Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Napping Position Preferences and Perceived Nap Outcomes of the UBC Population Tutinka, Adam; Dumandan, Edgar; Cosman, Dylan; Cheng, Linda; Shan, Samantha Lo Cheuk; Liu, Wendi (Wen Qing) 2019-04-04

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Tutinka_A_et_al_PYSC_321_Napping_position_FlowerPower_final_report.pdf [ 1.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0387193.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0387193-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0387193-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0387193-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0387193-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0387193-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0387193-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0387193-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0387193.ris

Full Text

Running head: NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report Napping Position Preferences and Perceived Nap Outcomes of the UBC Population Flower Power: Adam Tutinka, Edgar Dumandan, Dylan Cosman, Linda Cheng, Samantha Lo Cheuk Shan, Wendi (Wen Qing) Liu University of British Columbia PSYC 321 Themes: Buildings, Health, Wellbeing April 4, 2019 Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  1  Executive Summary     The present study investigated nap position preferences within the UBC student population and how nap sleep posture can affect perceived mood and alertness-sleepiness outcomes. It was hypothesized that horizontal sleep positions would be the most commonly endorsed preferred napping positions, with improved perceived mood and alertness-sleepiness outcomes. A second hypothesis predicted that lying on one’s back would be the most commonly endorsed napping position, with the best perceived mood and alertness-sleepiness outcomes. Survey data was gathered in-person and online through active recruitment of UBC students. Primary measures included preferred napping position and self-report Likert style questions assessing perceived mood and alertness-sleepiness following less than 30-minute naps. Mood variables consisted of happy-sad, energetic-sluggish, relaxed-tense, and calm-irritable. The outcome measure of alertness-sleepiness was incorporated to reflect the individual’s perceived physiological state post-nap. Descriptive statistics show ‘laying on your back’, ‘laying on your side’, and ‘sitting with your back reclined’ are the most commonly endorsed preferred nap positions for less than 30-minute naps. Results demonstrate no statistically significant difference between preferred napping positions and mood and alertness-sleepiness outcomes. However, a statistically significant difference in mood outcomes between 30-minute or less naps in one’s preferred versus non-preferred position was observed.  Keywords: nap-position, nap-outcomes, mood, sleepiness, nap-preferences    NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  2  Introduction  Although past research has demonstrated naps can reduce subjective and objective sleepiness, improve cognitive functioning, improve psychomotor performance, and enhance short-term memory and mood, there has been little investigation into the ways in which sleep posture or preferred sleep posture influence nap outcomes (Lovato & Lack 2010). Zhao et al. (2009) compared subjective and objective measures of 20-minute nap outcomes between a ‘nap in a seat’ condition, a ‘nap in a bed’ condition, and a ‘no nap’ condition. Results show improved subjective measures of sleepiness, fatigue, and mood, in both the ‘nap in a bed’ and ‘nap in a seat’ conditions, while, objective measures of alertness (based on EEG activity) improved in the ‘nap in a bed’ condition (Zhao et al., 2009). Another study conducted by Hayashi & Abe (2008) employed a within-subjects design to compare reaction time and vigilance task performance, subjective measures of sleepiness and fatigue, and physiological measures of slow eye movement after participants had not napped, or napped in a car seat reclined at either 130°or 150°. Improved subjective and physiological measures, as well as task performance were observed in both nap conditions (Hayashi & Abe, 2008).              Still, nap outcomes resulting from sleep posture are a salient research topic given the growing trend of 30-minute or less “power naps”, per James B. Maas, in workplace and institutional settings to increase alertness, productivity, and creativity (Autumn et al., 2016; Lovato & Lack, 2010). One New York Times article describes the phenomena as a cultural shift whereby sleep is increasingly considered an aspect of a healthy and productive lifestyle; nap pods are increasingly common in offices, while some wellness centres now offer sleep treatments (Dollinger, 2018). Correspondingly, products like MetroNaps’ Sleeping Station—which facilitates naps in a reclined position with the knees bent and the feet raised—can be found at the likes of Google and the Super Bowl ("Energy at work", n.d.). Based on the popularization of napping and increased prevalence of nap pods, research into napping preferences and outcomes is vital to gain a better understanding of the factors that inform optimal napping behaviour.  Research Question: What is the preferred sleep posture amongst the UBC population when napping for a period of 30-minutes or less? How can sleep posture during a nap of 30-minutes or less affect perceived nap outcomes in terms of mood and alertness/sleepiness?   Hypothesis: Horizontal sleep postures were hypothesized to be the most commonly endorsed nap posture across the study sample, with improved perceived mood and alertness-sleepiness outcomes. Additionally, napping on one’s back was hypothesized be the most commonly endorsed preferred nap posture, with the highest perceived mood and alertness-sleepiness outcomes.      NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  3  Methods  Participants   The participant sample consisted of the UBC student population (n = 164). From a total of 197 respondents, 33 participants were excluded from data analysis due to their failure to correctly respond to attentional checks or because they had failed to complete the survey. The final participant sample (n = 164) was comprised of 101 female, 60 male, 2 non-binary and 1 undisclosed-gender respondents. Respondents’ ages ranged from 18-41 with a mean age of 21.5 years (SD = 3.10). Respondents averaged 3.5 naps per week (SD = 1.98) and were enrolled in an average of 4.23 courses (SD = 1.05) (Appendix A, Table 1). Because of the project’s qualitative, correlational, and exploratory nature, there were no assigned conditions.   Procedure   Data collection consisted of the random selection of students around the UBC campus area; respondents were first informed of the nature of the study and then asked to take part in a survey after giving their consent. Data collection was administered through a digital questionnaire via Qualtrics. Participants primarily completed the self-report survey on site via the provided website link, using either the researchers’ device or on their own. Some participants were provided with an information sheet for later survey access (Appendix C, Materials 2).   Measures   Primary measures included preferred nap position for naps 30-minutes or less, and subjective self-report measures of perceived post nap alertness-sleepiness and mood variables measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Participants selected their preferred nap position from the following list, as sourced from Haex (2005): laying on your stomach, laying on your side, laying on your back, the fetal position, sitting with your back reclined, or sitting upright. Mood variables were sourced from Zhao et al. (2009) and operationalized according to four scales: (1) calm-irritable, (2) happy-sad, (3) energetic-sluggish, (4) relaxed-tense. The alertness-sleepiness scale was included to attempt to capture a post-nap physiological measure, consistent with the research design of Zhao et al. (2009) and Hayashi & Abe (2008), given each of the two studies included a form of physiological measurement. Naps were emphasized as less than 30-minutes because the duration is consistent with the definition of a power nap; naps greater than 30-minutes in length can result in sleep inertia, a sense of disorientation, and grogginess that follows awakening from deep sleep (Autumn et al., 2016).   A number of secondary measures were also recorded, including participant demographics, preferred nap position for naps greater than 30-minutes, and preferred napping surface firmness (Appendix C, Materials 3). These measures were excluded from data analysis because they were outside the scope of the research question. However select secondary measure data may provide valuable insights for recommendations pertaining to client activities, namely UBC nap pod design. NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  4  Results    It was predicted that horizontal napping positions would be the most frequently endorsed preferred nap positions, with improved mood and alertness/sleepiness outcomes. Furthermore, it was predicted that lying on one’s back would be the most commonly endorsed napping position with the best perceived mood and alertness/sleepiness outcomes. Descriptive statistics show ‘laying on your back’, ‘laying on your side’, and ‘sitting with your back reclined’ were the most frequently endorsed preferred nap positions for naps less than 30-minutes in length. There was little variance between the three preferences: 47 respondents (29%) endorsed ‘laying on your back’, 44 respondents (27%) endorsed ‘laying on your side’, and 43 respondents (26%) endorsed ‘sitting with your back reclined’ as their preferred position (Appendix B, Figure 2). In addition, ‘laying on your back’ was the most commonly endorsed napping position for naps greater than 30-minutes in length, being endorsed by 70 respondents (43%) (Appendix B, Figure 3).   A set of one way ANOVA analyses were employed to analyze differences in perceived mood variables and alertness-sleepiness outcomes between preferred nap positions. Individual tests assessed differences for each of the four mood variable scales (calm-irritable, happy-sad,  energetic-sluggish, relaxed-tensed) as well as the alertness-sleepiness scale. No statistically significant differences were observed in any mood variable or alertness-sleepiness outcome measures for calm-irritable, F(5, 156) = 0.88, p = .50, happy-sad, F(5, 157) = 1.62, p = .16, energetic-sluggish, F(5,157) = 0.25, p = .94, relaxed-tense, F(5,157) = 0.24, p = .95, and alert-sleepy, F(5,157) = 0.26, p = .93 (Appendix A, Table 2).   A Paired Samples T-Test comparing mood variable and alertness-sleepiness outcomes demonstrated statistically significant differences among all outcome measures between less than 30-minute naps taken in one’s preferred nap position compared to non-preferred position. There were significant results for happy-sad, t(159) = -14.93, p < .001, energetic-sluggish, t(159) = -12.47, p < .001, relaxed-tense, t(160) = -15.27, p < .001, alert-sleepy, t(159) = -6.44, p < .001, and calm-irritable, t(159) = -13.20, p < .001 (Appendix A, Table 3).   Descriptive statistics of select secondary measures show that the most preferred sleeping surface firmnesses were medium-soft, endorsed by 62 respondents (38%), and medium, endorsed by 63 respondents (39%). A set of one-way ANOVA tests was run to analyze the differences in any perceived mood variable and alertness-sleepiness outcomes between different preferred surface firmnesses. No statistically significant differences between preferred surface firmness were observed for any of calm-irritable, F(3,158) = 2.50, p = .06, happy-sad, F(3,159) = .65, p = .58, energetic-sluggish, F(3,159) = 1.17, p = .32, relaxed-tense, F(3,159) = 0.25, p = .86, and alert-sleepy, F(3,159) = 0.23, p = .88 (Appendix A, Table 4).      NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  5  Discussion  The findings of the present study suggest that the opportunity to nap in one’s preferred position is a salient aspect of post-nap mood and sleepiness outcomes. Correspondingly, perceived happiness, energy, relaxation, calmness and alertness ratings were all significantly improved following hypothetical naps in participants’ preferred position compared to an unspecified non-preferred position. Given the growth in popularity of nap pods at institutional and workplace settings and the increased normalization of sleep as an aspect of a healthy and productive lifestyle, the study’s findings represent one aspect of ideal napping habits and behaviours. Hence, an individual’s preferred napping position should be considered in the pursuit of an optimal nap, particularly if for that person this means a maximization of happiness, energy, relaxation, calmness, and alertness levels post-nap. These implications are consistent with the findings of Zhao et al. (2008) and Hayashi & Abe (2009) given both studies observed significantly improved subjective mood and physiological nap outcomes based on nap position.  Furthermore, the study’s results have implications for the design of nap pods on the UBC campus and so will have direct consequences for many current and future UBC students. Given the Okanagan Charter that guides UBC well-being initiatives mandates that higher education institutions lead health promotion action and collaboration locally and globally, it is possible the UBC nap pod design may influence the adoption and development of nap pods in environments outside of UBC (Okanagan Charter, 2015). In other words, the study’s results may contribute to nap-pod design in various contexts. Despite the study’s insights, certain methodological limitations should be addressed, including possible confounds that may have influenced results. First, experimenter effects based on the positive attitude of data collectors while convincing students to participate may have elicited positive associations to napping during survey completion. Second, individual differences in the fatigue level of respondents may have resulted in response biases in the form of differing attitudes toward napping based on fatigue level. Last, because data was collected over a period of three weeks, differences in work-load levels (e.g. workload before, during, and after midterm season) may have influenced individual responses—participants with greater work loads may have been more sleep deprived, influencing perceptions of nap outcomes. Given the self-report style of the study, results were particularly susceptible to the subject-expectancy effect. Participants were asked to report their anticipated outcomes of napping and not actual outcomes. The concept of psychological distance, whereby the further a psychological representation is from one’s immediate reality the more it is evaluated according to preconceived notions, may have influenced perceived nap outcomes (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Likewise, results may have been influenced by errors of affective forecasting, in which people may overestimate or underestimate future affective states (Wilson & Gilbert, 2005).   In light of the study’s limitations, future studies should be conducted to verify its findings. In particular, future research concerning the influence of napping on mood and alertness-sleepiness outcomes would benefit from investigation via an ecologically valid NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  6  experimental design. Given that nap posture is certainly not the only aspect of the nap environment to influence outcomes, other future studies that investigate factors such lighting, sound, and surface, etc., would be worthwhile; in the same vein, studies that investigate the interaction of nap environment factors would be insightful. For example, nap position may be a more salient influence on nap outcomes under certain lighting conditions, or with certain surfaces, and so on.   Recommendations for UBC client  Because lying on one’s back is the most commonly endorsed napping position for both naps longer and shorter than 30-minutes in duration, the sleeping pod size and shape should facilitate napping on one’s back in order to meet the greatest number of student preferences. For naps shorter than 30-minutes in duration, lying on one’s back, lying on one’s side, and sitting with one’s back reclined were the most endorsed preferred sleeping positions. Thus, it would be beneficial to have adjustable nap pods, or nap pods of different shapes and sizes, to cater to individual preferences for napping positions depending on the duration of the naps. Likewise, it is recommended that nap pods are made adjustable in degrees of reclination in order to fit with student preferences.  Finally, the size and shape of the nap pods should be able to comfortably accommodate all positional preferences, regardless of size or body mass index. Beyond napping positions, there were differences regarding the preference of napping surfaces. The most endorsed napping surfaces were ‘medium soft’ and ‘medium’ firmness. Consequently, nap pod napping surface should be of a medium firmness to best compliment napping preferences. As an alternative, the firmness of the surface may be designed to be adjustable to allow for every individual to cater to their specific preferences.    NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  7  References Autumn, M., Monica, H., Jitendra, M., & Bharat, M. (2016). The perfect nap. Advances in Management, 9(4), 1. Dollinger, A (2018, March 29). Napping in a New York Minute. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/nyregion/napping-in-a-new-york-minute.html?fbclid=IwAR0ZdVFusjRPcrEUN09NLQb-LmVRefihdlC-sdswFq_T4QZAbIjPgSRFZfg. Energy at work. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.metronaps.com/?fbclid=IwAR2P9n1nHIQCCK3dxc3fQvZfhO7BzwTAekjR-Gteh57KCkSOXkvvbPU4tAw. Haex, B., & Taylor & Francis eBooks A-Z. (2005;2004;). Back and bed: Ergonomic aspects of sleeping. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Hayashi, M., & Abe, A. (2008). Short daytime naps in a car seat to counteract daytime sleepiness: The effect of backrest angle. Sleep and Biological Rhythms, 6(1), 34-41. doi:10.1111/j.1479-8425.2008.00333.x Lovato, N., & Lack, L. (2010). The effects of napping on cognitive functioning. (pp. 155-166). AMSTERDAM: Elsevier Science & Technology. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53702-7.00009-9 Okanagan Charter: An International Charter for Health Promoting Universities and Colleges (2015). Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963 NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  8  Wilson, T., & Gilbert, D. (2005). Affective Forecasting: Knowing What to Want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131-134. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20183006 Zhao, D., Zhao, Y., Zhang, Q., Fu, M., & Tang, Y. (2010). Effects of physical positions on sleep architectures and post-nap functions among habitual nappers. Biological Psychology, 83(3), 207-213. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.12.008                  NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  9  Appendix A  Table 1. Participant descriptives table showing the mean, standard deviation for age and average courses taken.                        NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  10  Table 2. Multiple One way ANOVA analyses between participants’ preferred position when napping for 30-minutes or less and mood and sleepiness/alertness outcomes.       NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  11                              NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  12  Table 3. Paired samples T-Test between less than 30 minute naps in preferred versus non-preferred position mood and alertness/sleepiness outcomes.      NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  13  Table 4. Multiple One way ANOVA analyses between participants’ preferred surface and mood and sleepiness/alertness outcomes.      NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  14                         NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  15  Appendix B  Figure 1. Pie chart displaying participant demographics that show the makeup of respondents’ genders. Green indicated participants who selected ‘prefer not to answer.’               NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  16  Figure 2. Preferred napping positions for naps less than 30-minutes in duration.                NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  17  Figure 3. Preferred napping positions for naps greater than 30-minutes in duration.                        NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  18  Figure 4. Preferred napping surface firmness among respondents.                            NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  19  Appendix C  Materials 1. Script used for approaching participants at random on UBC campus.  (Introduction)  Hello. We are doing a research on napping pods for the UBC SEEDS Program. The purpose of the survey is to find out people’s preferred napping positions and help designing the future nap pods in UBC campus. Would you mind taking couple minutes of your time to complete the survey?                                NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  20  Materials 2. Informational sheet given to some participants with the QR code as well as a shortened link for later access to the survey.  STUDY OF NAPPING BEHAVIOURS Have an influence in the design of future  napping pods at UBC (2021)  For more information about the new Arts  Student Centre: http://www.ubcasc.com/about  Link to survey: https://bit.ly/2NIKCqc                       NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  21  Materials 3. Copy of consent form and survey used in study attached below. NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  22  NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  23     NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  24  NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  25  NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  26  NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  27  NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  28  NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  29  NAPPING POSITION PREFERENCES AND OUTCOMES  30   

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0387193/manifest

Comment

Related Items