : : : : : : : : like 143 Appendix G Before World war I I , almost a l l p s y c h i l o g i c a l researck was done i n to u n i v e r s i t i e s . Most o f i t was basic research, and, as we have seen, i t h e a v i l y concenred ami rial l a e r n i n g and the le a r n i n g of no-sense s y l a b l e s bye co l l e g e students. In a d d i t i o n , they're was B a s i c research on perseption and on the sense of smell, t a s t e , v i s i o n , and t e r i n g , on emotions and l e e f i n g s , and on and thinking and broplem s o l v i n g . Like then l e a r n i n g research o f those daze, many o f the s t u -dies of perception emotion, and thinging was guided be the concepts, langauge, and ideology of neobehavoirism. In thsee area, there was r e l a t i v e l y few applied resaerch, thouqh a few psychologists did study moter s k i l l s , the measurment of i n t e l l e g i n c e , and otker problens d e a l -i n g with the school curricculum. S t i l l , many of the most promenent researcher f e l t beneath t h e i r d i g n i t y do involve thenselves with the a p p l i c a t i o n s of the research? World War II changed t h a t , many psychologists whom had previuosly done only b a c i s research were drafted and putt to work on the p r a c a c i l problems o f f making war. Many who were not drafted recieved goverment contracts to work on s i m i l i a r problems. Thus, many, basic s c e i n t i s t s fround themelves t r i n g to understand problens of percepfion, jugdment, thinking and d i s i c i o n making, Many of these problem arose because of the s o f i s t i c a t i o n of the weaponary develloped four the war. Hiqhly t e c h n i c a l systems such as a i r c r a t f and devises l i k e radar and sonar made excedingly heavy demamds on on there hunma operaters. Furthemore the f a i l u r e to meat thes demands had d r a s t i c conseqences. Seriuos m i l i t a r y problems arose from-accidents and (erorrs made by human warriours). Objects on radar screens were m i s i d e n i f i e d . A i r c r a f t with many people abroad crashed: Weapons was sometimes d i r e c l y at f r e i n d l y f o r c e s . Where could psychologists tern f o r concepts and methods to help then solve suck problems? C e r t a i n l y not to the acedemic l a b -r a t o r i e s of the day. The behavior o f amimals i n mazes shed l i t t l e l i t e on the pferfromence of airplane p i l o t s and sonar operaters. The kind of l e a r n i n g s t i d i e d with nosense s y l a b l e s cotributed l i t t l e to psychologists t r y i n g to to teach poeple how to oprate complex machines a c c u r a t l y . In f a c t , l e a r n i n g was knot the c e n t e r l problem during the war. Most problems a r i s e a f t e r the tasks had a l l r e a d y been leanred, when normally s k i l l f u l perfromance broke down). The focus was on performance rather then learning! and t h i s l e f t acedemic p y s c h o l l g i s t s poorly prepared becuase t h e i r paradigmatic comitments had lead them to concantrate so much of there a t t e n t i o n on l e a r n i n g . Faced with the problens o f war, psychologists hat to develop a new veiw of man, and they soon d i d . A inportant concept emerged - that of the man/machine system". Th i s concept emphasizee the funtioning of the hunam been and the machine an as operating u n i t . How a p i l o t and a p l a i n fundtioned togther depended not only one the c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s of the p i l o t and those of the p l a i n but aslo on the r e l a t i o n s i p between these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In t h i s view, a well-disinged p l a i n are on that a person can oprate e f f i s i e n t l y . This a l t i t u d e d e v e l l -opedin part from wartime psychologists study o f f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between human e r r e r and the desine of the mackines with which the they erred. Psychologists could sometimes inprove perfromance and save • l i f e s by remraedying design f a u l t s i n m i l l i t a r y machines. For example, one t i p e of p l a i n often crashed while landing. I t turned over that the leever that the p i l o t had to use f o r breaking were neer the l e v e r that r e t r a c t e d the landing geer. During landing the p i l o t , could not take h i s eyes of the runaway: He had to work by touch alone. Sometimes p i l o t s r e t r a f t e d t h e i r landing geer instaed of puting on there 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095381/manifest

Comment

Related Items