The e f f e c t s o f t h e p h y s i c a l

8/10/2019 The e f f e c t s o f t h e p h y s i c a l

1/10

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The e f f e c t s o f t h e phy s i c a l

env i r o nmen t on j o b

p e r f o r m an c e : t o w a r d s

a t h eo r e t i c a l mode l

o f wo r k s pa c e s t r e s s

Jacqueline C. Vischer*,

School of Industrial Design, Facult de lamnagement, University of Montreal,Montral, Qubec, Canada

*Correspondence to: Jacqueline C. Vischer, School of

Industrial Design, Facult de lamnagement, Univer-

sity of Montreal, C.P. 6128 succursale Centreville,

Montral, Qubec H3C 3J7, Canada. Tel: 514-343-

6684; Fax: 514-343-5694. E-mail: [email protected]

S t r e s s a n d H e a l t h

Stress and Health 23: 175184 (2007)

Published online 8 February 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.1134

Received 31 March 2006; Accepted 10 October 2006

SummaryStudies of stress in the work environment pay little attention to features of the physical environ-ment in which work is performed. Yet evidence is accumulating that the physical environment ofwork affects both job performance and job satisfaction. Contemporary research on stress in thework environment typically focuses on psychosocial factors that affect job performance, strainand employee health, and does not address the growing body of work on the environmental psy-chology of workspace. This paper reviews theory and research bearing on stress in the workplaceand explores how current theory might be applied to the relationship between worker behaviourand physical features of the work environment. The paper proposes a theoretical model of the

workerworkspace relationship in which stress and comfort play a critical part, and suggests amethodological approach on which to base future empirical studies. Copyright 2007 John Wiley& Sons, Ltd.

Key Words

environmental psychology; occupational health; stress; comfort; workspace; office design

ment where work is performed. This paper assertsthat another important influence on work per-

formance results from physical features of thework environment. Evidence is accumulating thatthe physical environment in which people workaffects both job performance and job satisfaction(Brill, Margulis, & Konar, 1985; Clements-Croome, 2000; Davis, 1984; Dolden & Ward,1986; Newsham, Veitch, Charles, Clinton,Marquardt, Bradley, Shaw, & Readon, 2004;Vischer, 1989, 1996). The tasks workers performin modern office buildings are increasinglycomplex and depend on sophisticated technology;

Introduction

Studies of stress in the work environment tend tofocus on psychosocial influences in the environ-


2/10

and companies whose occupancy costs areincreasing generally seek to reduce them withoutadversely affecting the workers. Such workspacedecisions aspire to create an investment inemployees quality of life, the argument being

made that measurable productivity increases willresult. In addition, researchers are increasinglyfinding links between employee health andaspects of the physical environment at work suchas indoor air quality, ergonomic furniture andlighting (Dilani, 2004; Milton, Glencross, &Walters, 2000; Veitch & Newsham, 2000).

Contemporary literature on stress in the workenvironment typically focuses on psychosocialfactors that affect job performance, strain andemployee health. Some theoretical models ofstress at work have included the physical envi-ronment as a factor (Ivancevich & Matteson,

1980; Klitzman & Stellman, 1989; Lazarus &Folkman, 1984). But in many cases, studies refer-ring to physical environment factors tend to referto the physical parameters of the tasks being per-formed rather than to features of the physicalspace in which work is done. As research on jobstrain and other aspects of stress at work tendsnot to address the growing body of work on theenvironmental psychology of workspace, thepurpose of this paper is to create a link betweenthese two fields of endeavour.

In light of the growing importance of the envi-ronmental design of workspace in terms of finan-cial investments as well as employee health andwell-being, this paper reviews theory and researchbearing on stress in the workplace. It then drawson research in environmental psychology toexplore how current thinking might be applied tothe relationship between worker behaviour andphysical features of the work environment. Thepaper proposes a theoretical model of theworkerworkspace relationship in which stressand comfort play a critical part, and outlines amethodological approach on which to base futureempirical studies.

Overview of environmental stress research

The term environmental stress often denotesadverse environmental effects in the naturalworld, such as damage to certain types of plant.The term work environment is used in stressresearch to incorporate psychosocial dimensionssuch as employeeemployer relations, motivationand advancement, job demands and social

support. In this paper, therefore, the more specificterm workspace stress will be used to refer tothe effects of the physical environment of work.

Established theories and current thinking in thefield of stress at work provide some promising

themes that can help define workspace stress.Cooper and Dewe (2004) in their description ofhow the concept of stress has evolved, point outthat it was originally an engineering term refer-ring to the area or part of a structure affected bythe load or demand placed on it by other parts.It has since broadened into a field of applied psy-chology. In this context, the term stress appliesboth to the effects of fatigue on performance,namely in the context of manmachine systems,and to mental hygiene, or the diagnosis and treat-ment of mental problems at work (p. 11). Selye(1956) described the three stages of alarm, resis-

tance and exhaustion as the human body dealswith adverse environmental circumstances. Thesecan equally well be applied to extreme physicalenvironmental conditions. Mason (1972) identi-fied likely causes of stress in a variety of job andother situations. His studies conclude that threemain situational stressors are that the situation isnovel, the situation is unpredictable, from theindividuals point of view, and the individual hasthe feeling that he/she has no control over the sit-uation. These stressors can be transposed to ananalysis of the physical work environment, whereit is not uncommon for workers to feel little orno control over, or understanding of, the work-space provided to them.

Studies of stress at work developed as tech-niques became available to measure levels ofstress hormones such as adrenalin and noradren-alin (Theorell, 1986). From this and relatedresearch, decision latitude and psychologicalcontrol emerged as two determining dimensionsof job strain that could be applied to various jobtypes. At a later stage, the third critical dimensionof social support was added. Known as thedemand-control or job-strain model, this

model has dominated much of the research onwork-related stress, the measurement of whichhas led to widespread use of the job strain scale(Karasek & Theorell, 1990). This framework canusefully be applied to analysis of the physicalenvironment in which people work, both in termsof the environmental demands placed on usersand the control, or lack of it, they have over theirspace (Vischer, 2005).

Other models currently guiding theory andempirical work on stress can also be considered

J. C. Vischer

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 175184 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/smi

6


3/10

relevant to workspace stress. Cooper and Dewe(2004 p. 95) identify the interactional modelof stress, employing the traditional stimulusresponse paradigm that has enabled researchersto generate data on multiple causes of stress at

work. This is distinct from the transactionalmodel, in which stress is defined in terms of theinteractive processes that relate an individual tohis environment. Lazarus & Cohen (1977) intro-duced the concept of daily hassles as a categoryof likely causes of stress that need to be distin-guished from major life events because they arecloser to the persons daily experience (Kanner,Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). In dailyhassles, stress is generated by stable, repetitive orchronic conditions that annoy on a regularbasis. The concept of stress-causing hassles hasproved useful to the study of the physical envi-

ronment on peoples behaviour (Lazarus &Cohen, 1977). Lazarus and his co-workers devel-oped a hassles scale, which, after testing, seemedto confirm the importance of daily hassles in cre-ating stress (Lazarus, 1984). His research empha-sizes appraisal, or the effects of the perceptionof the subject, in mediating between environ-mental events and the experience of stress: forLazarus, appraisal links person and environment,including physical environment.

Coping, the processes by which humansrespond to stress, is related to appraisal in thetransactional model (Lazarus, 1981). Studies ofcoping mechanisms have become part of thestudy of stress at work (Dewe & Guest, 1990;Latack, 1986; Schwartz & Stone, 1993). The dis-tinction that Folkman and Lazarus (1985) drawbetween problem-focused and emotion-focusedcoping strategies might be applied to coping withenvironmental adversities, that is, workspacestress. Problem-focused strategies are analogousto biomechanical responses such as coping withproblems of glare from lights or seating that doesnot support backs, and emotion-focused strate-gies are analogous to psychosocial responses such

as inferring status from office size, opportunitiesfor workspace personalization, and defininghome territory. The assertion that a characteris-tic of coping behaviour is that it changes over thecourse of the event confirms that no single behav-iour or psychosocial outcome can be identified ascoping with adverse, uncomfortable or stressfulworkspace features. Rather, the presence of anybehaviour form that can be construed as copingwith workspace suggests the presence of work-space stress.

Almost all theoretical models of stress at workrefer to a mismatch or misfit between thedemands of the situation and the resources of theindividual. The focus on misfit, what it means,how it shows itself and how to measure it, is fun-

damental to work stress research and focuses onthe transactional nature of the personenviron-ment relationship and the processes that underlieit. The value of the cybernetic model advancedby Cooper and Dewe (2004, p. 97) is its focus onpersonenvironment interaction as a system, inwhich individuals constantly modify their envi-ronment while, at the same time, adjusting andadapting their behaviour to fit the environmentthey occupy. Prevailing theoretical models ofstress at work emphasize the need for a good fitbetween a persons abilities, skills and degree ofcontrolor decision latitudeand the work

environments demands, complexity, expectationsand challenges. A poor fit in either direction(too many skills, not enough demands, or toomany demands and insufficient control) generatesstress (Czikszentmihalyi, 1990; Kaplan, 1983;Lawton, 1980). The relevance of the concept offit in environmental psychology is discussedbelow.

The environmental psychology ofworkspace

Researchers in environmental psychology havedeveloped a rich literature on ways of measuringhow the physical environment meets peoples(users) needs, in which many varieties and exam-ples of misfit are recorded. The definition of misfitis one in which the environment places inappro-priate or excessive demands on users, in spite oftheir adaptation and adjustment behaviours(coping). The concept of environmental fit is wellintegrated into the environmental psychology lit-erature (Alexander, 1970; Herring, Szigeti, &Vischer, 1977; Preiser, 1983; Zeisel, 2005).

So what are the elements in the physical work-space that can be identified as affecting fit ormisfit between person and environment at work?One area of research that has begun to answerthis question is ergonomics. Initially developedfor military and manufacturing processes,ergonomics researchers now apply their assess-ment tools to office furniture and equipment toprotect workers from long-term muscular ornerve injury due to poor bodily positioning ormuscle use. Stress, from the ergonomics stand-

A theoretical model of workspace stress



4/10

point, is frequently discussed in terms of the rela-tionship between levels of performance and con-cepts such as arousal, signal detection theory anddifferent environmental demands (Cooper &Dewe, 2004, p. 65).

The ergonomic approach studies tools andequipment as well as workspace features as exten-sions of the human body. Those ergonomic fea-tures most frequently studied in workspaceinclude lighting and daylighting, noise and noisecontrol, and office furniture and spatial layoutsin offices. These are summarized below.

Lighting research has tended to distinguishbetween the effects on building occupants of arti-ficial, interior lighting and of natural light or day-lighting from windows. Daylighting research haslinked increased comfort and productivity withwindow size and proximity, as well as with view

out, control over blinds and shielding from glare(Hedge, 2000; Leather, Pyrgas, Beale, &Lawrence, 1998; Mallory-Hill, van der Voost, &Van Dortmost, 2004). More significantly,research on daylight and views from hospitalrooms has been shown to affect medicationrequirements and recovery rates (Ulrich, 1991;Verderber & Reuman, 1988). In their overviewof the effects of different kinds of artificial light-ing on task performance and occupant satisfac-tion, Boyce, Veitch, Newsham, Myer, and Hunter(2003) concluded that current office lighting stan-dards are preferred by most people carrying outtypical office tasks in a simulated office environ-ment, where workers used controls to exercisetheir lighting choices. The study results made adistinction between visual comfortlightingneeded to perform well on office tasksand sat-isfaction, or lighting judged to be aesthetic.

Current studies of noise in offices have adaptedtechniques for measuring noise levels in industrialenvironments. Workers in open plan workspacetend to judge noise to be a primary source ofdiscomfort and reduced productivity (Hedge,1986; Oldham, 1988; Stokols & Scharf, 1990;

Sundstrom, Herbert, & Brown, 1982). Acousticcomfort studies have focused on correlating phys-ical measures, such as signal-to-noise ratios at dif-ferent densities, background noise levels andintensities, and speech intelligibility under differ-ing physical conditions, with occupant judge-ments of distraction and annoyance (Ayr, Cirillo,& Martellota, 2001; Chu & Warnock, 2002;Mital, McGlothlin, & Faard, 1992). Efforts tocontrol office noise through more absorbent sur-faces, sound-masking systems and behavioural

controls have been undermined by increasingoffice densities and collaborative work in modernworkspace.

Perhaps the largest number of environmentalpsychology studies of workspace has focused on

floor configuration and furniture layouts in theopen plan office. Research indicates that theseenvironmental factors have the greatest influenceon worker satisfaction and performance (Brill,Margulis, & Konar, 1985; Hatch, 1987; Sullivan,1990; Vischer, 1989). Studies have tended tofocus on the height and density of workstationpartitions, the amount and accessibility of file andwork storage, and furniture dimensions such aswork surfaces as being these elements of furnitureand spatial layout which have the most effect notonly on the satisfaction of individual workers buton the performance of teams. One study indicated

that the additional investment in ergonomictables and chairs for workers yielded a 5-monthpayback in terms of increased productivity(Miles, 2000). Several studies provide evidencethat office workers are uncomfortable in openplan configurations and prefer private enclosedworkspace (Brennan, Chugh, & Kline, 2002;Fried, Slowik, Ben-David, & Tiegs, 2001; Orn-stein, 1999). In addition, aspects of psychologicalcomfort such as territoriality and privacy arestrongly affected by spatial layout: office size andlocation is linked with status; partitioning influ-ences acoustic as well as visual privacy; amountof office storage is linked with territoriality andstatus (Fischer, Tarquinio, & Vischer, 2004;McCusker, 2002; Vischer, 2005; Vischer,McCuaig, Nadeau, Melillo, & Castonguay-Vien,2003; Wells, 2000).

In their overview of stress related to the phys-ical work environment, McCoy and Evans (2005)go beyond ergonomics to characterize as stressfulthose situations where elements of the physicalenvironment interfere with the attainment ofwork objectives. Stressors in the work environ-ment affect employee performance adversely

when they are high intensity or prolonged; theyslow down the individuals ability to process andunderstand the number and predictability ofsignals, which increase with task complexity.Potential stressors (i.e. elements that interferewith task performance, motivation and socialrelationships) include spatial organisation, archi-tectonic details, ambient conditions andresources, and view or visual access from theworkspace. As environmental stressors, [these]can influence physiological processes, produce

J. C. Vischer


8


5/10

negative affect, limit motivation and perfor-mance, and impede social interaction (p. 222).

Spatial organization issues include the open-ness of the layout: that is, the proportion of openworkstations to private, enclosed offices, the

height of partitions and the distance betweenopen workstations, as well as access to neededresources, such as technology and equipment,meeting rooms and washrooms. Closely relatedto spatial organization are ambient conditionssuch as sound, visual openness and light, as wellas ventilation and thermal comfort.

Architectonic details, which include coloursand decoration, signage, artwork and designdetails, convey meaning and can have symbolicsignificance that affects people emotionally. Forexample, some work environments encouragepersonalization and individual decoration; some

have key landmark elements that facilitate terri-torial definition for individuals or groups; somecarry symbolic status, such as proximity towindows (positive) or to washrooms (negative).Architectonic details are likely to affect emotion-focused coping behaviour in situations of work-space stress.

A mismatch between the demands placed onworkers and the control they have over the phys-ical environment in which they meet thosedemands is by definition stress-generating.McCoy and Evans (2005) emphasize the tempo-ral dimension: an environmental element that istemporarily annoying cannot be identified as astressor in the same way as that same annoyingelements effect over time, when it becomes adaily hassle. The sustained impact of adverseenvironmental elements may also cause a delayedreaction, affecting performance after the stressorhas been removed.

Environmental psychology research into thework environment has until recently focused onmeasuring user satisfactionboth job satisfac-tion and environmental satisfaction. Based onstimulusresponse logic, this approach posits user

satisfaction as a measurable behavioural responseto features of the physical environment. However,little in this approach controls for the personaland experiential influences and prejudices thataffect peoples assessment of the quality of theirworkspace. The global and inexact concept ofsatisfaction does not address the complexities ofthe transactional nature of the personenviron-ment relationship. More recent work on environ-mental comfort elaborates on the notion of fitbetween user and workspace, providing a

sounder theoretical basis for workspace stressresearch.

Comfort and stress

The idea of human comfort has traditionally beenapplied in architectural history research to study-ing the functional aspects of the dwellings andbuildings of older and remote cultures. Comfortas a basis for setting environmental standards inpublic buildings has developed out of recognizingthat people need to be more than simply healthyand safe in the buildings they occupy. Once healthand safety are assured, users need environmentalsupport for the activities they are there toperform, that is, environmental comfort (Vischer,1989). The concept of environmental comfort

links the psychological aspects of workers envi-ronmental likes and dislikes with concreteoutcome measures such as improved task perfor-mance, as well as with organizational productiv-ity through workspace support for work-relatedtasks.

Evidence suggests that environmental comfortcomprises at least three hierarchically related cat-egories: physical, functional and psychological(Vischer, 2005). Physical comfort includes basichuman needs such as safety, hygiene and accessi-bility without which a building is uninhabitable.These needs are met through applying currentbuilding codes and standards to architecturaldesign and construction decision making. Func-tional comfort is defined in terms of ergonomicsupport for users performance of work-relatedtasks and activities. Appropriate lighting forscreen-based work, ergonomic furniture for com-puter users, and enclosed rooms available formeetings and collaborative work, for example,help ensure functional comfort. Psychologicalcomfort results from feelings of belonging, own-ership and control over workspace. The environ-mental comfort model postulates that, although

weakness in one category can be compensated forby strength in another, optimal environmentalsupport for work performance is most likely tooccur when workspace quality is assured at allthree comfort levels.

Figure 1 illustrates the environmental comfortmodel. The diagram shows that while physicalcomfort is at the threshold of acceptable work-space, psychological comfort is affected by thedegree of environmental choice or empowermentusers feel they have through decision-making




6/10

processes. The third category, functional comfort,

needs to be measured in order to determine whichenvironmental elements support, or fail tosupport, work. Functionally uncomfortableworkspace draws energy out of the worker thatwould otherwise be directed to performing work.Depending on the tasks they are performing,workers are more or less affected by environ-mental factors such as lighting, furniture layoutand ergonomics, noise level and temperature. Anadverse or problematic workspace (poor fit)drains effort and energy out of the user: shecannot see well in poor lighting conditions, shehas to get up and walk around to relieve back orneck pain, she has to wait to have a meetingbecause there is no space in her cubicle and noavailable conference room. On the other hand, asupportive, positive and effective work environ-ment (good fit) allows and even encouragesoccupants to apply all their energy and attentionto performing work. The difference between asupportive and an unsupportive workspace isthus the degree to which occupants can conservetheir attention and energy for their tasks, asopposed to expending it to cope with adverseenvironmental conditions. The energy drawn

out of users in adverse environmental conditionscan therefore be hypothesized as coping mecha-nisms or behaviour; evidence that such mecha-nisms are present in employees behaviouralrepertoire at work indicates a stressful (uncom-fortable because unsupportive) workspace.

The environmental comfort model positsuncomfortable workspacewhere there is amisfit between what people need to perform theirtasks and resources the physical environmentprovidesas a definition of workspace stress or

strain. That is, sustained misfit situations gener-ate stress, both of the daily hassle variety as wellas on a more critical level, such as in cases of sickbuilding syndrome, where pollutants in theindoor air cause illness and absenteeism. Depend-

ing on the type of space and the work being per-formed, every office environment is situatedsomewhere along the stress-to-support contin-uum, with none being either all good or all bad,but most varying with type of user and type oftasks. Where the personworkspace interactionfalls on the continuum also depends on time ofday, time of year, availability and accessibility ofoffice technology, and corporate values andculture.

According to the environmental comfortmodel, psychological comfort links psychosocialaspects with the environmental design and man-

agement of workspace through the concepts ofterritoriality, privacy and control (Sundstrom &Sundstrom, 1986; Vischer et al., 2003; Wells,2000). A sense of territory is associated with feel-ings of belonging and ownership. Privacy is bestunderstood as the need to exercise control overones accessibility to others (Altman, 1975;Kupritz, 2000; Steele, 1986). Environmentalcontrol can be said to affect workers on at leasttwo levels: mechanical or instrumental control,and empowerment (Vischer, 2005). Instrumentalcontrol exists where chairs and work surfaces canbe raised and lowered, work tables on wheels canbe moved around, lights are switchable, and thereis an office door to open and close. Evidence indi-cates a positive psychological impact from thistype of control in certain circumstances(Newsham, Veitch, Arsenault, & Duval, 2004; Tu& Loftness, 1998).

Empowerment as a form of environmentalcontrol increases opportunities for employees toparticipate and be heard in workspace decisionmaking and means they are better informed. Thisalleviates the three stress-causing conditions iden-tified by Mason (1972) by reducing novelty and

unpredictability as well providing a sense ofcontrol through opportunities to have a say indesign decisions. McCoy and Evans (2005, p.237) characterize uncontrollability over work-space as a demotivator leading to learnedhelplessness. Several studies demonstrate thatpsychosocial control by means of user participa-tion in the design process has a positive effect onpeoples response to and feelings about theirworkspace (Dewulf & Van Meel, 2003; Veitch &Newsham, 2000; Vischer, 2004).

J. C. Vischer


0

habitability threshhold

physical comfort

psychological

comfort

functional comfort

occupant satisfaction

and well-being

discomfort

value calculatedthrough measurement

value added through process

value based on necessity

Figure 1. The Habitability pyramid.Note: From Vischer (2005).


7/10

Towards a theory of workspace stress

Several of the concepts described in this paper canbe applied to a framework for the study of work-space stress. First among these is goodness of fit.

The concept of fit can be expanded beyond theprimarily architectural framework posited byAlexander (1966), which is somewhat static in itsemphasis on environmental design, to a broaderdefinition of fit between user abilities and motivesover time, and degree of environmental complex-ity (Lawton, 1980). Broadening this definitionand applying it to workspace takes us in severalfruitful directions.

The environmental comfort model states that aworkspace either supports the tasks and activitiesthat are being performed there (comfort condi-tion), or it fails to support them and in fact slows

them down (uncomfortable condition and causeof stress). Studies of users work behaviour,through observation and questioning, providerich data on the degree to which workspaces aresupportive (good fit) or unsupportive (bad fit, ormismatch). Applying this framework, the energya user expends to overcome mismatched orunsupportive spatial elements is expressed ascoping behaviour and can be measured as such.

Another potential direction for workspacestress research builds on the demand-controlmodel of job stress. As Figure 2 shows, the twoaxes of decision latitude and psychologicaldemands that are applied to different job types

can be modified to apply to types of workspacesuch that workspace categories can be identifiedin terms of more or less strain on users.

This approach reduces the strict separation ofbehavioural measures from environmental fea-

tures by fusing them into the more interactivenotion of workspace as space accommodatingspecific tasks. Decision latitude translates into thedegree of control users have over their workspacethrough participation in decisions; and psycho-logical demands translate into the demandingnessor energy required to perform tasks in a givenworkspace. Moreover, the demand-control modelidentifies social support as a third key factor influ-encing job stress and coping, and as indicated byMcCoy and Evans (2005), physical elements andworkspace design have an important role indetermining social relationships and networks

that develop at work. Stephenson (1998) hasamply demonstrated the importance of informalsocial networks to facilitate the flow of informa-tion in organizations, and efforts have been madein some organizations to design workspace thatfacilitates informal social network formation.

In summary, the key building blocks for a the-oretical model of workspace stress build on well-established themes in both stress research andenvironmental psychology. These include thenotion of fit or match between user and environ-ment, the concept of control and managingnovelty and unpredictability, the measurement ofdaily hassles and energy-consuming impedimentsto the smooth performance of tasks, as well as theimportance of social support, territoriality andenvironmental control.

Directions for future research

To validate and build on these theoretical links,workspace stress needs to be measured. Toolsexist to measure functional comfort (Vischer,1989), daily hassles (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985),

coping and appraisal (Lazarus, 1981), as well asthe multidimensional concept of control in rela-tion to environmental novelty and predictability(Lupien et al., 2006). The concept of environ-mental comfort is derived in part from the notionof fit between user and environment and serves asa basis for the following hypotheses.

Every workspace can be defined as providingmore or less support to people performing spe-cific tasks and activities that have specific envi-ronmental requirements. The more support



Decisionlatitude(controloverworkspace)

Psychological demandingnessof workspace

PARTICIPATION

ENERGY OUTENERGY IN

active

passive

low-strain

high-strainNO

PARTICIPATION

Figure 2. Demand-Control Model of workspacestress.Note: From Vischer (2005), after Karasek andTheorell (1990).


8/10

people receive for the task, the more comfortablethe space and the better fit between space anduser. Spaces providing less support, that is, thosethat are inappropriate to some degree for thetasks being performed, are appraised as uncom-

fortable by users, requiring them to performcoping activities to solve environmental prob-lems, and are therefore stressful. The degree towhich coping with workspace occupies the timeand attention of users represents, for employers,loss of time and attention from the performanceof work.

Sense of control is an important mediating vari-able, in that perceived environmental control canreduce strain even when workspace discomfortresults in coping behaviour. Furthermore, instru-mental environmental controls effectively reducestress by providing physical ways of solving envi-

ronmental problems or discomfort, providingworkers know how to activate them. Environ-mental empowerment, on the other hand,increases psychological comfort and reduces stressby increasing decision latitude. Without somedegree of environmental empowerment (control),the novelty and unpredictability of workspacechanges in todays modern corporate world arelikely to increase discomfort and therefore stress.

Balancing environmental demands with theskills and abilities of users to act on their envi-ronment is a way of defining optimal workspacefor creativity and flow (Czikszentmihalyi, 2003).The concepts of positive stress (Selye, 1979) andof environmental competence (Lawton, 1980;Sternberg, 2001) are both useful in this context,in that they recognize that some challenge is nec-essary to ensure active engagement. A workspacecannot be designed to be a one-time, final andpermanent ergonomic support for all office tasks,but rather needs to be adaptable and negotiableto be most supportive to users (Joiner & Ellis,1985). Users need decision latitude as well as theskills and opportunities to engage with and adjusttheir environment successfully, over time and

with changing task requirements, in order tooptimize comfort and manage workspace stresssuccessfully.

The environmental comfort model implies amulti-pronged approach to measurement andtesting. Measures need to be developed to evalu-ate the demands or demandingness of a givenworkspace (in terms of both task requirementsand spatial features), to assess workers decisionlatitude or experience of control, as well as todetermine the amount of stress (discomfort) or of

support (comfort) judged to be present. The well-established functional comfort scale may beuseful in establishing the demandingness of work-space, as users judgements of functional comfortpertain to the combined assessment of the

requirements of the tasks and the suitability of thespaces in which the tasks are being carried out(Vischer & Fischer, 2005).

The presence of workspace stress can beinferred from number and frequency of copingbehaviours. The functions of coping are First, tochange the situation for the better . . . , either bychanging ones own offending action . . . or bychanging the damaging or threatening environ-ment; and second, to manage the subjective andsomatic components of stress-related emotionsthemselves (Lazarus, 1981, p. 197). Lazarus(1981) posits four coping modes, of which infor-

mation search and direct action are likely to berelevant to workspace stress assessment. By defin-ing workspace coping as behaviour (actions,thoughts, feelings) that solve a workspaceproblem, but that in doing so, claim workerstime and attention from their work, many of thebehaviours that Lazarus and his colleagues haveintegrated into measurement scales can be used asa basis for measuring space-related coping. Themore coping behaviour is recorded in a givenspace, the more workspace stress can be inferred.

Applying measurement results to the comfortmodel enables us to rate specific workspaces ona scale where comfort (supportive) is at one endand lack of comfort (stressful) is at the other,thus indicating the degree of worker effort andenergy required. This could be developed into atool to help organizations understand not onlywhat kinds of changes to make to improve work-space, but also to see the return on investmentfrom increased worker efficacy.

Thus, by combining elements of work stressresearch with the environmental psychology ofworkspace, it is evident that a new area of studyis opening up, namely the study of stress attrib-

utable to the design of workspace. As we find outmore about how, when and why the buildingswhere people work affect their health and morale,so we will be able to help companies make morehumane and cost-effective decisions about work-space.

References

Alexander, C. (1966). Notes on the synthesis of form.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

J. C. Vischer


2


9/10

Alexander, C. (1970). The goodness of fit and its source. InH. Proshansky, W. Ittelson, & L. Rivlin (Eds), Environ-mental psychology: Man and his physical setting (pp.4256). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior:Privacy, personal space, territory and crowding. Monterey,CA: Brooks-Cole.

Ayr, U., Cirillo, E., & Martellota, F. (2001). An experimentalstudy on noise indices in air conditioned offices. AppliedAcoustics, 62(6), 633643.

Boyce, P., Veitch, J., Newsham, G., Myer, M., & Hunter, C.(2003). Lighting quality and office work: A field simulationstudy. Ottawa, Canada: U.S. Dept. of Energy & NationalResearch Council of Canada.

Brennan, A., Chugh, J.S., & Kline, T. (2002). Traditionalversus open office design: A longitudinal study. Environ-ment and Behavior, 34(3), 279299.

Brill, M., Margulis, S., & Konar, E. (1985). Using office designto increase productivity (2 vols.). Buffalo, NY:Westinghouse.

Chu, W.T., & Warnock, A.C. (2002). Measurement of soundpropagation in open plan offices. Ottawa, Canada: Institutefor Research in Construction, National Research Councilof Canada.

Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.) (2000). Creating the productiveworkplace. London: E & FN Spoon.

Cooper, C., & Dewe, P. (2004). Stress, a brief history. Oxford:Blackwell Publishing.

Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology ofoptimal experience. New York: Harper Collins.

Czikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership,flow and the making of meaning. New York, NY: Viking.

Davis, T. (1984). The influence of the physical environmentin offices. Academy of Management Journal, 9(2), 271283.

Dewe, P., & Guest, D. (1990). Methods of coping with stressat work: A conceptual analysis and empirical study of mea-surement issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11,135150.

Dewulf, G., & Van Meel, J. (2003). Democracy in design? InR. Best, C. Langston, & G. De Valence (Eds), Workplacestrategies and facilities management: Building in value (pp.281290). London: Butterworth Heinemann.

Dilani, A. (2004). Design and health III: Health promotionthrough environmental design. Stockholm, Sweden: Inter-national Academy for Design and Health.

Dolden, M., & Ward, R. (1986). The impact of the work envi-ronment on productivity: Proceedings of a workshop.Washington, DC: National Science Foundation and Archi-tectural Research Centers Consortium.

Fischer, G.-N., Tarquinio, C., & Vischer, J.C. (2004). Effectsof the self-schema on perception of space at work. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 131140.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it changes it must bea process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages

of a college examination.Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 48(1), 150170.

Fried, Y., Slowik, L.H., Ben-David, H.A., & Tiegs, R.B.(2001). Exploring the relationship between workspacedensity and employee attitudinal reactions: An integrativemodel. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 74(3), 259372.

Hatch, M.J. (1987). Physical barriers, task characteristics andinteraction activity in research and development firms.Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(3), 387399.

Hedge, A. (1986). Open versus enclosed workspace: Theimpact of design on employee reactions to their offices. In

J.D. Wineman (Ed.), Behavioural issues in office design (pp.139176). NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Hedge, A. (2000). Where are we in understanding the effectsof where we are? Ergonomics, 43(7), 10191029.

Herring, B., Szigeti, F., & Vischer, J.C. (1977). Programmingand environmental analysis for environmental fit. In P.Suedfeld, & J. Russell (Eds), The behavioral basis of design:Proceedings of EDRA 7 (pp. 397399). Boston: DowdenHutchinson and Ross.

Ivancevich, J.M., & Matteson, M.T. (1980). Optimizinghuman resources: A case for preventive health and stressmanagement organizational dynamics. Autumn, London,UK: Elsevier Publishing.

Joiner, D., & Ellis, P. (1985). Design quality is negotiable inplace and placemaking. Proceedings of People and PhysicalEnvironment Research (PAPER) conference, Melbourne,Australia, June.

Kanner, A.D., Coyne, J.C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R.S.(1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement:Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events.Journal ofBehavioral Medicine, 4, 119.

Kaplan, R.D. (1983). Personenvironment fit, past, presentand future. In C.L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress research: Issues forthe eighties (pp. 3578). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley andSons.

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, pro-ductivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York:Basic Books.

Klitzman, S., & Stellman, J. (1989). The impact of thephysical environment of the psychological well-beingof office workers. Social Science and Medicine, 29(6),733742.

Kupritz, V.W. (2000). Privacy management at work: A con-ceptual model. Journal of Architectural and PlanningResearch, 17(1), 4763.

Latack, J.C. (1986). Coping with job stress: Measures andfuture directions for scale development.Journal of AppliedPsychology, 71, 377385.

Lawton, M.P. (1980). Environment and aging. Monterey, CA:Brooks-Cole.

Lazarus, R.S. (1981). The stress and coping paradigm. In C.Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, A. Kleinman, & P. Maxim (Eds),Models for clinical psychopathology (pp. 177214). NewYork: Spectrum.

Lazarus, R.S. (1984). Puzzles in the study of daily hassles.Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 7, 375389.

Lazarus, R.S., & Cohen, J.B. (1977). Environmental stress. InI. Altman, & J.F. Wohlwill (Eds), Human behaviour and theenvironment: Current theory and research (pp. 89127).New York: Spectrum.

Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation.In W.D. Genby (Ed.), The handbook of behavioral medi-cine (pp. 282325). New York: Guilfold.

Leather, P., Pyrgas, M., Beale, D., & Lawrence, C. (1998).Windows in the workplace: Sunlight, view and occupa-tional stress. Environment and Behavior, 30(6), 739762.

Lupien, S.J., Ouellet-Morin, I., Hupbach, A., Tu, M.T., Buss,C., Walker, D., Pruessner, J., and McEwen, B.S. (2006).Beyond the stress concept: Allostatic load, a developmen-tal, biological and cognitive perspective. In D. Cicchetti &D.J. Cohen (Eds) Developmental Psychopathology, Volume2. Developmental Neuroscience (2nd ed). Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons.Mallory-Hill, S., van der Voost, T., & Van Dortmost, A.

(2004). Evaluation of innovative workplace design in theNetherlands. In W.F.E. Preiser, & J. Vischer (Eds), Assess-ing building performance (pp. 160169). London: ElsevierScience Publishers.

Mason, J.W. (1972). Organization of psychoendocrine mech-anisms: A review and reconsideration. In N.S. Greenfield,




10/10

& R.A. Sternbach (Eds), Handbook of psychophysiology(pp. 3121). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

McCoy, J.M., & Evans, G. (2005). Physical work environ-ment. In J. Barling, E.K. Kelloway, & M. Frone (Eds),Handbook of work stress (pp. 219245). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

McCusker, J.A. (2002). Individuals and open space office

design: The relationship between personality and satisfac-tion in an open space work environment. PhD thesis,Rutgers University. Dissertation Abstracts International,63(2B), 1076.

Miles, A.K. (2000). The ergonomics and organizational stressrelationship. PhD thesis, Florida State University School ofBusiness, micro. 9994574.

Milton, D.K., Glencross, P.M., & Walters, M.D. (2000). Riskof sick leave associated with outdoor air supply rate,humidification and occupant complaints. Indoor Air, 10(4),212221.

Mital, A., McGlothlin, J.D., & Faard, H.F. (1992). Noise inmultiple workstation open-plan computer rooms: Mea-surements and annoyance.Journal of Human Ergology, 21,6982.

Newsham, G., Veitch, J., Arsenault, C., & Duval, C., (2004).Effect of dimming control on office worker satisfaction and

performance (NRCC-47069). Ottawa, Canada: NationalResearch Council Canada.

Newsham, G.R., Veitch, J., Charles, K.E., Clinton, J.G.,Marquardt, J.G., Bradley, J.S., Shaw, C.Y., & Readon, J.(2004). Environmental satisfaction in open plan environ-ments: Relationships between physical variables. TechnicalReport RR-153, Ottawa, Institute for Research in Con-struction, National Research Council Canada.

Oldham, G.R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace parti-tions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2),253258.

Ornstein, S.W. (1999). A post-occupancy evaluation of work-places in Sao Paolo, Brazil. Environment and Behavior,

31(4), 435462.Preiser, W.F.E. (1983). The habitability framework: A con-ceptual approach towards linking human behavior andphysical environment. Design Studies, 4(2), 8491.

Schwartz, L.E., & Stone, A.A. (1993). Coping with daily workproblems: Contribution of problem content, appraisals andperson factors. Work and Stress, 7, 4762.

Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.Selye, H. (1979). The stress concept and some of its implica-

tions. In V. Hamilton, & D.M. Warburton (Eds), Humanstress and cognition: An information-processing approach(pp. 1132). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Steele, F. (1986). Making and managing high quality work-places: An organizational ecology. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Stephenson, K. (1998). What knowledge tears apart, networks

make whole. Internal Communication Focus, 36, RetrievedJanuary 31 2007 from http://www.netform.com/html/icf.pdf.

Sternberg, E.M. (2001). The balance within: The science con-necting health and emotions. New York: Henry Holt andCo.

Stokols, D., & Scharf, F. (1990). Developing StandardizedTools for Measuring employees rating of facility perfor-mance. In G. Davis, & F.T. Ventre (Eds), Performance ofbuilding and serviceability of facilities (pp. 5568).Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing andMaterials.

Sullivan, C. (1990). Employee comfort, satisfaction and pro-

ductivity: Recent efforts at Aetna. In P. Souter, G.H.Darnoff, & J.B. Smith (Eds), Promoting health and pro-ductivity in the computerized office. London: Taylor andFrancis.

Sundstrom, E., & Sundstrom, M.G. (1986). Work places: Thepsychology of the physical environment in offices and fac-tories. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sundstrom, E., Herbert, R.K., & Brown, D.W. (1982). Privacyand communication in an open plan office. Environmentand Behavior, 14(3), 379392.

Theorell, T. (1986). Stress at work and risk of myocardialinfarction. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 62(730),791795.

Tu, K.J., & Loftness, V. (1998). The effects of organizationalworkplace dynamics and building infrastructure flexibilityon environmental and technical quality in offices. Journalof Corporate Real Estate, 1(1), 4663.

Ulrich, R. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness:Theory and recent scientific research.Journal of HealthcareDesign, 3, 87109.

Veitch, J.A., & Newsham, G.R. (2000). Exercised control,lighting choices, and energy use: An office simulation exper-iment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(3),219237.

Verderber, S., & Reuman, D. (1988). Windows, viewsand health status in hospital therapeutic environments.

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 4(2),120133.

Vischer, J.C. (1989). Environmental quality in offices. NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Vischer, J.C. (1996). Workspace strategies: Environment as a

tool for work. New York: Chapman and Hall.Vischer, J.C. (2004). Design review: Sharing design decisionmaking in building performance evaluation. In W. Preiser,& J.C. Vischer (Eds), Assessing building performance (pp.5261). London: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Vischer, J.C. (2005). Space meets status: Designing work-place performance. Oxford, UK: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.

Vischer, J.C., & Fischer, G.-N. (2005). User evaluation of thework environment: A diagnostic approach. Le TravailHumain, 68(1), 73.

Vischer, J.C., McCuaig, A., Nadeau, N., Melillo, M., &Castonguay-Vien, S. (2003). Mission impossible ou missionaccomplie? Rsultats dune tude dvaluation du mobilieruniversel dans les difices bureau. Final report, Montral,Groupe de recherche sur les environnements de travail, Uni-

versit de Montral.Wells, M.M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal dis-

plays: The role of office personalization in employee andorganizational well-being. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology, 20(3), 239255.

Zeisel, J. (2005). Enquiry by design. New York: W. Norton.

J. C. Vischer

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 23: 175184 (2007)DOI: 10 1002/smi

4

Documents

The e f f e c t s o f t h e p h y s i c a l