Content uploaded by Ida Evensen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ida Evensen on Sep 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
University College London
MSc Thesis
A study on the effects of lighting on
social interaction
Author:
Ida Moe Evensen
Supervisor:
Peter Raynham
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in Light and Lighting
in the
The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies
September 2014
Word Count:
13,805
Declaration of Authorship
I, Ida Moe Evensen, declare that this thesis titled, ’A study on the effects of lighting
on social interaction’ and the work presented in it are my own. I confirm that:
This work was done wholly or mainly while in candidature for a masters degree at
University College London.
Where I have consulted the published work of others, this is always clearly at-
tributed.
Where I have quoted from the work of others, the source is always given. With
the exception of such quotations, this thesis is entirely my own work.
I have acknowledged all main sources of help.
Where the thesis is based on work done by myself jointly with others, I have made
clear exactly what was done by others and what I have contributed myself.
Signed:
Date:
ii
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
Abstract
The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies
Master of Science in Light and Lighting
A study on the effects of lighting on social interaction
by Ida Moe Evensen
Socially interactive people are happier and have less health problems. During nordic
winters people isolate themselves indoors, get more depressed, are less active and live
more unhealthy [1]. Improvements in lighting is proven to increase mood which has
a direct impact on behaviour [2]. This study compared three different light settings
in a living room environment, to assess the effect of light on social interaction. The
study found that people interact more with their surroundings in light settings with
high light ratios, where objects with social connotations are the main focal points. In
contrast, people interact more with each other in low level lighting. The paper suggests
that illuminating objects with stories from the external world connects the interior
with the exterior environment, whilst dim environments builds a wall that makes it
harder to engage in social activities. The findings take a small step in the direction
of understanding the ways we are affected by light and hope to inspire future lighting
design and research to develop interior schemes that enhances social interaction.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Peter Raynham who has given me an insight into
the world of research and all the wonderful functions of excel, and my course director Dr.
Kevin Mansfield who’s passion for lighting and architecture has inspired me to challenge
current lighting standards.
Everyone at iGuzzini Lighting UK has been incredibly supportive of my research project.
A special thanks to Rohan Servand who gave me more help than I could ask for and
brought the experiment to a higher level. Also thanks to Ariona Bilbo who helped me
get participants during the week of the experiment.
I am very thankful to Professor Peter Boyce who met me in London, and guided me in
the design process of the study. His encouragement and counseling inspired me to push
my limits and build a full scale environment to gain more realistic results, instead of
conducting a lab experiment.
The Parker family are much appreciated for lending me objects for the installation and
opening their home to me during the experiment.
Thanks to Marius Baade, Dong Hyun Kim and Scott Window for giving me invaluable
feedback on my drafts.
Lastly, I would like to thank my supporting family for always encouraging me to go my
own ways and inspire me to push myself and improve my skills. I am incredibly lucky
to be surrounded by such a great support network.
vi
Contents
Declaration of Authorship ii
Abstract iv
Acknowledgements vi
List of Figures ix
List of Tables x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Hypotheses ................................... 1
1.2 TheEffectsofLighting............................. 2
1.3 PersonalMotivation .............................. 6
1.4 ChapterSummary ............................... 8
2 Methodology 9
2.1 DesignResearch ................................ 9
2.1.1 Experimental Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.2 Illumination............................... 12
2.1.3 Lightsettings.............................. 13
2.1.3.1 The Dim Light Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.3.2 The Down Light Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.3.3 The Shelf Light Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Study ...................................... 16
2.2.1 Subjects................................. 16
2.2.2 Administration of Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3 IndependentVariables ............................. 19
2.4 Questionnaires ................................. 20
2.4.1 Mood .................................. 20
2.4.2 Perception................................ 20
2.5 VideoRecordings................................ 20
2.6 Limitations of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.6.1 Timeconstraints ............................ 21
2.6.2 Location and funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.6.3 Season.................................. 22
vii
Contents viii
2.6.4 Resources ................................ 22
2.7 ChapterSummary ............................... 23
3 Results 24
3.1 Mood ...................................... 24
3.2 Perceptions ................................... 26
3.3 Activities .................................... 28
3.4 Behaviour.................................... 29
3.5 Addedobservations............................... 32
3.6 ChapterSummary ............................... 32
4 Analysis 33
4.1 Mood ...................................... 33
4.2 Perception.................................... 35
4.3 Activities .................................... 42
4.4 Behaviour.................................... 43
4.5 The Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.6 Additional Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.7 ChapterSummary ............................... 46
5 Discussion and Conclusion 49
5.1 Discussion.................................... 49
5.2 Conclusion ................................... 52
A Details from experiment 54
B Questionnaire data 56
C Raw data from the Video Recordings 58
D Calculations to support the main body 60
Bibliography 62
List of Figures
2.1 Plan drawing of the experiment room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Frontelevation ................................. 11
2.3 BackElevation ................................. 12
2.4 Right and left side elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Dim setting, view when seated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6 Dim setting, view from entrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7 Down setting, view when seated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.8 Down setting, view from entrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.9 Shelf setting, view when seated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.10 Shelf setting, view from entrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Average negative mood scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2 Average postive PANAS scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3 Average perception results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4 Activities .................................... 28
3.5 Average time without conversation in each light setting . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6 Directionofview ................................ 31
3.7 Average distance between the subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1 Comfortable or Uncomfortable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2 LazyorEnergetic................................ 37
4.3 TenseorRelaxed ................................ 38
4.4 SimpleorComplex............................... 38
4.5 DarkorBright ................................. 39
4.6 Correlations: Comfortable/Uncomfortable - Lazy/Energetic . . . . . . . . 40
4.7 Correlations: Comfortable/Uncomfortable - Tense/Relaxed . . . . . . . . 41
4.8 Correlations: Feeling inspired - Amount of popcorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
ix
List of Tables
2.1 Containerdimensions ............................. 10
2.2 Materialdetails................................. 10
2.3 Illuminationlevels ............................... 11
2.4 Luminairesused ................................ 13
2.5 Sequence of each light setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.6 Semantic differential scale words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 Panas negative mood results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 Panas positive mood results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3 Perception average and standard deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4 Activities .................................... 28
3.5 Average time spent without conversation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6 Alcoholic beverage consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.7 Foodconsumption ............................... 30
4.1 T-test results for standard deviation in positive mood . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2 T-test values from between the standard deviations of perception . . . . . 35
4.3 Significant differences between the Dim and Shelf light setting . . . . . . . 36
4.4 Significant differences between the Dim and Down light setting . . . . . . 36
4.5 Significant differences between the Down and Shelf Setting . . . . . . . . . 36
4.6 Significant differences between the Down and Shelf light setting . . . . . . 42
4.7 Significant differences in viewing angle between settings . . . . . . . . . . 44
x
Chapter 1
Introduction
This first chapter presents the hypotheses set out, the aim of the study and the structure
of the paper. Relevant research on background material to support the study is presented
and provides a stepping off point for the design of the study described in chapter 2.
1.1 Hypotheses
There is a general problem across the northern part of the hemisphere that too much
time is spent inactive indoors in winter, which can lead to several health problems
including depression and obesity [1]. Studies have found that lack of social relationships
heightens peoples susceptibility to illness [3] and that happy people are more socially
active [4]. There has been a vast majority of studies proving negative health benefits
due to underexposure to daylight [5] and increasingly larger surfaces of buildings are
made of glass to allow daylight entrance. During dark winter months in the north, these
windows works against their purpose and appear to absorb the light from the room and
create a wall between the interior and exterior environment.
This paper wish to reconnect the interior with the exterior by the use of domestic lighting
techniques. The hope is that a lighting scheme that reminds the dweller of the outside
world will encourage him or her to contact friends and stay physically active, instead of
spending hours in front of the TV. The paper aims to get a better understanding of the
ways which artificial light affect mood and behaviour, to be able to manipulate it. The
author puts forward a theory that: domestic lighting schemes that illuminate objects
reminding residents of their social life will make them more eager to move away from
their current environment, and increasing levels of social interaction.
1
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
Three interior lighting schemes have been designed as a proof of concept to show differ-
ence in amount of social interaction, or if there is any change at all. An hypothesis has
been set out for each light setting:
•People are less active and communicate less in dim environments.
•People are less cheerful and interact less with each other and their surroundings
in down-lit environments.
•People interact more with each other and have an increased interest in their sur-
roundings when objects with social connotations are highlighted.
1.2 The Effects of Lighting
An American Gallup on U.S. health habits in winter [1] report that Americans exercise
less and eat less healthy during winter than during the summer months. The ongoing
Gallup show that this drop was consistent from 2008 to 2012. In the dark months of the
year we show a tendency to be less fit, have difficulties concentrating, slower response
time and eat more which increases our body weight and blood sugar levels. It has
been found that improving indoor lighting conditions may help optimize everyday social
behaviour and mood across seasons [6]
McCloughan stated already in 1998 that lighting had an impact on mood and linked
illuminance with sensation seeking [7]. Participants were asked to assess mood after 5
and 30 minutes of first entering a room. There was no differences in the assessment of
the positive affect or sensation seeking between the two times, suggesting that the visual
impacts on mood can be determined after short exposure time.
“Almost nothing of the last 50 years interior research has found its way
into lighting standards or practice, in the light technical sense”
W. Julian, comment on paper by Boyce[8]
Peter Boyce summarises research on lighting conditions for interiors up till 2003 [9]. His
paper highlights that most research on interior lighting has focused on visibility and
visual comfort, which has given us a good understanding on which lighting conditions
cause visual discomfort. However, we still do not fully understand the impacts on lighting
on health, wealth and safety of people. Boyce writes that there is a need for further
research, but not more of the same. Future studies need to move beyond visibility and
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
visual discomfort to areas where lighting operates on mood and behaviour to understand
the impacts on health and task performance.
In an attempt to improve living conditions for the interior Houser et.al. explored the
subjective responses and the perceptions of space [10]. Exposing subjects to 11 different
lighting settings in a classroom they used paired comparisons and semantic differential
scaling in two different studies. The scales gained a deeper insight into which light
settings were more effective at eliciting specific subjective impressions. Light settings
where the indirect component had a horizontal illuminance contribution of 60% or more
were favoured. Subjects reported that the room appeared more spacious when more
light was supplied indirectly, as the walls and ceiling contributed to overall brightness
when the work plane illuminance was held constant. The subjects were clearly able
to discriminate between the different light settings, which suggests that it is worth
considering uplight/downlight photometric distribution because occupants are able to
discern the differences. Gathering data using a semantic differential scale proved to
be a good measurement tool and Houser et. al.s study provides helpful background
research for lighting office and work environmens, but is not directly translatable when
considering lighting preferences for a domestic interior. The preferred levels of lighting
in a classroom exceed those of which in a living environment [11], where inhabitants
usually aim to relax instead of focusing on a specific task or being productive.
“There is, as yet, no firm consensus among the lighting designers and
researchers on the psychological aspects and impressions created by lighting.”
Durak A. [12]
Durak et al. conducted an experimental study to investigate how the qualitative aspects
of space (the impressions of a space) could be enhanced with lighting [12]. Three different
lighting arrangements; general lighting (downlighting), cove lighting and wall washing
was installed in a room designed to look like a study space. One hundred participants
chose the most suitable lighting arrangement for different impressions under 500lux
illuminance, and in the second stage compare the chosen lighting arrangement in 500lux
and 320lux. Wall washing at high level was preferred for spaciousness and order, whilst
low level cove lighting for relaxation and privacy. This suggests that private spaces
are considered more relaxing, and that people are less able to relax in larger, bright
surroundings. The paper concluded that different lighting arrangements and varied
illuminances of the same lighting arrangement effect peoples impressions about a room.
Chapter 1. Introduction 4
“The currently accepted notion that the basic purpose of general lighting
practice is to enable performance of visual tasks is examined and found to
be lacking in substance.”
Kit Cuttle, 2013 [13]
There are few lighting standards for a living room interior. The standard for lighting
public lounges are suggested 200lux in the SLL Code for Lighting [11]. A public area
would be expected to have higher illumination leves than a domestic home, thus no
standard applies to this experiment. The lighting industry is currently under a gradual
change from measuring light only on the horizontal plane (task areas), bringing attention
to luminance changes on the vertical plane and field of view [14].
Kit Cuttle proposed in 2012 [13] two new criteria for lighting design with the visual
experience in focus. The first assesses adequacy of illumination for an activity in terms of
the density of reflected light from surrounding room surfaces, and the second is concerned
with how the luminaire luminous flux is directed onto selected target surfaces. Directing
attention to different target areas within the interior, Cuttle propose to use illuminance
ratios to control the perceived differences of the interior environment. The differences
are: noticeable, distinct, strong and emphatic and their proposed illuminance ratios
1.5:1, 3:1, 10:1, and 40:1 respectively.
In 1983 J. Simpson conducted a survey of 101 homes which compared differences of the
chosen illumination levels in the living room to those set out in the CIBSE/IES Code
[15]. The light levels were inadequately low in the majority of cases. The paper discuss
that many of the accidents in the home could have been avoided with higher illumination
levels. Even though this is an old study the author believes this shows that we don’t
light our homes for visual clarity, but for liveliness and cosiness which is also reported
in the 2013 study by Liu et al [16]. Their experiment investigated the effect of lighting
on the perception of atmosphere in a living room. The results showed that “liveliness”
and “cosiness” were sufficient dimensions to describe the atmosphere of a living room.
The Bartlett School of Architecture suggested in 1979 that complexity and brightness
should be looked at together [17]. The two parameters “visual lightness” and “visual
interest” was determined in one of their early studies as two of the most important
parameters for lighting. Loe et al. did a study in 2000 that investigated lighting ap-
pearance and light pattern [18]. By installing four different light schemes and combining
them in four different ways, they used 10 bipolar semantic diffferential scales to asses
the perception of the different lighting environments. They found that all installations
that were rated as the most stimulating and comfortable were also the brightest, and all
combinations of two or three lighting techniques. These preferred lighting schemes were.
Chapter 1. Introduction 5
Their result suggest that to create an interest in the lit environment several lighting
techniques should be combined. This experiment only had 12 participants who all were
studying or working within the lighting industry. Determining specific changes in light
levels using professionals is a good way to introduce a theory, however it may not reflect
the general assumption of the population as lighting specialists are bound to be more
critical and observant of changes in luminance.
Different techniques have been used to measuring the subjective response to interior
lighting. Houser and Tiller used paired comparisons and semantic differential scales in
a study to assess subjective responses [19]. They concluded that both techniques have
strengths and weaknesses and that when using semantic differential scale, they should
be complemented by data using another method.
Hawes et al. measured the effect of four workplace lighting on perception, cognition and
affective state [2]. They present evidence that “cognitive task performance improvements
can be directly predicted by changes in mood state”. The experiment presented in this
paper will assess immediate changes in mood, which would effect changes in cognitive
behaviour long term. Hawes et al. used the POMS scale to measure mood that consists
of 65 adjectives rated by subjects on a 5 point scale. A few shortened versions have
sucessfully been made of the test but still consist of 24 items and four scales [20]. The
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) is a shorter mood questionnaire which
has been evaluated to be a reliable and valid scale to assess mood, and used in several
lighting studies over the years [21][22][23]. The PANAS scale was designed to reflect
hierarchical structure of self-rated affect [24]. The report measure positive and negative
mood using a 20 item self-report measure. The test evaluates 10 positive and 10 negative
items by using a 5 point scale. The scale points are: 1 “very slightly or not at all”, 2 “a
little”, 3 “moderately”, 4 “quite a bit” and 5 “extremely”. The negative scale includes
the words: afraid, scared, nervous, jittery, irritable, hostile, guilty, ashamed, upset and
distressed. The positive scale shows the words: active, alert attentive, determined,
enthusiastic, excited inspired interested, proud and strong.
Experiments on behavioural changes by light would usually look at circadian changes
over a longer time period, measuring amount of sleep, melatonin, seratonin and other
medical changes [6]. This paper is limited on time and will not measure circadian change
but look at immediate behavioural changes. Behaviour is defined as the way in which
one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others [25] so will be measured through
observations. Kobayashi found in 2013 that light can improve interpersonal relationships
in various spaces [26]. Couples were observed while sitting down at an open air cafe in
Tokyo in summer during night and daytime. The study looked at posture, volume of
speech, personal distance and facing direction. Comparisons were done between couples
Chapter 1. Introduction 6
with two males, two women and mixed pairs. The couples consisting of two women kept
a closer distance between each other during conversations and kept more frequent eye
contact than male couples. Male couples spent less time in conversation than both the
other two couples. The study concludes that lighting influence several communication
factors (voice, distance, direction facing, eye-contact and seating posture) and urges
future lighting designers to design according to each situation. These methods used to
measure behaviour are also relevant for indoor environments.
Towards the design of the study, ordinary living room environments were looked at to
create two common lighting schemes, and current lighting designers inspired a third
scheme. The renowned lighting designer Mark Major explained that although we design
for vision, being able to see is not the most important part of lighting design [27]. Major
states that perception should be the main focus of a designer. A designed environment
should tell a story about its surroundings, using light as a language. Major argue that
we often over light our surroundings, trying to illuminate every corner of a space instead
of highlighting interesting areas of the space to narrate a story. Speirs and Major
lighting design company have shown in their many award winning designs how spaces
can tell a different story at night by highlighting selected areas, allowing the viewer to
experience the same space differently night from day. We do not have to reinvent light
to create interesting schemes but keep a close communication between the lighting and
architecture, allowing our environments to affect us in a positive way.
1.3 Personal Motivation
The author grew up in Norway with close family living north of the polar circle, and has
experienced both the midnight sun and dark winter months. Personal experience from
Nordic winters sum up the basis of this study with a thought-experiment:
Imagine yourself in a Scandinavian home in June. You got home early and are standing
in the day lit living room looking out the window. What do you feel like doing? Sit
down in the sofa to watch TV, or go out to, perhaps to the park and meet some friends?
Now imagine the same space in January. You turn on the living room lights as the
windows are pitch black and the outside world quiet. What activities tempt you now?
Do you rush out to meet friends or is it more tempting to curl up on the couch to watch
the latest episode of your favourite TV show?
Regarding the amount of articles encouraging us to get out in winter, it is likely that
you felt more tempted to stay inside in the second scenario. In summer it seems easier
Chapter 1. Introduction 7
to get out of the couch and get in touch with people, whilst the winter darkness make
us forget there is a world outside to explore.
Social interaction is defined as the way people talk and act with each other [25]. For
clarity, this paper will use the term to refer to the amount of which people talk and
interact with each other. Research show a change in behaviour from summer to winter.
UK households spend an average of four hours of watching TV every day, almost 10
hours more a week than during the summer months [28]. A 30 year long study by
the University of Maryland concluded that unhappy people watch more TV [4], which
relates to the reported increase in depression in winter [29]. The researchers asked their
subjects to keep diaries for a 24 hour period reporting how pleasurable they found each
activity they did. The conclusion that “self-described very happy people were more
socially active, attended more religious services, votes more and read more newspapers”
are backed by the General Social Survey [30]. The strong link between TV watching
and mood suggest that a change in people’s mood consequently change their behaviour.
A study from 1988 told their participants to hold a pencil between their mouth while
watching cartoons to see if the change in facial expression affected their mood [31]. The
people that were instructed to hold the pencil lengthwise between their teeth forcing a
smile found the cartoons funnier than those who forced a frown, by holding only the
pencil tip between their lips. The study suggest that changing people’s behaviour also
change their mood.
“People who are isolated but healthy are twice as likely to die over the
period of a decade or so as are others in the same health”
James House [32]
People living in todays society are both more connected and more alone than people
were before the word of social media. In “Bowling Alone” Robert D. Putnam writes
on how we count high numbers of friends on Facebook and followers on Twitter, but
when it comes down to it we have no one with whom we can go bowling [33]. In an
article drawing on American research on loneliness, Seligman writes that even though
we have more friends online we have fewer close friends to confide in than we did a
decade ago [30]. She interviews Harvard teacher and psychiatrist Jacqueline Olds who
explain that people feeling depressed or obsessive often dont realise that they are simply
feeling lonely. Researchers have tracked the effect of loneliness and social isolation on
our physical health for decades. According to a study by University of Chicago, 20
percent of all people are unhappy because of social isolation at any given moment [30].
Lack of social relationships heightens peoples susceptibility to illness. [32]. A research
team from the University of Chicago lead by J.T. Cacioppo, discovered that isolation
Chapter 1. Introduction 8
affects how the brain operates, and that the brains of lonely people react differently than
those with strong social networks [3]. The researchers identified that the region of the
brain that is associated with rewards (ventral striatum) is significantly less activated
in lonely people. The region associated with taking the perspective of another person
(temporoparietal junction) is also much less activated among the lonely.
Dynamic lighting has shown to have positive health benefits during winter time. A study
on female permanent morning shift workers last year showed that dynamic lighting has
a calming effect, and positively influences sleep and anxiety/depression ratings [34]. A
2010 study showed that even without significant circadian improvements dynamic light-
ing was the more preferred lighting condition, in spite of higher reports of disturbance
due to direct light and reflections [35]. Daylight is almost always the preferred light
condition when compared to artificial lighting, even though it can bring glare and high
contrasts to a space. It seems that dynamic lighting has the same qualities.
1.4 Chapter Summary
People stay more inside during dark winters and are more affected by feelings of depres-
sions, loneliness and isolation, making them less healthy and sociable and more prone to
develop mental disorders like depression and loneliness. The impact lighting has on our
mood and behaviour has not fully been confirmed, and industry professionals propose a
shift in the lighting industry towards a stronger awareness of the human health.
The majority of research on lighting within the interior has looked at office environments
and focused on visual attributes of the space to improve productivity and happiness of
workers. Few studies have undergone real life experiments that expose subjects to differ-
ent light settings, analysing change in mood and behaviour in relation to the domestic
interior. If studies on domestic interior continues to focus on visibility, it is a risk that
studies on interiors will no longer be taken seriously.
Chapter 2
Methodology
Aiming to encourage social interaction in winter, the author wanted to develop an ex-
periment that examine the effects of lighting in interiors on social interaction. A study
was designed to explore if different light settings make us interact more with each other
and our surroundings. This chapter aims to clearly explain the development of the
experiment.
2.1 Design Research
A living room environment was designed to feel as “homely” as possible to not feel like a
laboratory. The living room is one of the main rooms in the home that encourages social
behaviour with multiple seating options, often directed towards each other. With an aim
to increase interaction in the home, the living room was chosen as the room of study.
Using a real living room for the experiment would have too many variables, including
the difficulty to block out daylight and maintenance of the space. It was required that
the space could not be used by others over the two weeks the experiment was taking
place to present it in the same state to each participant. A living room installation was
built inside a container to have full control over external exposure. Subjective mood
and perceptions were to be evaluated through questionnaires, and a hidden camera was
angled towards the participants to analyse movement and physical behaviour.
2.1.1 Experimental Room
The researcher came in contact with iGuzzini lighting who owns a showroom container,
normally used to display the companys most current luminaires. The container already
had recessed downlights and wall lights integrated, and made it possible to exclude any
9
Chapter 2 Research Design 10
external light interference. The internal walls and ceiling were white, whilst the floor
was dark grey. Dimensions and details about the space are shown in table 2.1. The
approximate distance from the head of the participant to the TV was 2meters. The
“dim”, “down” and “shelf” headings in the tables refer to each individual light scene
which will be explained further in section 2.3.
Table 2.1: Container dimensions
Container
Length 5898 mm
Width 2287 mm
Height 2698 mm
Volume 13.87 m2
Table 2.2: Material details
Interior Surface Material
Floor Dark grey
Walls and Ceiling White
Rug Beige
Shelving White
Table White
Bean bag Brown
The container was designed to feel like an average living room. The furniture was bought
at Ikea, apart from a large bean bag used as a sofa which was borrowed from iGuzzini’s
UK headquarters. Personal experience and discussions with friends and colleagues sug-
gested that most living rooms have a TV-stand and a bookshelf within viewing angle
from the sofa. Popular books, DVDs, video games and art objects was placed in shelving
units under and next to the TV. Two plants was placed on either side of the shelving
and curtains hid the left container door to imitate a window wall. Similar to an interior
after sunset, there was no light entering from behind the curtains. A rug covered the
floor under a coffee table placed in the centre of the room. An aircondition unit was
placed in front of the curtains, to control that temperature and airflow was the same
for all participants. A camera was hidden in a tissue box in the bookshelf, to prevent
change in behaviour due to being filmed.
Alcoholic beverage and popcorn was provided on the coffee table at the beginning of each
45 minute session. The provision of beverage and popcorn was sponsored by iGuzzini
lighting. In addition to functioning as a helpful convincing argument to bring in par-
ticipants, it was also by means of helping them relax, and feel less like a test subject.
Popcorn was chosen as a snack because it is generally more healthy than crisps, and
because it would be easier to see on the video recordings how much they ate.
Chapter 2 Research Design 11
Figure 2.1: Plan drawing of the experiment room
Figure 2.2: Front elevation
Table 2.3: Illumination levels
Code Position Plane Dim Down Shelf
1 Bean Bag H 26 lux 234 lux 58 lux
2 Coffee Table H 6 lux 714 lux 60 lux
3 Bookshelf horisontal H 4 lux 74 lux 1700 lux
4 Inside TV shelf H 3 lux 47 lux 4000 lux
5 Bookshelf vertical V 6 lux 71 lux 61 lux
6 TV screen vertical V 7 lux 49 lux 67 lux
7 TV table V 4 lux 68 lux 287 lux
8 Wall behind TV V 7 lux 29 lux 37 lux
9 Curtain Left V 10 lux 75 lux 45 lux
10 Curtain Right V 5 lux 86 lux 27 lux
11 Entrance Door V 4 lux 19 lux 27 lux
12 Wall right V 11 lux 72 lux 56 lux
13 Head Left V 4 lux 24 lux 62 lux
14 Head Right V 6 lux 27 lux 69 lux
15 Ceiling H.D 6 lux 34 lux 61 lux
Chapter 2 Research Design 12
Figure 2.3: Back Elevation
Figure 2.4: Right and left side elevations
2.1.2 Illumination
The illumination levels are measured at both the horizontal and vertical planes. Table
2.3 shows the illumination level referenced with the code on the plan and sections. The
horisontal (H) measurements was angled upwards, whilst the vertical (V) oriented away
from the closest wall, towards the centre of the space. The lux meter was oriented
downwards on the horizontal plane (H.D) to measure the amount of lux arriving at
the ceiling (code 15). Luminance values were not measured, thus illumination levels on
the vertical plane with the pictures from the space helps to indicate of how much light
arrives at the eye. The colour temperature was the same for all luminaires except the
Chapter 2 Research Design 13
uplighter which was 300Kelvin (K) warmer, a difference which was not noticed within
the view from the bean bag to the TV.
Table 2.4: Luminaires used
Luminaire Manufacturer Colour Light Output Beam Angle In setting
Trick Radial iGuzzini 3000K 214.2lm 6◦Dim, Shelf
Laser Blade iGuzzini 3000K 1274.5lm 34◦Down
Underscore iGuzzini 3000K 305lm 120◦Shelf
NOT IKEA 2700K 200 - Shelf
2.1.3 Light settings
Discussions with people on usual light levels while watching TV returned two different
schemes that was the base for developing the “common” living room schemes: “dim”
and “down”. The third scheme: “shelf” focused on lighting on the vertical plane. Graph
2.3 shows the lux levels in each space. The positions refer to the numbers on the plans
and elevations. Table 2.4 show which luminaires were turned on in each setting. The
specification sheets for all luminaires can be found in Appendix A.
2.1.3.1 The Dim Light Setting
The Dim setting represents the light levels occurring when people watching TV late
in the evening(See figure 2.5 and 2.6). Discussions with people prior to the design of
the study, reported that people often start watching TV before sundown, and although
other rooms in the house may be lit, it can often take hours for viewers to turn on the
light in the TV room. Wall lights behind the viewers were used to represent other rooms
of the house being lit. The Trick Radial luminaires from iGuzzini give out a radial glow
as well as providing a strip of light on the edges of the back wall. The light from these
fittings were not visible for the participants when watching TV allowing the room to be
dimly lit.
2.1.3.2 The Down Light Setting
Due to many years focus on horizontal illuminance in the lighting industry, and inex-
pensive LEDs (Light Emitting Diodes) entering the market, downlights have become
a common sight in many new homes. The down light setting represents this common
solution of downlights (See figure 2.7 and 2.8). Three recessed iGuzzini Laser Blade
miniature luminaires with 10 optical elements of LED lamps distributed light across the
Chapter 2 Research Design 14
Figure 2.5: Dim setting, view when seated
Figure 2.6: Dim setting, view from entrance
Chapter 2 Research Design 15
Figure 2.7: Down setting, view when seated
Figure 2.8: Down setting, view from entrance
Chapter 2 Research Design 16
floor surface. These down lights have a narrow beam angle thus the brightest area was
across the table in the middle of the space. Being lit solely from above, this light setting
had quite high contrasts in shadow and a harsh modelling.
2.1.3.3 The Shelf Light Setting
Recent discussions in the lighting industry on vertical illumination and lighting of spe-
cific task areas[14] was the inspiration for the third light setting (see figure 2.9 and 2.10).
Linear LED strips Underscore were installed inside each shelf, lighting the objects within
it. One floorstanding uplighter from Ikea was placed in the back corner of the space to
give a “homely feel”. The two Trick Radial wall fittings represented other rooms in the
house being lit. This light setting was the brightest one of the three. Due to a broken
dimmer switch, the shelf lighting would have created too large contrasts if being the only
light source, thus it was decided to rise the overall light levels in the room, to decrease
the illuminance ratio. The shelf lighting was designed to pull focus away from the TV.
Illuminance measurements in the shelves was taken only 150mm from the light source at
point 4 and 300mm at point 3 (table 2.3) and in the shelf setting setting pointed directly
towards the source, resulting in extremely high lux levels. Nonetheless, a reduction of
2300lux with a 150mm change in distance point out the quick drop in light levels when
moving away from the source. The author wish to make a note that the images that are
taken of each space does not give justice to the light levels in the space. The brightest
areas did not look as bright in real life, in particular in the shelf setting.
2.2 Study
2.2.1 Subjects
24 participants participated in the study. 15 male participants and 9 female. Four
couples consisted of two males, one of two females, and seven of the couples were mixed.
19 subjects were of British origin, one from Zimbabwe, one Polish and two Italian. There
was high differences in daily hours of watching TV, rating from 0.5 to 60 hours a week,
with an average of 15 hours per week. The study had a wide variety of participants,
but excluded people working with lighting or interior design to represent the average
population. Approximately half of the participants were selected from the high street in
the city centre of Guildford. The average age was 27.5. The percentage of participants in
the different occupational categories of unemployed, student and professional was 8.3%,
8.3% and 83.3% respectively. The participants came from a wide variety of professions
Chapter 2 Research Design 17
Figure 2.9: Shelf setting, view when seated
Figure 2.10: Shelf setting, view from entrance
Chapter 2 Research Design 18
(appendix D. The percentage of participants in each age range (20-30, 31-40, 41-50,
51-60) was 71%, 25%, 0% and 4% respectively. Some of the couples were in an intimate
relationship, while one couple did not know each other. The rest were good friends.
To make the setting as realistic as possible, friends were selected as one would not
normally share ones own sofa with a stranger. Apart from once mixed couple (P9 and
P10), the subjects all knew each other. When sat down this couple kept a greater
distance between them but spent less time in silence. Their mood results did not differ
much from the rest of the group, but the activities thought of more often related to
leaving the room than the other subjects.
2.2.2 Administration of Experiment
Table 2.5: Sequence of the light setting each group experienced
Participants Sequence 1 Sequence 2 Sequence 3
1and 2 Pilot study, excluded from results
3and 4
5and 6 DOWN DIM SHELF
7and 8 SHELF DOWN DIM
9and 10 DIM DOWN SHELF
11and 12 SHELF DOWN DIM
13and 14 DOWN DIM SHELF
15and 16 DOWN SHELF DIM
17and 18 DIM SHELF DOWN
19and 20 SHELF DIM DOWN
21and 22 DOWN SHELF DIM
23and 24 SHELF DIM DOWN
25and 26 DOWN DIM SHELF
27and 28 DIM SHELF DOWN
The participants were invited in pairs to watch a 30min episode of Master Chef (season
7, episode 1). The program was chosen as an example of an ordinary TV show that is
often broadcasted and does not require full attention from the participant. As alcohol
and the interest in the TV show could influence results, the groups were exposed to
the different light settings in different orders. Six sequences were made so the order of
which each couple went through the light settings were randomised, shown in table 2.5.
Participants P1 to P4 was part of the pilot study and are not included in the results.
Each pair sat themselves down in the large bean bag and were left alone in the space
to watch the show. After 10 minutes the researchers came in, paused the show, and
gave the participants questionnaires about their mood and their perception of space.
The questionnaires were finished in private in the same light setting. Once finished they
Chapter 2 Research Design 19
were asked to step outside, while the researchers closed the door to the container and
changed the light setting without the participants observing transformations of the space.
After being exposed to daylight for approximately 60 seconds, the subjects stepped back
inside and seated themselves in the bean bag and the TV show was resumed. The same
routine was repeated after the next 10 minutes and at the end of the show.
The TV program was not exactly 30 minutes long, and some couples came out before
the subtitles finished. This made the last sequence approximately a minute shorter than
the two first for some groups. This variable should be excluded from the randomising
of order.
2.3 Independent Variables
Some independent variables between the subjects are considered:
•Age
Effects of light can differ between people of different gender and age [22]. The
study had a higher percentage men than women, and an overrepresentation of
participants below 30 years of age. The results from the participants outside the
main age group did not differ significantly from the main and the results will be
looked at in whole.
•Gender
Females preserve mood better than males [22], and the higher rate of males can
affect the mood results of the study. With only one sample of female-female couple,
a comparison between the type of couples would be discriminatory and not return
trustworthy results. Only a larger study could compare results between gender
effectively, thus gender comparisons is excluded.
•Cultural
Preferences in lighting can possibly differ between cultures [23], which can impact
the results. However, the participants had all lived in England more than 6months,
and was considered to be culturally climatised. Most of the participants were living
in Guildford at the time, but the different personal backgrounds should exclude
location impacts.
•TV watching
Someone spending large parts of the day watching TV, is likely used to a darker
light environment than a non TV viewer and light preferences could differ. With
Chapter 2 Research Design 20
a wide spread of daily TV hours, the group represent a good variation of the
population.
2.4 Questionnaires
2.4.1 Mood
Mood was measured using the PANAS scale. Three different examples of the scale was
made where the words were randomised in order to exclude repetition of pattern. The
participants were asked to answer quick and intuitively to the questionnaires, without
over-analysing each mood. The original questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.
2.4.2 Perception
The perception of space was tested in the form of a semantic differential scale. The 15
different scales selected is shown in table 2.6 and was hand picked to gain knowledge of
a range of different perceptions (appendix A).
The participants were asked to set a cross closest to the word they found suited the
space. An example is shown below:
Dark Bright
The scale did not have names or numbers assigned on the questionnaire to avoid any
misinterpretations of expressions. When referred to in graphs and results the in following
chapters the five choices has been given the labels fully and mostly to be able to refer
to the correct choice in the results chapter. An example is given below:
Fully pleasant Mostly pleasant Neutral Mostly Unpleasant Fully unpleasant
Participants were also asked to write down the first three activities that come to mind.
This question was included to compare if people consistently thought of similar types
of activities in the different settings. To avoid influence on the answers it was decided
not to prepare a list of activities to choose from, but group the answers in different
categories later.
2.5 Video Recordings
Data was collected from the video recordings to determine how much of the time in
the container was spent without conversation. To be able to measure amount of time
Chapter 2 Research Design 21
Table 2.6: Semantic differential scale words
Pleasant vs. Unpleasant
Confined vs. Spacious
Comfortable vs. Uncomfortable
Lazy vs. Energetic
Public vs. Private
Isolated vs. Open
Tense vs. Relaxed
Hazy vs. Visually clear
Boring vs. Interesting
Simple vs. Complex
Dark vs. Bright
Conservative vs. Innovative
Formal vs. Casual
Serious vs. Fun
Small vs. Large
the couple was not interacting, conversation was considered stopped after 15 seconds
of silence. These occurrences will be compared between each light setting and also
between the order of which the setting was experienced. Data on consumption of food
and beverage was gathered, as the level of alcohol or enjoyment of food could influence
mood and behaviour, and a large intake should be compared with the mood scores.
“Sequence 1” refers to the first light setting each couple was exposed to, “Sequence
2” the second setting and “Sequence 3” the last setting. Still frames taken from the
video recordings were taken every 12th second and used to measure change in distance
between the two participants, if they were focusing on the TV, their fellow participant
or looking around in the space. After completing the experiment, the participants were
briefly asked about their preferred light setting.
2.6 Limitations of the study
2.6.1 Time constraints
It would have been preferred to do a long study to measure biological changes as well
as visual, but with only a couple of weeks access to the experiment space the study
focused on sudden changes in mood and perception. McCloughan’s study found that
the visual impact of a space would stay consistent after 5 minutes [7]. 5 minutes was here
considered to short an adjustment time due to the complexity of the environment and
amount of questionnaires. The pilot study included three different 20 minute episodes
but there was a drop in interest from participants to join a 90minutes experiment. 10
Chapter 2 Research Design 22
minutes was decided to be a sufficient adjustment time and was short enough to get the
acquired amount of participants.
2.6.2 Location and funding
IGuzzini lighting supported the study by providing a space, giving support during both
the installation and execution of the study and paying for all furniture that was bought.
The container was positioned by iGuzzinis UK headquarters in Guildford, just outside
London. More than half of the participants were randomly selected from the main street
in Guilfords town centre, and driven the 5 minutes to iGuzzinis headquarters to partake
in the study.
2.6.3 Season
This study has been developed from an interest in decreasing feelings of depression and
loneliness during dark winters. Studying peoples reactions to the light during dark winter
months would have been preferable, as people would be used to living rooms lit only by
artificial lighting. However, the study was constrained to take place during one of the
brightest summer months in the UK. With the container placed outside the participants
was asked to enter from a bright and sunny exterior to a small space without any access
to daylight. This might have influenced their feelings about the space differently than if
they entered from a dim winter environment. To make sure this did not affect the first
sequence only, the participants were asked to step outside between every setting. Even
if daylight impacted mood, this excluded an extreme change from daylight exposure
before just the first sequence and aimed to bring the participants to the same mood
before every setting. There was an unavailability of fans and air condition units due
to the exceptionally high temperatures throughout the length of the experiment. This
led to a delay of several days while these were procured, to avoid decrease in mood or
behavioural changes due to temperature changes.
2.6.4 Resources
Measuring brain activity and biological changes could have given detailed data of mood
and visual responses to the environment. Without equipment to measure this video
recordings was decided as the best method to record behaviour, however lack of time
and appropriate software limited the extent of which the recordings could be analysed.
In the making of the test the shelf setting was originally being dimmed up and down to
mimic the dynamic changes of an external environment. Unable to program a system
Chapter 2 Research Design 23
that dimmed the lights on a set sequence, it was not possible to control the adjustments
of illumination level. The pilot study proved that the change in light levels gave too
many variables to be able to compare it to the other two settings and dimming was
excluded. The shelf lighting was possibly the light setting with the most variables, and
a separate study could look at the effect of dimming alone.
The LED strips in the top two bookcase shelves was somewhat visible when seated in
the bean bag. If installed in a real living room scenario the strips would preferably be
integrated into the shelf or hidden by a reflector, to not be visible when seated.
2.7 Chapter Summary
A full scale living room installation was designed to compare three different lighting
schemes, to obtain results that is applicable to real life. The environment built has
been considered sufficient to gain relevant feedback on changes in mood and behaviour
by using the PANAS questionnaire to measure mood, a semantic differential scale to
measure perceptions of the space, a word test to look at the desire to do different
activities and video recordings to analyse behaviour.
Chapter 3
Results
This chapter will report the results from the experiment to test the hypothesis, which
will be further discussed in detail in the next chapter.
3.1 Mood
The PANAS questionnaire is divided in the negative (3.1) and positive (table 3.2) moods.
Figure 3.1: Average negative mood scores
The average scores on the PANAS scale for the negative moods were 1.17, 1.23 and 1.32
for the dim, down and shelf setting respectively (table 3.1). There was more agreement
among the participants over the dim setting with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.49.
Participants had an overall agreement with a low score on all negative moods. Option
1 was chosen for over 80% of the participants in all settings for afraid, ashamed, hostile
24
Chapter 3. Results 25
Table 3.1: Panas negative mood results
Dim Down Shelf
SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean
Afraid 0.62 1.29 0.97 1.42 1.06 1.54
Ashamed 0.38 1.13 1.06 1.21 1.06 1.50
Distressed 0.66 1.17 0.41 1.63 0.97 1.46
Guilty 0.45 1.21 0.83 1.08 0.78 1.42
Hostile 0.38 1.17 0.44 1.25 0.64 1.33
Irritable 0.45 1.17 0.74 1.17 0.61 1.25
Jittery 0.45 1.13 0.48 1.25 0.48 1.25
Nervous 0.34 1.13 0.45 1.17 0.45 1.17
Scared 0.48 1.21 0.48 1.00 0.44 1.13
Upset 0.66 1.13 0.00 1.13 0.34 1.13
Average 0.49 1.17 0.59 1.23 0.68 1.32
and upset. It was also chosen for 75% or more for guilty, irritable, nervous and scared.
Some of the of the participants felt slightly distressed (34% chose option 1 and 2) in the
shelf setting a bit jittery in the down setting, but option 1 was still chosen by 67% or
more participants in all settings. All the graphs for the negative moods can be found in
appendix B and have not been included in the paper to avoid repetition of insignificant
data.
Figure 3.2: Average postive PANAS scores
The average scores on the PANAS scale for the positive moods were 2.38, 2.38 and 2.27
for the dim, down and shelf setting respectively (table 3.2). The dim setting also had
the lowest standard deviation among the positive moods. The positive moods showed
greater variations than the negative with ratings from 1 to 5 in almost every mood.
Chapter 3. Results 26
Table 3.2: Panas positive mood results
Dim Down Shelf
SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean
Inspired 1.01 3.42 0.96 3.08 1.03 3.17
Determined 1.08 2.75 1.09 2.42 0.93 2.71
Alert 1.06 2.92 1.10 2.92 1.35 2.58
Attentive 1.13 2.83 1.07 2.75 1.06 2.58
Active 0.91 2.29 1.06 2.63 0.95 2.46
Interested 0.93 1.96 1.18 2.00 1.17 2.13
Enthusiastic 0.75 2.17 1.13 2.17 1.22 2.13
Proud 0.72 2.04 1.02 2.21 0.61 1.92
Excited 1.07 1.96 1.10 1.83 1.43 1.79
Strong 1.12 1.50 1.18 1.79 1.10 1.25
Average 0.98 2.38 1.09 2.38 1.08 2.27
3.2 Perceptions
The average results from the semantic differential scale is presented in table 3.3 and
figure 3.3 shows the average score and standard deviation results for each setting.
Table 3.3: Perception average and standard deviation
Dim Down Shelf
Scale Average St.Dev Average St.Dev Average St.Dev
Pleasant to Unpleasant -1.083 1.018 -0.708 1.301 -0.583 1.283
Confined to Spacious -0.250 0.897 -0.250 0.897 -0.167 1.007
Comfortable to Uncomfortable -1.083 0.929 -0.667 1.204 -0.292 1.160
Lazy to Energetic -0.833 0.702 -0.375 1.056 0.042 0.908
Public to Private 1.125 0.850 0.875 1.191 0.625 1.209
Isolated to Open -0.458 1.141 -0.500 1.285 -0.083 1.139
Tense to Relaxed 1.292 0.859 0.625 1.345 0.708 1.233
Hazy to Visually clear 0.667 1.049 0.833 0.868 0.625 1.245
Boring to Interesting 0.542 0.779 0.375 1.056 0.333 1.007
Simple to Complex -0.958 0.806 -0.917 0.974 -0.208 1.103
Dark to Bright -0.667 0.963 0.625 1.013 0.500 1.063
Conservative to Innovative -0.167 0.868 0.000 1.063 0.125 1.116
Formal to Casual 0.833 0.917 0.708 1.367 0.625 1.173
Serious to Fun 0.667 0.963 0.458 1.215 0.458 1.179
Small to Large -0.292 0.806 -0.542 0.977 -0.250 0.676
Average -0.044 0.903 0.036 1.121 0.164 1.100
Chapter 3. Results 27
Figure 3.3: Average perception results
Average scores for each scale and the standard deviation (line). The more the results
deviate from the center the more likely people are to have strong feelings about it. A
wide standard deviation indicate a wide spread in responses.
Chapter 3. Results 28
3.3 Activities
The participants were asked to mention the first three activities that came to mind after
each lighting environment. The responses were categorised into eleven different topics
based on the answers; physical activities, TV/film, consuming, work, social activities,
cooking, relaxing, reading and play games, leaving and other (table 3.4 and figure 3.4).
Table 3.4: Activities
Activity Dim Down Shelf
Physical activity 14% 20% 24%
Consuming 14% 20% 21%
TV/Film 14% 17% 13%
Play games 8% 6% 10%
Reading 3% 8% 7%
Social 7% 3% 6%
Cooking 8% 6% 6%
Relax 13% 8% 6%
Leaving or changing light settings 6% 4% 4%
Other 10% 4% 4%
Work 3% 4% 1%
Figure 3.4: Activities
Words related to physical activity, consuming and watching TV or film was most men-
tioned in all settings. The dim setting had a significantly higher amount of words related
to relaxing, or other words not relating to any of the other groups.
Chapter 3. Results 29
3.4 Behaviour
The video recordings showed that about 50% of the participants noticed the camera at
some part during the study. At the notice of the camera, there was usually a 1 minute
conversation about the nature of the study. After the passing of an average of 2 minutes
the participants seemed to ignore the camera and did not show any changes in behavior
to that before the discovery.
Table 3.5: Average time spent without conversation
Sequence Light Setting
Participant 1 2 3 Dim Down Shelf
P5 29% 52% 18% 52% 29% 18%
P7 51% 86% 0% 0% 86% 51%
P9 0% 0% 36% 0% 0% 36%
P11 0% 3% 28% 28% 3% 0%
P13 59% 51% 87% 51% 59% 87%
P15 0% 14% 0% 0% 14% 0%
P17 29% 62% 45% 29% 45% 62%
P19 79% 60% 53% 60% 53% 79%
P21 3% 11% 9% 9% 3% 11%
P23 9% 4% 13% 4% 13% 9%
P25 48% 0% 4% 0% 48% 4%
P27 24% 0% 13% 24% 13% 0%
Average 28% 28% 25% 21% 30% 30%
Figure 3.5: Average time without conversation in each light setting
The percentage of time spent without conversation was 21.3% in the dim setting, 30.5%
in the down setting and 29.7% in the shelf setting (figure 3.5). There was not a significant
difference in the percentage of quiet time between the 1st 2nd and 3rd sequence. There
was less periods of silence in the dim setting. Data for each separate group is included
in appendix C.
Chapter 3. Results 30
Table 3.6: Alcoholic beverage consumption
Sequence Light Setting
Participant 1 2 3 Dim Down Shelf
P15 15 11 22 22 15 11
P16 10 6 17 17 10 6
P17 0 0 5 0 5 0
P18 10 8 0 10 0 8
P19 0 0 0 0 0 0
P20 0 3 10 3 10 0
P21 0 0 0 0 0 0
P22 0 0 0 0 0 0
P23 24 17 28 17 28 24
P24 3 1 2 1 2 3
P25 5 0 0 0 5 0
P26 1 0 0 0 1 0
P27 1 1 0 1 0 1
Total 69 47 84 71 76 53
The values in table 3.6 refers to each time the participant took a sip of beer. More bever-
age was consumed in the last sequence, and less in the second sequence and shelf setting.
Both the amount of alcoholic beverage and popcorn is measured from 12 participants
due to time constraints.
Table 3.7: Food consumption
Sequence Light Setting
Participant 1 2 3 Dim Down Shelf
P15 1 2 3 3 1 2
P16 45 33 48 48 45 33
P17 34 55 0 34 0 55
P18 2 0 0 2 0 0
P19 0 2 0 2 0 0
P20 0 22 20 22 20 0
P21 16 34 42 42 16 34
P22 6 26 22 22 6 26
P23 13 27 24 27 24 13
P24 71 70 79 70 79 71
P25 9 10 4 10 9 4
P26 11 2 13 2 11 13
P27 25 21 31 25 31 21
Total 233 304 286 309 242 272
The numbers in table 3.7 refer to the number of popcorn pieces eaten. More was eaten
in the second sequence and the dim setting. The subjects ate less popcorn in the first
sequence and the down setting.
Chapter 3. Results 31
Figure 3.6: Direction of view
Figure 3.7: Average distance between the subjects
Figure 3.6 shows where the participant held their concentration. The results are taken
from still frames of the video recordings every 12th second. The majority of time is
spent focusing on the TV in all settings. Less time is spent looking at the TV and more
around in the space in the shelf setting.
The distance between the subjects have been grouped in four categories: Sitting head
to head or less than 10 cm apart (Together), head spaced apart (Head spaced), with a
distance of one person between the subjects (Person apart) and separate sides of the
bean bag. The subject spent more time with a large distance between them in the shelf
setting (See figure 3.7). Close to equal amount of time was spent both close to each
other and with a person width apart in all settings, whilst the groups spent more time
head spaced apart in the dim setting than the other two.
Chapter 3. Results 32
3.5 Added observations
It was noticed that the conversation between the two participants revolved more often
about the TV show in the dim setting, and more around the books, DVDs and other
external topics in the shelf setting regardless of the order of sequence. The shelf setting
was also the condition where subjects seemed more curious about the space and the only
condition in which some of the participants walked over to look at things in the shelves.
In discussions with the participants after the study, ten participants shared their lighting
preferences. It was an equal split between the dim and shelf setting as most preferred,
but no one reported the down setting as their favourite.
3.6 Chapter Summary
There is a higher agreement among the negative moods than the positive. The percep-
tions of space vary greatly between the participants. People talk more in dim settings
than in bright environments, and the results show that the participants kept a higher
level of interest in their surroundings in the shelf lit light setting.
Chapter 4
Analysis
This chapter will discuss the findings to acknowledge what was learned from the experi-
ment and the data that was collected from it. The analysis will methodically go through
each of the four forms of data, revisiting the hypothesis and pull together the findings in
the summary. Comparisons will be made to analyse if the findings prove the expected
outcome.
4.1 Mood
It was hypothesised that the dim setting would be the most inactive and relaxing, the
down setting more active but less happy, and the shelf light setting the most active
and interesting. Moods expected to encourage physical interaction are: inspired, alert,
attentive, active, interested, enthusiastic and excited. These moods was expected to
have higher scores in the shelf setting than the dim and down light setting.
A positive PANAS score is the mean of all positive moods and a negative PANAS score
is the mean of all negative moods. High scores on the negative scale means the subjects
feel strongly about the negative moods (want to avoid high scores), while high score in
the positive moods show happy subjects. The dim and down setting shared the highest
positive PANAS score, while the shelf lighting produced the lowest positive scores.
The dim setting was the most emotional light setting, which made the participants
feel more inspired, determined, attentive, and excited. The dim setting had the lowest
PANAS score for negative moods, meaning the participants felt less negative. The
standard deviation in the dim setting was lower than the two other light settings. For a
small sample deviation in responses was expected to be quite high, however, the standard
deviation of the positive moods are approximately twice as high as the negative. It seems
33
Chapter 4. Analysis 34
that peoples preferences for what makes them feel good are more diverse than what
makes them feel depressed. This justifies why the lighting industry is able to create
standards of light conditions to avoid, but have difficulty in presenting light schemes
that are preferred by all.
In the down setting the participants felt more active, proud and strong. It was hypoth-
esised that the subjects would feel more bored and less positive in a downlight scenario
due to the strong horizontal illumination. With the highest positive PANAS scores
(shared with the dim setting) this theory is put on trial. Alert and enthusiastic was felt
to the same extent in the dim and down setting.
The shelf setting brought out the most feelings of interest, as hypothesised. It was also
confirmed to be the most different of the three, with mood scores showing that the dim
and down setting brought out the most similar feelings whilst the shelf setting deviated
with the lowest postitive mood scores.
T-tests were performed to look for statistically significant differences between each of
the light settings. The test compares two settings at a time and returns a P value.
A value below 0.05 indicate there is a statistical significant difference between them.
There was a significant difference between the standard deviation of the average positive
PANAS scores. The dim and down setting varied the greatest from each other, with low
deviations in the dim setting and high in the down setting.
Table 4.1: T-test results for standard deviation in positive mood
Variances Dim Mean Down Mean Shelf Mean T P (two tailed)
Dim/Down 0.978 1.090 - 2.101 0.042*
Dim/Shelf 0.978 - 1.084 2.101 0.240
Down/Shelf - 1.090 1.084 2.101 0.938
* P value = below 0.05 meaning the difference is significant
The highest PANAS scores among the positive feelings were: alert, attentive and inter-
ested in all light settings. Determined and strong had the lowest ratings of the positive
moods. Although the participants showed to be influenced by these words on a personal
level (see raw data in appendix B) , they were not influenced by the different lighting
conditions in a consistent manner. The wide variety of scores between positive moods
show the complexity on subjective feelings about spaces. Several of the mood scores
had a large deviation with responses in all scores from 1 (not at all or very slightly) to 5
(extremely)in almost every mood. The PANAS questionnaire is subjective and will be
be compared with objective observations of physical changes in behaviour, to justify if
a subjective mood scale reflect behavioural changes.
Chapter 4. Analysis 35
The dim setting showed higher scores than estimated, whilst the PANAS scores for
the shelf setting was lower than expected. Differences in perception, Interest in TV
show, conversation topic, short exposure time are independent variables that could have
affected changes in mood during the experiment and will be discussed in a later sec-
tion. The subjective responses in mood and perceptions will be compared to objective
observations in the end of this chapter.
4.2 Perception
This section will discuss the results from the semantic differential scale. The scale
measures how subjects percieved the space by putting a cross closest to the perception
they feel match the space. The scale goes from -2 to 2, where 0 is neutral. The hypothesis
expect that the participants perceive the dim setting as more lazy, relaxed, isolated and
dark than the other two. The shelf setting is expected to be more energetic, complex,
public and open.
The dim setting stands out from the two other scales with a significantly lower deviation
in responses. Only two of the scales has a standard deviation below 1 in the shelf setting
(lazy-energetic and small-large). The down setting has the highest standard deviation
average, with four scales below one. The dim setting show almost the exact opposite with
only three scales with a standard deviation above one (pleasant-unpleasant, isolated-
open and hazy-visually clear). Table 4.2 show the significant difference in the standard
deviation between the settings dim/down and dim/shelf.
Table 4.2: T-test values from between the standard deviations of perception
Variances Dim Mean Down Mean Shelf Mean T P
Dim/Down 0.903 1.121 - 2.048 <0.01*
Dim/Shelf 0.903 - 1.100 2.048 <0.01*
Down/Shelf - 1.121 1.100 2.048 0.721
* P value = below 0.05 meaning the difference is significant
Independent t-tests of the perception scales showed that seven different combinations in
five scales were of statistical significance: Comfortable-Uncomfortable, Lazy-Energetic,
Tense-Relaxed, Simple-Complex and Dark-Bright. Graphs 4.1 to 4.5 show the individual
result for each of the significant scale. Data from the t-tests for the remaining scales are
included in appendix D.
The dim and shelf settings varied the most from each other with four perception scales
of significant importance. This builds on the finding from the mood section; the shelf
setting differed from the other settings.The participants perceived the dim setting more
Chapter 4. Analysis 36
Table 4.3: Significant differences between the Dim and Shelf light setting
Scale Dim Shelf T P-Value
Lazy - Energetic -0.83333 0.041667 2.012896 <0.01*
Comfortable - Uncomfortable -1.08333 -0.29167 2.012896 0.01*
Simple - Complex -0.95833 -0.20833 2.012896 <0.01*
Dark - Bright -1.29167 0.125 2.012896 <0.01*
* P value = below 0.05 meaning the difference is significant
lazy, comfortable, simple and dark. The shelf setting was perceived more energetic,
uncomfortable, complex and bright (table 4.3). A perceived lazy impression of the dim
setting backs up the hypothesis that people are more inactive in the dim setting and
more active in the shelf setting. Correlation graphs (4.6) between the lazy-energetic scale
and the comfortable-uncomfortable scale show that a more comfortable environment is
also perceived more lazy, thus the highest correlation is in the dim setting who scored
more comfortable and more lazy in both of these scales.
Table 4.4: Significant differences between the Dim and Down light setting
Scale Dim Down T P-Value
Tense - Relaxed 1.292 0.625 2.013 0.046*
Dark - Bright -0.667 0.625 2.013 <0.01*
* P value = below 0.05 meaning the difference is significant
The down setting was perceived more bright and tense than the dim setting and more
simple than the shelf setting. The more tense perception agree with the mood scores
rating the dim setting as more relaxing. A perception of simple was an expected outcome
as the down and dim setting were designed to present “common” light schemes.
Table 4.5: Significant differences between the Down and Shelf Setting
Scale Down Shelf T P-Value
Simple - Complex -0.917 -0.208 2.013 0.023*
* P value = below 0.05 meaning the difference is significant
People feel more comfortable in dim settings. Correlation graphs (4.7) shows that the
people that rated the shelf setting as comfortable also found it more relaxing . Graph
3.3 shows that the dim setting is rated the most private. The increased feeling of privacy
also imply less of a need to socialise, together with a decreased level of energy suggesting
that people in this condition are less likely to move out of their position. The results
suggest that the dim setting is most to likely to lead to social isolation which can lead
to numerous health issues (see chapter 1)
Chapter 4. Analysis 37
Figure 4.1: Comfortable or Uncomfortable
The dim setting was rated as the most comfortable. No one rated this setting to be fully
uncomfortable, unlike the down and shelf setting which was rated just uncomfortable 4%
and 13% respectively. The shelf setting had the highest rating of mostly comfortable,
but 30% less ratings on fully comfortable compared to the dim setting.
Figure 4.2: Lazy or Energetic
Only the shelf light setting was rated as more energetic than lazy on average. 50%
rated the dim setting as lazy, compared to only 21% on the shelf lighting.
Chapter 4. Analysis 38
Figure 4.3: Tense or Relaxed
All settings were rated more relaxed than tense on average. The dim settings was more
relaxed, with 83% rating it mostly or fully relaxed. Half of the participants rated the
shelf setting to be mostly relaxed compared to 33% of the people in the down setting.
However, the down setting scored 12%higher than the shelf lighting on fully relaxed.
Figure 4.4: Simple or Complex
The shelf setting felt more complex than the other two settings with 17% rating it mostly
or fully complex compared to 4% and 0% in the down and dim setting respectively. Only
38% of the participants rated the shelf setting fully or mostly simple, differing from the
dim an down setting which was chosen on the same criteria by 67% and 59% of the
participant respectively.
Chapter 4. Analysis 39
Figure 4.5: Dark or Bright
The dim setting was the only setting rated more dark than bright, an agreement among
71% of the participants. The other two settings showed large deviation in the feedback
with less than an 8% difference in the choice of mostly dark or mostly bright on both
settings. Overall, the down setting was rated slightly brighter than the shelf setting,
although 8% more people than in the down setting rated the shelf setting either fully
or mostly bright.
From the average results of the semantic differential scales, the dim and the shelf light
setting are the two settings that differ the most from each other on perception. With a
high difference in illumination levels (table 2.3) it would be expected that the dim setting
would be perceived as the darkest one. The low level illuminance in the dim setting does
not obstruct or take away focus away from the TV which is likely why it is the only
setting not to have been rated as fully unpleasant by any of the subjects. On the other
hand, It is interesting to see that on an average the participants found the down setting
to be brighter than the shelf lighting. In addition to having the highest illumination
levels, these levels are all within the main visual field (when viewing the TV) in the
shelf setting. Going back to graph 3.3, notice that the standard deviation in the shelf
setting on the dark-bright scale is significantly higher than in the other two scales. The
down setting had slightly higher illuminance levels on the two end walls (table 2.3),
suggesting that the difference can be due to wall brightness. Difference in modelling is
another theory, as the shadows of the objects on the table (and the participants face
when leaning towards it) was of a harder quality in the down setting than the shelf light
setting. High light ratios in the immediate visual field, and level of wall brightness,seem
Chapter 4. Analysis 40
Figure 4.6: Correlations: Comfortable/Uncomfortable - Lazy/Energetic
Chapter 4. Analysis 41
Figure 4.7: Correlations: Comfortable/Uncomfortable - Tense/Relaxed
Chapter 4. Analysis 42
to affect perception of brightness more than the highest individual illumination level.
This proves the effect of Cuttle’s proposal [13] to use illuminance ratios to control the
percieved differences of the interior.
Increased interest in the dim setting could imply that lower illumination levels make
people more curious of what they can’t see, which conflicts with the theory that the
shelf lighting makes people more curious about their surroundings. However, correlation
graphs between the perception of dark-bright and the level of interest does not show a
statistical significant difference (appendix D).
Table 4.6: Significant differences between the Down and Shelf light setting
Scale Down Shelf T P-Value
Simple - Complex -0.917 -0.208 2.013 0.023*
* P value = below 0.05 meaning the difference is significant
On average, both the dim and down setting was found to be simple conditions. The
significant difference between the down and shelf setting is conceivably due to familiarity.
Lighting that is well known or familiar will often seem simpler, than one observed for the
first time. The higher scores in complexity in the shelf setting confirm that it differed
from the two settings designed to be “common” light settings. This notion also matches
with a higher impression of innovation in the shelf setting than the other two. The dim
setting was stated to be most conservative, despite the wall luminaires used creating a
light distribution that differ from most standard luminaires on the market. The author
suggest that the subjects find it less innovative simply because it emits less light, but
mainly because the wall lamps were not within viewing distance from the bean bag.
A space would rarely be considered both formal and fun, and the participants rated
all settings more casual and fun than formal and serious. This is a positive result as a
formal and serious environment would likely inhibit people from relaxing and interacting
with each other. It would also be expected that the participants felt the space quite
confined as the study took part inside a relatively small container. The high level of
respondents that were neutral about the size of the space is surprising, but considered
a positive result about the design of the environment. A higher percentage of neutral
responses in the down setting indicate that subjects cared less about this space.
4.3 Activities
Words related to physical activity was more often mentioned in the shelf setting than
in the dim setting. The more frequent occurrence of words related to relaxing in the
Chapter 4. Analysis 43
dim setting indicate that the participants felt less active and would be more prone to
engage in physical activities after spending time in the shelf setting than the dim light
setting. This correlates with the perception of the dim setting as more relaxed and lazy
than both other settings. The results also agree with Duraks conclusion that a dimly
lit room invites relaxation [12]. A preference for either the dim or shelf light setting
confirms Houser et al.s findings [10], that people prefer indirect lighting.
The high percentage of people that thought of activities related to consuming is expected
when watching a cooking show, but it was mentioned far less in the dim environment.
With slightly higher consumption in the dim setting, this suggests that people eat more
without being aware of it in dim settings.
4.4 Behaviour
Observations of the participants will add to current data and analyse if subjective ques-
tionnaires correlate with actual behaviour. This section will look at the observation
results to test the proof of concept. The dim environment was expected to be less active
and engaging than the down and shelf setting. There was also expected to be more
conversations in the shelf environment.
A significantly higher alcohol consumption in the last lighting sequence can be explained
by participants wanting to finish the beer before they leave. This, however, does not
explain lower consumption in the shelf setting. The brighter lighting environment may
have lowered their need for more drinks, but a neither a t-test or correlation tests between
dark-bright perception and the amount of beer drank showed significant differences (ap-
pendix D). As the down setting was perceived more bright than the shelf setting the
change could not be due to perception of illumination levels alone. Significant difference
in the consumption of popcorn between the settings was not found.
The participants spent longer periods of time in silence in the shelf setting and seemingly
proved the hypothesis wrong. People talk more in dim light settings than bright ones. On
the other hand t-tests between the settings did not return a significant difference and no
strong correlation was found between the perception of a bright space with the amount
of conversation (appendix A). A discussion on the definition of social interaction can
rise from this conclusion. In a future study it could be valuable to have a more detailed
analysis of body language when measuring the levels of social interaction.
There was a larger separation between participants in the shelf setting. This could be
explained by visual abilities and that couples felt a need to be closer to see each other
in the dim setting. It is also reasonable to believe that the dim setting created more
Chapter 4. Analysis 44
of a romantic setting for the couples. The mood results showed an increased feeling of
privacy in the dim setting which may have made the participants feel less hindered to
move closer. At the same time, the shelf setting was the only setting where participants
moved out of the bean bag for short periods of time, creating the largest distances
between them. The movement corresponds with the PANAS and activity questionnaire
results stating that the participants felt more active in the shelf setting thus felt a greater
need to move around instead of sitting still. The increase in privacy that let people move
closer, made subjects more relaxed and comfortable. It is tempting to suggest that the
increased physical contact was the reason for feeling more relaxed, comfortable and
finding the environment more pleasant, and that an experiment with single participants
would not give the same results.
Table 4.7: Significant differences in viewing angle between settings
Variances Dim Mean Down Mean Shelf Mean T P (two tailed)
TV 0.699 - 0.570 2.020 0.009*
TV 0.726 0.570 2.020 0.004*
In space 0.134 - 0.299 2.020 <0.01*
In space - 0.152 0.299 2.020 <0.01*
*P value = below 0.05 meaning the difference is significant
The attention of the participants was, not surprisingly, directed mostly towards the TV.
There was a significant 15% drop of visual direction towards the TV in the shelf setting
(figure 3.6 and Table 4.7 shows the significant differences comparing two and two settings.
There was no significant differences between the dim and down setting. The even result
in time spent viewing the other participant suggest that any lack of TV watching was
not due to the other participant, but environmental changes. The extra 15% of the time
spent to view surroundings in the shelf setting does have a few variables: It was not
noted where the participants were looking other than the three parameters, thus there is
no statistical data explaining if subjects spent more time looking in the shelves or around
in the room. From the videos it is clear that it is mainly the shelf setting that create an
awareness of the objects in the bookshelves, as conversations revolve more around them.
If the same interest would have stayed over time is unclear. The reason for viewing the
space could both be of interest and annoyance: The shelf setting provides the brightest
environment, giving the subjects more to observe. However, they could also be looking
away from the TV due to the shelf lighting being too bright and as a mean of protecting
their eyes. Looking back at the questionnaires, there were few negative reports on either
setting, indicating that the higher percentage of time spent viewing the space was mainly
due to curiosity and interest. Perception scores of the space allude the opposite, as the
dim setting received the highest scores on interest (graph 3.3). Measuring direction of
view every 12th second might not have given sufficient data, creating inaccurate results.
Chapter 4. Analysis 45
It was also more difficult to see the angle of view on the recordings in the dim setting,
with low illuminance levels. On the other hand, the difference in results question if
subjective measuring scales are the best technique to measure perception, as behaviour
does not correlate with mood results.
4.5 The Built Environment
The drastic difference between the levels of illumination was used to show extreme con-
ditions. The downlights gave harsh modelling with strong shadows. Time and resources
limited this short study to use the luminaires already installed, which was found to be
the best solution at the time as a quick installation of downlights with a wider beam
angle would have looked unprofessional and easily be noticed by amateurs. Lamps with
a wider beam angle in a downlight setting would perhaps make them more preferred, as
light would be reflected more throughout the space.
The ratio between the shelf lighting and the wall behind the TV was higher than the
author was aiming for and the ratio suggested by Cuttle [13]. Dimming the shelf lighting
down, could possibly have made them less bothersome to some of the participants, but
still be bright enough to give an interest of the objects in the shelves. Nevertheless the
three settings represented extremes of each case, so the fact that the reports on mood
and perception did not vary more than they did imply that people are less affected by
light than assumed among the lighting profession.
Interest in the surroundings is minimised by the activity of watching TV, which is why
the activity was chosen. If the participants were asked to do more physical activities
making them engage with the space, they might have been more aware of the lighting.
Visual performance tasks requiring more concentration, would have given participants
less time to look around in the room and analyse the space. From the video recordings
however, it was noted that not everyone noticed the change of light at first as often one
of the participants pointed it out to the other. This enlightenment was more often given
by the female in the couple, but not often enough to be statistically significant. The
discovery of the camera did not seem to affect the behaviour of the participants and is
considered trivial.
4.6 Additional Comparisons
The high number of activities mentioned in the shelf setting related to physical activity
does not correspond with the lowest scores in the “active”, “enthusiastic” and “excited”
Chapter 4. Analysis 46
moods from the PANAS questionnaire. From the semantic differential scale the partic-
ipants perceived this setting to be the most energetic, and they were observed to move
around more keeping a wider distance apart from each other. This brings up the discus-
sion that a subjective mood questionnaire might not be the best way to report feelings.
Participants may find it hard to put a number to each separate feeling. On the other
hand, the way the words have been categorised may not reflect feelings realistically as
the same activity could bring out contrasting moods between two people (for example
cooking or work). There are stronger parallels between the semantic differential scale
and the observations from the video recordings than the mood scores. This shows that
measuring behaviour through subjective mood scales does not always reflect physical
behaviour. Subjects behaved lazy when they perceived the space lazy, and energetic
when the space was perceived energetic, without being aware of it. Nevertheless, the
higher reported thoughts on physical activities in the shelf setting indicates that even
in the short span of ten minutes the lighting had an impact on feelings, that can later
lead to changes in behaviour.
The participants thought less of activities related to consumption in the dim setting,
while at the same time time eating more than in the other two settings. The correlation
graphs in figure 4.8 show that the people that were least inspired in the shelf setting
were also the ones that ate the most popcorn suggesting that we eat more when we are
bored.
4.7 Chapter Summary
The comparison of mood, perception and behaviour have brought up a discussion of the
validity of the different measuring techniques. Subjective responses on mood does not
correlate as well to the actual behaviour as the responses on perception does. There
was more examples of social interaction in the dim setting than hypothesised, and less
in the shelf setting.
The dim environment was agreed to be more relaxing, lazy, comfortable, dark and simple
than the other environments. People were observed to be less active and focus mainly on
the TV. The dim setting returned higher levels of positive mood and brought out more
thoughts of relaxing activities after exposure. It is interesting that subjects thought less
of activities related to consuming, while at the same time eating more popcorn than in
the other light settings.
The down-lit setting was perceived to be bright, simple and more tense than the dim
environment. This setting had results that deviated less from the two others. It was
Chapter 4. Analysis 47
Figure 4.8: Correlations: Feeling inspired - Amount of popcorn
Chapter 4. Analysis 48
clear that the dim and shelf settings presented extreme conditions on opposite sides of
the down setting. The down light setting was perceived to be brighter than the shelf
lighting which has the highest levels of illumination and a greater amount of it within the
immediate visual field. The results of this study does not recommend installing down-
lights in a space that is designed for relaxation. There were few drastic changes in mood
or perception which could suggest that down-lit environments feel more emotionless than
spaces that light particular areas.
Lights integrated in the shelf in the third environment aimed to bring focus to familiar
books, films and objects in the bookshelves that could open for conversation topics.
The participants were found to focus less on the TV in this setting and spent more
time looking around at objects in the room. There was a higher level of interest in
the shelf setting and it was perceived to be more energetic, complex, bright and less
comfortable. The participants spent more time moving around, drank less and thought
of more activities related to physical actions, but at the same time reported lower feelings
of activity and spent more time in silence.
Chapter 5
Discussion and Conclusion
This final chapter will first discuss the analysis of the study and what was learned from
the results, if it corresponds to previous work and how new wisdom can guide future
design and research. The last section concludes the findings in relation to the given
hypotheses.
5.1 Discussion
Discussed research suggest that the development of depression more often happens with
people that are less happy, more inactive and watch more TV. Participants were more
active and watched less TV in the shelf setting. However, the increase in positive mood
in the dim setting shows that people were content with the low light levels. Another
argument on the heightened mood is the increased feeling of privacy that made the
couples move closer to each other, gaining more social contact leading to a rise in mood.
In a hypothetical study done with a single participant there would be no one to interact
with, and it is arguable if the dim setting would feel just as positive. Participants also
reported the same level of alertness in the dim and down setting which argues discussed
research that brighter environment makes people feel more focused and productive.
All settings showed high deviations between the responses. A larger amount of partici-
pants could have shown stronger trends in preference, but with the high deviations it is
reasonable to assume that a even higher number of participants would not show strong
inclination towards one setting. The results of the study also give an interesting insight
into how subjective perceptions deviates from actual behaviour. The shelf setting was
the least preferred but also had the highest standard deviations, suggesting increased
levels of feelings about this uncommon light condition. Subjective measurement scales
49
Chapter 5. Discussion and Conclusion 50
risk that participants interpret words using different subjective criteria, even if receiving
an explanation of the scales before the experiment. With a short study and a low number
of participants, the answers are too spread to state the impact on behaviour from the
lighting in each setting. With high differences in illuminance pattern a longer exposure
time would perhaps show clearer signs if some changes in behaviour are due to change
in illuminance levels or variation of lighting scheme. Increased exposure time to each
light setting is likely to show clearer trends in feelings of mood than a higher number of
participants to an equally short study, and is advised for a future study. Measurements
of lumination levels were not executed due to lack of equipment. These measurements
would have been useful in defining the differences of brightness within the visual field.
The illuminance distribution in the two brightest settings (down and shelf) were highly
different, and the difference in behaviour between the settings agrees with Hawkes paper
[2] highlighting the important relation between “visual interest and “visual lightness.
Measuring time spent in silence was found difficult: some couples said a few words to
each other every 25seconds, which gave a result of no quiet time. Other couples had
full conversations for long periods of time broken up by longer breaks, which gave a
result of a lot of quiet time. The original baseline of 30seconds was brought down to 15
which leveled the down and shelf settings as the two most quiet, deviating from the dim
setting. Due to measurement difficulties the results may not reflect well enough with
the actual interaction time. Instead of setting a minimum time for silence, analysis of
body language could perhaps be a better indicator if the two participants show interest
in each other. For this to be done in a living room environment the author suggest using
a simple sofa so the participants are more free to move around. The bean bag shaped
itself under the body making any large movement strenuous, proved by participants who
needed help from each other to get up when they were asked to step outside. It will be
interesting to see if more future studies are able to examine behavioural changes through
analysing body language, as started by Kobayashi in 2013 [26].
The amount of questionnaires was a possible pitfall of the study. The amount of questions
given to the subjects may have added to larger deviations in feedback resulting in less
accurate results. Nevertheless, the comparison between subjective and objective data
was invaluable and has made the author believe that our physical actions can tell more
about the mental state of an individual than subjective mood questionnaires.
This study has given a couple of guidelines about lighting that can be valuable to the
lighting industry: Lighting designers that aim to bring interest to an interior environment
and raise the activity level of its inhabitants are encouraged to explore with vertical
illumination of specific areas of the space. By lighting objects that bring out memories
of social activities, the environment will inspire the occupant to take interest in his or
Chapter 5. Discussion and Conclusion 51
her surroundings. Books, pictures, paintings and artifacts from around the world on
display in the home tells a story of its inhabitant and is often cherished by the owner.
After the TV became the central focus point in the living room, the stories of the interior
is in danger of being forgotten, with the treasured memories they carry. Lighting these
objects will remind occupants of pleasurable events. If the aim is to create a relaxing
yet inspiring environment, the designer is urged to keep the horisontal luminance levels
low and focus on particular vertical areas.
Studies on the effect of correlated colour temperature (CCT) conclude a change in mood
and behaviour due to the effect of CCT. Low colour temperature lighting has been found
to increase impressions of “relaxation”, “comfort” and “spaciousness”[36]. The installed
luminaires in this experiment at 3000K are all considered warm lighting [11]. The low
300K difference of the uplighter should not effect mood changes due to colour as the
luminaire is not within view when watching TV. Further research is encouraged to
include change of colour and illumination levels in a similar experiment. The CCT and
change in light levels has been shown to give changes in mood, which again can affect
behaviour [22].
A study from the 1990’s [37] found that an increase of illuminance gave several positive
associations to the room including; more pleasant, comfortable, warm and less hostile.
Future studies are advised to follow subjects over time, analysing changes in the in-
teractions to their natural environment. Installing different light schemes in a living
environment where subjects spend a lot of time could perhaps return a more defined
result. Few studies has compared the effects of a dynamic change of light on behaviour.
A continuous change in light levels is likely to feel more alive and be a preferred light
condition [35]. The author encourage future research to stay away from lab experi-
ments and conduct studies on the effects of light within environments common to the
participants, with the introduction of dynamically changing light.
Recent technology improvements allow us to have full control of our lighting conditions.
Complex light technology is readily available to anyone interested, and not just lighting
professionals. Recent apps give the power to any amateur to make each lamp in the home
change both in colour and luminance with numerous options of creating dynamic light
settings [38]. With years of lab experiments that have not gained sufficient knowledge on
the effects of light in the domestic interior it is time to look at real homes. Performing
scientific studies in private homes create a vast array of variables that, providing the
study isnt performed on a massive scale, risk inaccurate results. Until a research team
takes on the challenge, the author suggest more individuals to play with their personal
light environments to find their own preference. Knowledge from an array of individual
preferences can possibly aid future design and research.
Chapter 5. Discussion and Conclusion 52
This study was designed with inspiration to improve dark living conditions in Nordic
countries in winter. The findings of the study is largely applicable to other parts of
the world. Any living space that does not have daylight access or lack of it (ex. most
rooms in night time, underground structures or the core of buildings) can benefit from
added knowledge on how light affects the body, to design spaces that motivate people
to interact with each other and their surroundings.
5.2 Conclusion
The theory set out in the beginning of this paper was that “domestic lighting schemes
that illuminate objects reminding residents of their social life will make them more eager
to move away from their current environment, increasing levels of social interaction”.
A proof of this theory hoped decrease feelings of loneliness and depression during dark
winters, and tested three different hypotheses: 1. People are less active and communicate
less in dim environments 2. People are less cheerful and interact less with each other and
their surroundings in down-lit environments. 3. People interact more with each other
and have a higher interest in their surroundings when objects with social connotations
are highlighted.
Within the scope of the research conducted it can be concluded that people interact
more with their surroundings in light settings with high light ratios and where objects
with social connotations are the main focal points. In contrast, people interact more
with each other in dimly lit light settings. Dim light settings contributes to a decrease
in activity levels and make people feel and act more relaxed than in a brighter light
environments. The expectations that integrated shelf lighting would make people more
interested in their surroundings was confirmed, however the study proved two of three
hypotheses wrong by stating the dim light setting as the setting with more conversation.
The definition of social interaction includes both interacting with the environments and
other people, thus the study is unable to conclude which setting encourages more social
interaction.
If dim lighting environments make people interact more with each other people should
feel less lonely in dark winters. As this is not he case, other parameters should be looked
at. A problem raised in the introduction was that people spend more time indoors in
winter, getting a closer connection to the TV than the people around them. This study
show is that people talk more when they sit together, indicating a dim environment
optimal to feel relaxed and gaining a sense of privacy time with a friend. What the
study also suggest, however, is that a person already in a dim setting is less likely to
reach out and contact others. It would be interesting to see if a similar study done during
Chapter 5. Discussion and Conclusion 53
winter give the same results. Both temperature, and season could affect participants
during a short study. The study backs up the use of dynamic lighting. The use of shelf
lighting and high light ratios during the day will raise activity levels and remind the
dweller of the world outside and all the people in it. At night time when it is time to
relax the light levels can be lowered to focus on the immediate surroundings. A future
study is adviced to test on single participants over time, during the darkest months of
the year.
We have been surrounded by light since the beginning of day, yet we still do not under-
stand exactly how it affects us, making it unreasonable to think any lighting research
will reinvent the wheel over-night. This study support current research stating lighting
as highly subjective. The experiment was too small to be able to give any definite con-
clusions on the effects of different lighting on mood and behaviour, but brings valuable
insight into possible changes that can encourage future research. This paper hope to
motivate lighting designers to move away from general lighting schemes and design with
the human in focus. If this paper is able to inspire only a single researcher or professional
to delve into a study on effects of lighting on behaviour, the author will consider the
experiment highly sucessful. Lastly the author would like to clarify that this study was
not set out to return a general standard for lighting living room environments, but to get
an understanding on how each individual could change their own lighting environment
to increase mood and activity levels.
Appendix A
Details from experiment
Data supporting the experiment that was not included in the dissertation is added in
the following pages:
•Demographics
•Declaration Waiver Example
•Questionnaire Example
•Specification sheet for Trick wall luminaire
•Specification sheet for Laser blade downlights
•Specification sheet for Underscore LED strip
•Specification sheet for NOT Floor Uplight
•Specification sheet for LED Lamp installed in NOT Uplight
54
Appendix A. Background data from the Experiment
58
This page is intentionally left blank
Demographic
Participant
Number
Group Name Gender Age Email Nationality Proffession
Hoursspent
outsidetoday
Hoursofsportsdone
thelast2days
HoursofTV
watchedweekly
Notes
1A x M 22 x British Student 1 8 12.5
2A x F 33 x British Nurse 1 1 15
3B x F 26 x British Accounts 1.5 1.5 10
4B x M 39 x British Accounts 2 0 7
5 C xM 21 xBritish Labouring 2.5 2 15
6 C xM 22 xBritish Marketing 1 0 40
7 D xM 31 xBritish BarManager/Electrician 1 0 8
8 D xF 27 xBritish Glassmaker 1 0 12
9 E xM 33 xBritish Gardener 7 0 8
10 E xF 26 xBritish Accounts 1.5 1.5 10
11 F xM 21 xBritish Hairdresser 7 1 15
12 F xM 20 xFrench Fotballer 0.75 3 50
13 G xM 22 xItalian Unemployed 3 0 15
14 G xF 21 xBritish/Chinese Unemployed 3 0 50
15 H xM 22 xBritish Chef 2 0 15
16 H xF 26 xBritish Student 3 1.5 10
17 I xM 26 xBritish Researcher 0.25 0 10
18 I xM 24 xBritish PhDStudent 0.5 0 8
19 J xM 33 xBritish Accounts 0.1 0 5
20 J xM 33 xBritish CustomerServices 1 3 20
21 K xF 26 xBritish SalesAssistant 1.25 1 3
22 K xF 22 xBritish SalesAssistant 5 0 1
23 L xM 28 xBritish YouthWorker 7 2.5 0.5
24 L xF 20 xBritish/Black Student 7 1 13
25 M xM 38 xZimbabwean Manager 3 11 21
26 M xF 32 xPolish HealthcareAssistant 0 5 21
27 N xF 60 xItalian
Businessleadercoordinator
1 0 14
28 N xM 26 xBritish DataAnalyst 1 1 14
13.26156523
NumberFemale 9
NumberMale 15 24
Nationality British 19
Zimbabwean 1
French 1
Polish 1
Italian 2 24
F M
Age 2030 17 7 10
3140 6 1 5
4150 0 0 0
5160 1 1 0
Average 27.5 24
Median 26
F M F M
TV <10 4 6 17% 25%
11*20 3 6 13% 25%
21*30 1 1 4% 4%
31*40 0 1 0% 4%
41*50 1 1 4% 4%
Average 15.11 24 1
Median 13.5
JustFinishedasastudent.
NoTVlastfewweeks,but
usuallywatches15
Appendix A.
Background data from the Experiment 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A. Background data from the Experiment
58
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A.
Background data from the Experiment 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A. Background data from the Experiment
58
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A.
Background data from the Experiment 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A. Background data from the Experiment
58
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A.
Background data from the Experiment 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A. Background data from the Experiment
58
This page is intentionally left blank
Design iGuzzini iGuzzini
Total lighting output [Lm]: 214.2
Totalluminousfluxatoraboveanangleof90°[Lm]:136.49
Total power [W]: 5.9 Emergency luminous flux [Lm]: /
Luminous efficacy [Lm/W]: 36.31 Voltage [V]: -
Number of optical assemblies: 1
Light Output Ratio (L.O.R.) [%]: 34
Number of lamps for optical assembly: 1
Lamp code: LED Socket: /
ZVEI Code: LED Ballast losses [W]: 0
Nominal power [W]: 5.9 Colour temperature [K]: 3000
Nominal luminous [Lm]: 630 CRI: 83
Lamp maximum intensity [cd]: / Wavelength [Nm]: /
Beamangle[°]:6° MacAdam Step: <3
Trick
code
BU10
Technical description
Wallandceilingmountedluminaire,designedforusewithLEDlampsandapatented360°radialeffectoptic.The product consists
of a support base and screen. The base is made of phosphocromatization treated, die-cast aluminium, with a double base coat and
passivationat120°C.Itiscoatedwithliquidacrylicpaint,curedat150°CtoguaranteeahighlevelofweatherandUVray
resistance. The screen is made of methacrylate. All the screws used are made of A2 stainless steel.
Installation
Wall and ceiling mounted by means of a stainless steel wall fixture plate.
Size (mm)
ø110x42
Colour
White (01) | chrome (10) | Grey (15)
Weight (kg)
0.27
Mounting
wall surface | ceiling surface
Wiring info
Product supplied with an outlet cable L=200mm. Electronic ballast to be ordered separately.
Notes
Compatible with the Master Pro DMX control system.
Complies with EN60598-1 and pertinent regulations
Product configuration: BU10+LED
LED: LED WARM
Product characteristics
Optical assembly Characteristics 1
Polar
Trick
august 2014
BU10_EN 1 / 2
Appendix A.
Background data from the Experiment 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Design iGuzzini iGuzzini
Total lighting output [Lm]: 214.2 Totalluminousfluxatoraboveanangleof90°[Lm]:136.49
Total power [W]: 5.9 Emergency luminous flux [Lm]: /
Luminous efficacy [Lm/W]: 36.31 Voltage [V]: -
Number of optical assemblies: 1
Light Output Ratio (L.O.R.) [%]: 34 Number of lamps for optical assembly: 1
Lamp code: LED Socket: /
ZVEI Code: LED Ballast losses [W]: 0
Nominal power [W]: 5.9 Colour temperature [K]: 3000
Nominal luminous [Lm]: 630 CRI: 83
Lamp maximum intensity [cd]: / Wavelength [Nm]: /
Beamangle[°]:6° MacAdam Step: <3
Trick
code
BU10
Technical description
Wallandceilingmountedluminaire,designedforusewithLEDlampsandapatented360°radialeffectoptic.The product consists
of a support base and screen. The base is made of phosphocromatization treated, die-cast aluminium, with a double base coat and
passivationat120°C.Itiscoatedwithliquidacrylicpaint,curedat150°CtoguaranteeahighlevelofweatherandUVray
resistance. The screen is made of methacrylate. All the screws used are made of A2 stainless steel.
Installation
Wall and ceiling mounted by means of a stainless steel wall fixture plate.
Size (mm)
ø110x42
Colour
White (01) | chrome (10) | Grey (15)
Weight (kg)
0.27
Mounting
wall surface | ceiling surface
Wiring info
Product supplied with an outlet cable L=200mm. Electronic ballast to be ordered separately.
Notes
Compatible with the Master Pro DMX control system.
Complies with EN60598-1 and pertinent regulations
Product configuration: BU10+LED
LED: LED WARM
Product characteristics
Optical assembly Characteristics 1
Polar
Trick
august 2014
BU10_EN 2 / 2
Appendix A. Background data from the Experiment
58
This page is intentionally left blank
Design iGuzzini iGuzzini
Total lighting output [Lm]: 1274.5
Totalluminousfluxatoraboveanangleof90°[Lm]:0
Total power [W]: 24.5 Emergency luminous flux [Lm]: /
Luminous efficacy [Lm/W]: 52.02 Voltage [V]: -
Number of optical assemblies: 1
Light Output Ratio (L.O.R.) [%]: 83
Number of lamps for optical assembly: 1
Lamp code: LED Socket: /
ZVEI Code: LED Ballast losses [W]: 3.5
Nominal power [W]: 21 Colour temperature [K]: 3000
Nominal luminous [Lm]: 1540 CRI: 97
Lamp maximum intensity [cd]: / Wavelength [Nm]: /
Beamangle[°]:34° MacAdam Step: <3
Laser Blade
code
MQ91
Technical description
rectangular miniaturised recessed luminaire with 10 optical elements with LED lamps - fixed optics - flood beam angle. Main body
with die-cast aluminium radiant surface; minimal (frameless) version for mounting flush with the ceiling. Metallised thermoplastic high
definition optics, integrated in a rear position in the black anti-glare screen; the structure of the optical system prevents a pinpoint
effect, allowing precise, circular light distribution and emission with controlled glare (UGR < 19). Supplied with DALI dimmable
electronic control gear connected to the luminaire. Warm white high colour rendering LED
Installation
recessed with steel wire springs on the specific adapter (included) which allows flush-mounting with the ceiling. Adapter fixed to
false ceiling (12.5 mm thick) with self-tapping screws; subsequent filling and smoothing operations; insertion of luminaire body and
aesthetic finishing. Preparation hole 35 x 271
Size (mm)
281x44x54
Colour
Black (04)
Weight (kg)
0.73
Mounting
wall recessed | ceiling recessed
Wiring info
on control gear box with quick-coupling connections
Complies with EN60598-1 and pertinent regulations
Product configuration: MQ91+LED
LED: n.10 led warm CRI >90
Product characteristics
Optical assembly Characteristics 1
Polar
Laser Blade
august 2014
MQ91_EN 1 / 2
Appendix A.
Background data from the Experiment 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Design iGuzzini iGuzzini
Total lighting output [Lm]: 1274.5 Totalluminousfluxatoraboveanangleof90°[Lm]:0
Total power [W]: 24.5 Emergency luminous flux [Lm]: /
Luminous efficacy [Lm/W]: 52.02 Voltage [V]: -
Number of optical assemblies: 1
Light Output Ratio (L.O.R.) [%]: 83 Number of lamps for optical assembly: 1
Lamp code: LED Socket: /
ZVEI Code: LED Ballast losses [W]: 3.5
Nominal power [W]: 21 Colour temperature [K]: 3000
Nominal luminous [Lm]: 1540 CRI: 97
Lamp maximum intensity [cd]: / Wavelength [Nm]: /
Beamangle[°]:34° MacAdam Step: <3
Laser Blade
code
MQ91
Technical description
rectangular miniaturised recessed luminaire with 10 optical elements with LED lamps - fixed optics - flood beam angle. Main body
with die-cast aluminium radiant surface; minimal (frameless) version for mounting flush with the ceiling. Metallised thermoplastic high
definition optics, integrated in a rear position in the black anti-glare screen; the structure of the optical system prevents a pinpoint
effect, allowing precise, circular light distribution and emission with controlled glare (UGR < 19). Supplied with DALI dimmable
electronic control gear connected to the luminaire. Warm white high colour rendering LED
Installation
recessed with steel wire springs on the specific adapter (included) which allows flush-mounting with the ceiling. Adapter fixed to
false ceiling (12.5 mm thick) with self-tapping screws; subsequent filling and smoothing operations; insertion of luminaire body and
aesthetic finishing. Preparation hole 35 x 271
Size (mm)
281x44x54
Colour
Black (04)
Weight (kg)
0.73
Mounting
wall recessed | ceiling recessed
Wiring info
on control gear box with quick-coupling connections
Complies with EN60598-1 and pertinent regulations
Product configuration: MQ91+LED
LED: n.10 led warm CRI >90
Product characteristics
Optical assembly Characteristics 1
Polar
Laser Blade
august 2014
MQ91_EN 2 / 2
Appendix A. Background data from the Experiment
58
This page is intentionally left blank
Design iGuzzini iGuzzini
Total lighting output [Lm]: 305
Totalluminousfluxatoraboveanangleof90°[Lm]:6.16
Total power [W]: 3.6 Emergency luminous flux [Lm]: /
Luminous efficacy [Lm/W]: 84.72 Voltage [V]: 24
Number of optical assemblies: 1
Light Output Ratio (L.O.R.) [%]: 100
Number of lamps for optical assembly: 1
Lamp code: LED Socket: /
ZVEI Code: LED Ballast losses [W]: 0
Nominal power [W]: 3.6 Colour temperature [K]: 3000
Nominal luminous [Lm]: 305 CRI: 70
Lamp maximum intensity [cd]: / Wavelength [Nm]: /
Beamangle[°]:120° MacAdam Step: /
Underscore15 Underscore18
code
MI59
Technical description
Linear lighting product - with white monochromatic
LEDs - made on silicone-covered white flexible circuit. External protection in clear
PVC sheath with end caps. The silicone protection ensures IP65 protection degree for strips with integral length (not cut). The circuit
ends are provided with IP20 connectors, therefore the installer is responsible for completing the insulation operations. The product is
supplied in 5 metre coils wrapped around special supports; supplied with connection kit for connections in line or power supply. The
back of the circuit is provided with adhesive for quick application; mounting accessories are available for more difficult installations
The strips can be cut at predefined distances of 100mm (minimum 6 LEDs); in case of intermediate cuts use the end caps supplied
and the cut ends must be sealed carefully to restore the protection conditions. LED characteristics: white 3000K (the value is
indicativeandsubjecttochanges)60LED/mopeningangle120°72Wtotalpowersupply24V.Controlgearsordered
separately
Installation
fixing kit: clips (code MWG2: 10 items) and rigid aluminium support (code MWG1: 5 items x 1 m)
Size (mm)
1000x11x4
Colour
Indeterminate (00)
Weight (kg)
0.27
Mounting
wall arm
Wiring info
Constant voltage ballast ordered separetely; available for single coil (code MX67). DALI dimming interface (code MWP3). Power
supply/ coil connections with connectors (IP20) included with the strip
Notes
The connectors supplied guarantee a protection degree IP20. If the strips are cut (in the special zones) restore the seal thoroughly
after having performed the connecting soldering
Complies with EN60598-1 and pertinent regulations
Product configuration: MI59+LENGTH025+LED
LENGTH025: Length 0.25 (m)
LED: LED 3000 K
Product characteristics
Optical assembly Characteristics 1
Polar
Underscore15 Underscore18
august 2014
MI59_EN 1 / 2
Appendix A.
Background data from the Experiment 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Design iGuzzini iGuzzini
Total lighting output [Lm]: 305 Totalluminousfluxatoraboveanangleof90°[Lm]:6.16
Total power [W]: 3.6 Emergency luminous flux [Lm]: /
Luminous efficacy [Lm/W]: 84.72 Voltage [V]: 24
Number of optical assemblies: 1
Light Output Ratio (L.O.R.) [%]: 100 Number of lamps for optical assembly: 1
Lamp code: LED Socket: /
ZVEI Code: LED Ballast losses [W]: 0
Nominal power [W]: 3.6 Colour temperature [K]: 3000
Nominal luminous [Lm]: 305 CRI: 70
Lamp maximum intensity [cd]: / Wavelength [Nm]: /
Beamangle[°]:120° MacAdam Step: /
Underscore15 Underscore18
code
MI59
Technical description
Linear lighting product - with white monochromatic LEDs - made on silicone-covered white flexible circuit. External protection in clear
PVC sheath with end caps. The silicone protection ensures IP65 protection degree for strips with integral length (not cut). The circuit
ends are provided with IP20 connectors, therefore the installer is responsible for completing the insulation operations. The product is
supplied in 5 metre coils wrapped around special supports; supplied with connection kit for connections in line or power supply. The
back of the circuit is provided with adhesive for quick application; mounting accessories are available for more difficult installations
The strips can be cut at predefined distances of 100mm (minimum 6 LEDs); in case of intermediate cuts use the end caps supplied
and the cut ends must be sealed carefully to restore the protection conditions. LED characteristics: white 3000K (the value is
indicativeandsubjecttochanges)60LED/mopeningangle120°72Wtotalpowersupply24V.Controlgearsordered
separately
Installation
fixing kit: clips (code MWG2: 10 items) and rigid aluminium support (code MWG1: 5 items x 1 m)
Size (mm)
1000x11x4
Colour
Indeterminate (00)
Weight (kg)
0.27
Mounting
wall arm
Wiring info
Constant voltage ballast ordered separetely; available for single coil (code MX67). DALI dimming interface (code MWP3). Power
supply/ coil connections with connectors (IP20) included with the strip
Notes
The connectors supplied guarantee a protection degree IP20. If the strips are cut (in the special zones) restore the seal thoroughly
after having performed the connecting soldering
Complies with EN60598-1 and pertinent regulations
Product configuration: MI59+LENGTH025+LED
LENGTH025: Length 0.25 (m)
LED: LED 3000 K
Product characteristics
Optical assembly Characteristics 1
Polar
Underscore15 Underscore18
august 2014
MI59_EN 2 / 2
Appendix A. Background data from the Experiment
58
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix A.
Background data from the Experiment 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Appendix B
Questionnaire data
This appendix contains the raw data from the questionnaires. The below lists the
documents included on the next pages:
•Panas Results
•Scores from the semantic differential scale
•Results from the activity word test
56
Appendix B. Raw Data from Questionnaires
60
This page is intentionally left blank
DIM
active afraid alert ashamed attentive determined distressed enthusiastic excited guilty hostile inspired
interested
irritable jittery nervous proud scared strong upset SumPositive
SumNegative
P5 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 16 16
P6 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 21 12
P7 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 5 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 24 11
P8 3 1 5 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 31 11
P9 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 4 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 29 14
P10 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 26 11
P11 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 22 11
P12 1 4 3 1 3 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 5 1 27 19
P13 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 11
P14 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 16 10
P15 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 10
P16 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 10
P17 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 10
P18 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 26 12
P19 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 26 10
P20 3 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 10
P21 2 1 4 1 5 3 1 3 5 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 35 10
P22 2 1 4 1 5 3 1 3 4 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 33 10
P23 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 21 21
P24 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 24 11
P25 4 1 4 1 4 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 29 10
P26 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 10
P27 1 1 5 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 28 11
P28 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 19 10
SD 0.91 0.66 1.06 0.34 1.13 1.08 0.45 0.75 1.07 0.48 0.45 1.01 0.93 0.62 0.38 0.38 0.72 0.66 1.12 0.45 Average 23.8 11.7
Average 1.96 1.21 2.92 1.13 2.83 1.96 1.13 2.29 2.75 1.17 1.13 2.17 3.42 1.29 1.17 1.17 1.50 1.21 2.04 1.13 Mean 23.5 11.0
SD 5.3 2.9
1 38% 88% 4% 88% 13% 46% 92% 13% 8% 88% 92% 33% 4% 79% 83% 83% 63% 88% 38% 92%
2 33% 8% 38% 13% 25% 25% 4% 50% 38% 8% 4% 25% 8% 13% 17% 17% 25% 8% 38% 4%
3 25% 0% 29% 0% 38% 17% 4% 33% 33% 4% 4% 33% 38% 8% 0% 0% 13% 0% 13% 4%
4 4% 4% 21% 0% 17% 13% 0% 4% 13% 0% 0% 8% 42% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 8% 0%
5 0% 0% 8% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Sum 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
PANAS
Appendix B.
Raw Data from Questionnaires 60
This page is intentionally left blank
DOWN
active afraid alert ashamed attentive determined distressed enthusiastic excited guilty hostile inspired
interested
irritable jittery nervous proud scared strong upset SumPositive
SumNegative
P5 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 20 12
P6 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 19 10
P7 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 10
P8 2 1 5 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 25 10
P9 4 1 4 1 4 3 1 4 4 2 3 3 3 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 36 14
P10 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 29 11
P11 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 4 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 26 12
P12 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 19 10
P13 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 10
P14 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 4 3 3 1 31 13
P15 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 10
P16 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 10
P17 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 10
P18 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 25 13
P19 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 16 10
P20 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 18 13
P21 2 1 3 1 4 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 25 13
P22 2 1 3 1 4 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 25 14
P23 2 1 3 1 3 4 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 27 11
P24 1 1 3 1 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 26 11
P25 2 1 4 3 2 4 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 26 14
P26 2 1 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 1 1 3 5 1 1 2 4 1 4 1 37 11
P27 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 13 27
P28 5 1 4 1 4 2 1 4 4 1 2 3 4 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 35 16
SD 1.063 0.000 1.100 0.448 1.073 1.090 0.833 1.135 1.100 0.482 0.737 0.963 1.176 0.974 1.056 0.442 1.021 0.408 1.179 0.482 Average 23.792 12.292
Average 2.000 1.000 2.917 1.125 2.750 1.833 1.208 2.625 2.417 1.167 1.250 2.167 3.083 1.417 1.625 1.250 1.792 1.083 2.208 1.167 Mean 25.000 11.000
SD 6.514 3.581
1 0.333 1.000 0.167 0.917 0.167 0.542 0.917 0.208 0.250 0.875 0.875 0.292 0.125 0.792 0.667 0.750 0.500 0.958 0.375 0.875
2 50% 0% 8% 4% 21% 21% 4% 25% 29% 8% 4% 33% 17% 8% 13% 25% 33% 0% 21% 8%
3 4% 0% 46% 4% 33% 13% 0% 25% 25% 4% 4% 29% 29% 8% 17% 0% 4% 4% 29% 4%
4 8% 0% 25% 0% 29% 13% 0% 29% 21% 0% 4% 8% 33% 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% 8% 0%
5 4% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Sum 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
PANAS
Appendix B. Raw Data from Questionnaires
60
This page is intentionally left blank
SHELF
active afraid alert ashamed attentive determined distressed enthusiastic excited guilty hostile inspired
interested
irritable jittery nervous proud scared strong upset SumPositive
SumNegative
P5 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 5 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 24 11
P6 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 21 15
P7 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 14 12
P8 3 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 28 11
P9 2 1 4 1 4 4 2 5 4 2 1 4 5 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 38 14
P10 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 10
P11 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 4 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 28 12
P12 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 22 14
P13 3 1 3 1 4 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 10
P14 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 10
P15 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 10
P16 4 1 4 1 4 2 1 3 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 31 10
P17 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 10
P18 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 24 12
P19 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 25 10
P20 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 10
P21 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 22 12
P22 2 1 4 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 25 12
P23 3 2 4 1 3 2 2 4 4 2 1 2 5 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 32 17
P24 1 1 4 1 3 3 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 27 10
P25 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 15
P26 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 4 3 1 3 2 3 15 27
P27 4 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 5 2 1 1 4 2 20 23
P28 3 1 4 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 3 2 1 1 2 2 22 19
SD 0.947 0.338 1.349 0.448 1.060 0.932 0.780 1.215 1.429 0.442 0.608 1.035 1.167 1.062 1.062 0.637 0.608 0.974 1.100 0.482 Average 22.708 13.167
Average 2.125 1.125 2.583 1.125 2.583 1.792 1.500 2.458 2.708 1.250 1.250 2.125 3.167 1.542 1.458 1.333 1.250 1.417 1.917 1.167 Mean 22.000 12.000
SD 6.252 4.430
1 0.292 0.875 0.333 0.917 0.208 0.458 0.667 0.250 0.250 0.750 0.833 0.375 0.125 0.750 0.792 0.750 0.833 0.792 0.458 0.875
2 38% 13% 13% 4% 21% 38% 17% 29% 25% 25% 8% 21% 8% 8% 8% 17% 8% 8% 29% 8%
3 25% 0% 21% 4% 38% 8% 17% 29% 21% 0% 8% 33% 42% 4% 4% 8% 8% 8% 17% 4%
4 8% 0% 29% 0% 21% 8% 0% 8% 13% 0% 0% 8% 25% 13% 4% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0%
5 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 17% 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% 4% 0% 0% 4% 4% 0%
Sum 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
PANAS
Appendix B.
Raw Data from Questionnaires 60
This page is intentionally left blank
DIM P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 SD Average
Pleasant 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Unpleasant 1.02
1.08
Confined 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 Spacious 0.90
0.25
Comfortable 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 2
Uncomfortable
0.93
1.08
Lazy 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 Energetic 0.70
0.83
Public 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 Private 0.85
1.13
Isolated 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 Open 1.14
0.46
Tense 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Relaxed 0.86
1.29
Hazy 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 Visuallyclear 1.05
0.67
Boring 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Interesting 0.78
0.54
Simple 2 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 Complex 0.81
0.96
Dark 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 Bright 0.96
0.67
Conservative 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 Innovative 0.87
0.17
Formal 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 Casual 0.92
0.83
Serious 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 Fun 0.96
0.67
Small 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 Large 0.81
0.29
DOWN P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 SD
Average
Pleasant 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 1 Unpleasant 1.30
0.71
Confined 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 Spacious 0.90
0.25
Comfortable 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 2 2 0
Uncomfortable
1.20
0.67
Lazy 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 Energetic 1.06
0.38
Public 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 Private 1.19
0.88
Isolated 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 Open 1.29
0.50
Tense 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 Relaxed 1.35
0.63
Hazy 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 Visuallyclear 0.87
0.83
Boring 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 Interesting 1.06
0.38
Simple 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 Complex 0.97
0.92
Dark 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 Bright 1.01
0.63
Conservative 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 Innovative 1.06
0.00
Formal 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 Casual 1.37
0.71
Serious 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 Fun 1.22
0.46
Small 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 Large 0.98
0.54
SHELF
P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28
Pleasant 2 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 Unpleasant 1.28
0.58
Confined 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 Spacious 1.01
0.17
Comfortable 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 1
Uncomfortable
1.16
0.29
Lazy 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 Energetic 0.91
0.04
Public 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 Private 1.21
0.63
Isolated 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 Open 1.14
0.08
Tense 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 Relaxed 1.23
0.71
Hazy 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 Visuallyclear 1.24
0.63
Boring 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 Interesting 1.01
0.33
Simple 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 1 Complex 1.10
0.21
Dark 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 2 Bright 1.06
0.50
Conservative 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 Innovative 1.12
0.13
Formal 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 Casual 1.17
0.63
Serious 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 Fun 1.18
0.46
Small 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 Large 0.68 0.25
Semanc Dierenal Scale
Appendix B. Raw Data from Questionnaires
60
This page is intentionally left blank
2 1 0 1 2 DIM DOWN SHELF
42% 38% 8% 13% 0%
8% 29% 42% 21% 0%
38% 42% 13% 8% 0%
17% 50% 33% 0% 0%
0% 4% 17% 42% 38%
21% 29% 29% 17% 4%
0% 4% 13% 33% 50%
0% 13% 38% 21% 29%
0% 13% 25% 58% 4%
29% 38% 33% 0% 0%
13% 58% 17% 8% 4%
4% 29% 50% 13% 4%
4% 0% 25% 50% 21%
0% 13% 29% 38% 21%
8% 25% 54% 13% 0%
2 1 0 1 2 Mostly
33% 33% 8% 13% 8% Pleasant MostlyPleasant Neutral
8% 25% 54% 8% 0% Confined MostlyConfined Neutral
29% 33% 17% 17% 4%
Comfortable
MostlyComfortable Neutral
17% 25% 42% 13% 4% Lazy MostlyLazy Neutral
4% 8% 21% 17% 38% Public MostlyPublic Neutral
29% 21% 29% 13% 4% Isolated MostlyIsolated Neutral
8% 17% 13% 25% 25% Tense MostlyTense Neutral
0% 8% 17% 50% 13% Hazy MostlyHazy Neutral
4% 17% 25% 38% 8% Boring MostlyBoring Neutral
38% 21% 33% 4% 0% Simple MostlySimple Neutral
0% 13% 33% 17% 21% Dark MostlyDark Neutral
13% 8% 50% 17% 8%
Conservative
MostlyConservative Neutral
13% 8% 4% 38% 25% Formal MostlyFormal Neutral
8% 17% 13% 46% 8% Serious MostlySerious Neutral
21% 25% 38% 8% 0% Small MostlySmall Neutral
MoodAverage
2 1 0 1 2
25% 42% 4% 17% 8%
8% 29% 33% 21% 0%
8% 46% 21% 8% 13%
4% 21% 42% 25% 0%
4% 13% 29% 17% 29%
8% 33% 21% 25% 4%
8% 13% 0% 50% 13%
8% 13% 8% 42% 17%
8% 8% 25% 50% 0%
13% 25% 38% 13% 4%
0% 21% 25% 29% 17%
13% 8% 33% 29% 8%
4% 17% 13% 38% 17%
8% 13% 17% 42% 13%
4% 25% 54% 8% 0%
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
MoodAverage
Semanc Dierenal Scale
Appendix B.
Raw Data from Questionnaires 60
This page is intentionally left blank
DIM code DOWN code SHELF code Activities Code DIM DOWN SHELF
Cooking 6 EatingPasta 3 Sleeping 8
Physical
activity 1 10 14 17
Eating 3 Swimming 1 Smoking 7 Consuming 3 10 14 15
Cuddling 5 Coitus 1 Eating 3 TV/Film 2 10 12 9
SkateBoarding 1 Eating 3 Eating 3 Playgames 10 6 4 7
PlayingxBox 10 Drinking 3 PlayingPS2 10 Reading 9 2 6 5
WatchingTV 2 Films 2 Reading 9 Cooking 6 5 2 4
WatchTV 2 Eating 3 TV 2 Social 5 6 4 4
Drinking 3 Drink 3 Relaxing 8 Relax 8 9 6 4
Talking 5 WatchTV 2 Sex 1 Leaving 11 4 3 3
Eating 3 Decorating 4 Sex 1 Other 7 7 3 3
Indecisive 7 Drinking 3 Drink 3 Work 4 2 3 1
Work 4 Shower 7 WatchTV 2 71 71 72
Procrastinating 7 Walk 1 Gardening 1
Carryonthetest 7 Gohome 11 Driving 1
Walk 1 Cook 6 Chatting 5
Gohome 11 Football 1 Gohome 7
Eating 3 Working 4 Cook 6
Listeningtomusic 5 Surfing 1 Walk 1
Showering 7 Football 1 Football 1
Football 1 Tennis 1 Swimming 1
Badminton 1 EatingCompetition 3 Sex 1
Swim 1 Relax8 Football 1
Cooking 6 Invitefriends 5 Tightropewalking 1
Eating 3 Smoke 7 Playvideogames 10
Getintimate 5 Getintimate 5 Eating 3
Sleeping 8 WatchingTV 2 Drinking 3
Sleeping 8 Sleeping 8 Smoking 7
Cuddling 5 Cuddling 5 Read 9
Smoking 7 WatchingTV 2 Playvideogames 10
WatchingTV 1 Reading 9 WatchTV 2
Playinggames 10 Snoozing 3 Reading 9
Internet/laptoptimes 2 Reading 9 Playinggames 10
WatchingTV 2 WatchingTV 2 WatchingTV 2
Nap 8 Sleeping 8 Playingwithsleep 8
Goforabath 11 WatchingTV 2 Yoga 1
WatchingTV 2 Napping 8 WatchingTV 2
Conversation 5 Chatting 5 WatchingTV 2
Reading 9 Cooking 6 Eating 3
Gaming 10 WatchingTV 2 Socialising 5
WatchingTV 2 Reading 9 Cooking 6
Reading 9 Goforarun 1 Reading 9
Eating 3 Eating 3 Drinking 3
Sitandrelax 8 Gotothecinema 2 Cooking 6
Work 4 WatchingTV 2 Eating 3 68.96552
WatchDVD 2 Playvideogames 10 Drinking 3 45.94595
Playvideogames 10 Reading 9 Fishing 1
WatchingTV 2 Reading 9 WatchingTV 2
WatchingDVD 2 Playingvideogames 10 Eating 3
Playvideogames 10 WatchTV 2 Playcards 10
WatchTV 2 Eating 3 WatchDVD 2
Swimming 1 Working 4 Playvideogames 10
Sleeping 8 Sleeping 8 Playcards 10
Showering 7 Snorkling 1 WatchDVD 2
Playingfootball 1 Skydiving 1 Reading 9
Swimming 1 Jumping 1 Drinking 3
Eating 3 MoveTVfurtheraway 11 Sex 1
Mindgames 10 Gaming 10 Cooking 6
ChangeTV/program 11 WatchTV 2 Dancing 1
Changelighting 11 Relax8 Eating 3
Sleeping 8 WatchTV 2 Socialising 5
Snuggle 8 Eating 3 Sleeping 8
Planningnextday 7 Reading 9 Turnofflights 11
Cooking 6 Running 1 Walking 1
Relaxing 8 Goingout 7 Changelights 11
Eating 3 Drinking 3 Leave 11
Sleeping 8 Gooutside 11 Maketea 3
Cooking 6 Eating 3 Talking 5
Drinking 3 Playagame 10 Eating 3
Eating 3 Stretch 1 Drinking 3
Cooking 6 Walking 1 Working 4
Walking 1 Eating 3 Excercising 1
Shopping 1
Appendix C
Raw data from the Video
Recordings
On the following pages is a compilation of the raw data from the obervations from the
video recordings:
•Distance measurements
•Documentation of time spent in silence
•Documentation of direction of view
58
Appendix C. Raw data from the Video Recordings
62
This page is intentionally left blank
SHELF DOWN DIM
dist minstart minstop Timeeach Totaltime Percentage dist minstart minstop Timeeach Totaltime Percentage 0% dist minstart minstop Timeeach Totaltime Percentage 0%
P5 377 00:43:00 00:43:48 00:00:48 11% 360 00:05:04 00:07:00 00:01:56 18% 271 00:24:35 00:25:11 00:00:36 6%
560 00:43:48 00:44:40 00:00:52 11% 350 00:07:00 00:16:02 00:09:02 82% 387 00:25:11 00:26:01 00:00:50 8%
495 00:44:40 00:46:03 00:01:23 18% 307 00:26:01 00:26:45 00:00:44 7%
230 00:46:03 00:46:37 00:00:34 7% 355 00:26:45 00:27:25 00:00:40 7%
480 00:46:37 00:46:50 00:00:13 3% 322 00:27:25 00:32:49 00:05:24 53%
555 00:46:50 00:47:46 00:00:56 12% 330 00:32:49 00:34:45 00:01:56 19%
280 00:47:46 00:50:36 00:02:50 37% 00:10:10 100%
00:07:36 100% 00:10:58 100%
P7
168 00:05:00 00:05:49 00:00:49 8% 130 00:27:00 00:36:30 00:09:30 100% 130 00:46:00 00:07:00 78%
150 00:05:49 00:09:11 92% 280 00:53:00 00:02:00 22%
00:15:00 00:10:00 100% 00:09:30 00:55:00 00:09:00 100%
100%
P9
400 00:46:00 00:10:00 100% 510 00:27:00 00:08:30 100% 390 00:05:50 00:09:10 100%
00:56:00 100% 00:35:30 00:08:30 00:15:00 00:09:10 100%
00:10:00 100%
P13 480 00:39:30 00:05:20 86% 350 00:07:09 00:01:06 9% 200 00:24:20 00:06:40 65%
407 00:44:50 00:00:50 14% 130 00:08:15 00:10:35 91% 80 00:31:00 00:00:13 2%
00:45:40 00:06:10 100% 00:18:50 00:11:41 260 00:31:13 00:03:27 33%
100% 00:34:40 00:10:20 100%
P15 287 00:19:15 00:28:15 00:09:00 00:09:00 100% 196 00:04:49 00:14:10 00:09:21 00:09:21 100% 124 00:33:29 00:43:40 00:10:11 00:10:11 100%
100% 100% 100%
P17 416 00:17:03 00:26:58 00:09:55 00:09:55 100% 418 00:30:43 00:39:15 00:08:32 00:08:32 100% 338 00:02:17 00:03:20 00:01:03 00:13:08 8%
100% 100% 440 00:12:05 00:12:05 92%
P19 355 00:02:00 00:09:20 100% 355 00:35:00 00:08:00 100% 356 00:19:59 00:10:11 100%
00:09:20 100% 00:08:00 00:10:11 100%
00:11:20 00:43:00 100% 00:30:10
P21 350 00:19:49 00:00:51 8% 253 00:02:40 00:00:53 9% 278 00:35:45 00:04:55 57%
275 00:20:40 00:06:28 65% 344 00:03:33 00:00:54 9% 218 00:40:40 00:00:12 2%
182 00:27:08 00:00:13 2% 280 00:04:27 00:00:53 9% 270 00:40:52 00:03:28 40%
250 00:27:21 00:00:27 4% 300 00:05:20 00:01:01 11% 00:44:20 00:08:35 100%
349 00:27:48 00:02:02 20% 290 00:06:21 00:05:59 62%
00:29:50 00:10:01 100% 00:12:20 00:09:40 100%
P23 315 00:04:30 00:05:36 56% 327 00:35:40 00:01:20 14% 330 00:20:20 00:01:59 21%
280 00:10:06 00:00:23 4% 391 00:37:00 00:05:50 63% 270 00:22:19 00:05:20 57%
307 00:10:29 00:01:43 17% 422 00:42:50 00:02:10 23% 260 00:27:39 00:02:01 22%
231 00:12:12 00:00:22 4% 00:29:40 00:09:20 100%
327 00:12:34 00:01:11 12% 100%
250 00:13:45 00:14:30 00:00:45 00:10:00 8% 00:45:00 00:09:20
100%
P25 178 00:51:00 00:01:28 16% 222 00:11:20 00:01:58 20% 299 00:32:50 00:00:43 8%
145 00:52:28 00:00:22 4% 210 00:13:18 00:02:17 23% 198 00:33:33 00:01:45 19%
150 00:52:50 00:07:10 80% 247 00:15:35 00:01:15 13% 463 00:35:18 00:00:42 8%
280 00:16:50 00:00:27 5% 270 00:36:00 00:02:00 22%
100% 248 00:17:17 00:01:33 16% 208 00:38:00 00:04:00 44%
01:00:00 00:09:00 220 00:18:50 00:21:20 00:02:30 00:10:00 25% 100% 00:42:00 00:09:10 100%
Distance
Appendix C.
Raw data from the Video Recordings 62
This page is intentionally left blank
SHELF DOWN DIM
dist minstart minstop Timeeach Totaltime Percentage dist minstart minstop Timeeach Totaltime Percentage 0% dist minstart minstop Timeeach Totaltime Percentage 0%
P5 377 00:43:00 00:43:48 00:00:48 11% 360 00:05:04 00:07:00 00:01:56 18% 271 00:24:35 00:25:11 00:00:36 6%
560 00:43:48 00:44:40 00:00:52 11% 350 00:07:00 00:16:02 00:09:02 82% 387 00:25:11 00:26:01 00:00:50 8%
495 00:44:40 00:46:03 00:01:23 18% 307 00:26:01 00:26:45 00:00:44 7%
230 00:46:03 00:46:37 00:00:34 7% 355 00:26:45 00:27:25 00:00:40 7%
480 00:46:37 00:46:50 00:00:13 3% 322 00:27:25 00:32:49 00:05:24 53%
555 00:46:50 00:47:46 00:00:56 12% 330 00:32:49 00:34:45 00:01:56 19%
280 00:47:46 00:50:36 00:02:50 37% 00:10:10 100%
00:07:36 100% 00:10:58 100%
P7
168 00:05:00 00:05:49 00:00:49 8% 130 00:27:00 00:36:30 00:09:30 100% 130 00:46:00 00:07:00 78%
150 00:05:49 00:09:11 92% 280 00:53:00 00:02:00 22%
00:15:00 00:10:00 100% 00:09:30 00:55:00 00:09:00 100%
100%
P9
400 00:46:00 00:10:00 100% 510 00:27:00 00:08:30 100% 390 00:05:50 00:09:10 100%
00:56:00 100% 00:35:30 00:08:30 00:15:00 00:09:10 100%
00:10:00 100%
P13 480 00:39:30 00:05:20 86% 350 00:07:09 00:01:06 9% 200 00:24:20 00:06:40 65%
407 00:44:50 00:00:50 14% 130 00:08:15 00:10:35 91% 80 00:31:00 00:00:13 2%
00:45:40 00:06:10 100% 00:18:50 00:11:41 260 00:31:13 00:03:27 33%
100% 00:34:40 00:10:20 100%
P15 287 00:19:15 00:28:15 00:09:00 00:09:00 100% 196 00:04:49 00:14:10 00:09:21 00:09:21 100% 124 00:33:29 00:43:40 00:10:11 00:10:11 100%
100% 100% 100%
P17 416 00:17:03 00:26:58 00:09:55 00:09:55 100% 418 00:30:43 00:39:15 00:08:32 00:08:32 100% 338 00:02:17 00:03:20 00:01:03 00:13:08 8%
100% 100% 440 00:12:05 00:12:05 92%
P19 355 00:02:00 00:09:20 100% 355 00:35:00 00:08:00 100% 356 00:19:59 00:10:11 100%
00:09:20 100% 00:08:00 00:10:11 100%
00:11:20 00:43:00 100% 00:30:10
P21 350 00:19:49 00:00:51 8% 253 00:02:40 00:00:53 9% 278 00:35:45 00:04:55 57%
275 00:20:40 00:06:28 65% 344 00:03:33 00:00:54 9% 218 00:40:40 00:00:12 2%
182 00:27:08 00:00:13 2% 280 00:04:27 00:00:53 9% 270 00:40:52 00:03:28 40%
250 00:27:21 00:00:27 4% 300 00:05:20 00:01:01 11% 00:44:20 00:08:35 100%
349 00:27:48 00:02:02 20% 290 00:06:21 00:05:59 62%
00:29:50 00:10:01 100% 00:12:20 00:09:40 100%
P23 315 00:04:30 00:05:36 56% 327 00:35:40 00:01:20 14% 330 00:20:20 00:01:59 21%
280 00:10:06 00:00:23 4% 391 00:37:00 00:05:50 63% 270 00:22:19 00:05:20 57%
307 00:10:29 00:01:43 17% 422 00:42:50 00:02:10 23% 260 00:27:39 00:02:01 22%
231 00:12:12 00:00:22 4% 00:29:40 00:09:20 100%
327 00:12:34 00:01:11 12% 100%
250 00:13:45 00:14:30 00:00:45 00:10:00 8% 00:45:00 00:09:20
100%
P25 178 00:51:00 00:01:28 16% 222 00:11:20 00:01:58 20% 299 00:32:50 00:00:43 8%
145 00:52:28 00:00:22 4% 210 00:13:18 00:02:17 23% 198 00:33:33 00:01:45 19%
150 00:52:50 00:07:10 80% 247 00:15:35 00:01:15 13% 463 00:35:18 00:00:42 8%
280 00:16:50 00:00:27 5% 270 00:36:00 00:02:00 22%
100% 248 00:17:17 00:01:33 16% 208 00:38:00 00:04:00 44%
01:00:00 00:09:00 220 00:18:50 00:21:20 00:02:30 00:10:00 25% 100% 00:42:00 00:09:10 100%
Distance
Appendix C. Raw data from the Video Recordings
62
This page is intentionally left blank
DIM DOWN
Talk/
Quiet
From
(min)
To(min) Time
Total
Time
Over
30min
AllOver
30
%Quiet
Total
Quiet
%Talk 0
Talk/
Quiet
From
(min)
To(min) Time
Total
Time
Over
30min
AllOver
30
%Quiet
Total
Quiet
%Talk
P5 1 T 00:00 00:02 00:02 0 0% 0% 45% 0% 1 T 05:04 06:05 01:01 01:01 10% 0% 13% 10%
P6 2 Q 00:02 00:34 00:32 00:32 5% 5% 0% 2 Q 06:05 06:20 00:15 0 0% 0% 0%
3 T 00:34 01:07 00:33 00:33 6% 0% 6% 3 T 06:20 07:53 01:33 01:33 15% 0% 15%
4 Q 01:07 02:27 01:20 01:20 13% 13% 0% 4 Q 07:53 08:18 00:25 0 0% 0% 0%
5 T 02:27 02:31 00:12 0 0% 0% 0% 5 T 08:18 08:32 00:14 0 0% 0% 0%
6 Q 02:39 02:39 00:16 0 0% 0% 0% 6 Q 08:32 08:41 00:09 0 0% 0% 0%
7 Q 02:55 02:55 01:25 01:25 14% 14% 0% 7 T 08:41 09:00 00:19 0 0% 0% 0%
8 T 04:20 04:20 01:09 01:09 12% 0% 12% 8 Q 09:00 09:31 00:31 00:31 5% 5% 0%
9 Q 05:29 05:29 00:22 0 0% 0% 0% 9 T 09:31 10:15 00:44 00:44 7% 0% 7%
10 T 05:51 05:51 00:00 0 0% 0% 0% 10 Q 10:15 10:35 00:20 0 0% 0% 0%
11 Q 05:51 05:53 00:02 0 0% 0% 0% 11 T 10:35 10:53 00:18 0 0% 0% 0%
12 T 05:53 07:08 01:15 01:15 13% 0% 13% 12 Q 10:53 11:15 00:22 0 0% 0% 0%
13 T 07:08 07:30 00:22 0 0% 0% 0% 13 T 11:15 11:48 00:33 00:33 5% 0% 5%
14 T 07:30 07:53 00:23 0 0% 0% 0% 14 Q 11:48 12:10 00:22 0 0% 0% 0%
15 Q 07:53 08:28 00:35 00:35 6% 6% 0% 15 T 12:10 12:43 00:33 00:33 5% 0% 5%
16 T 08:28 08:46 00:18 0 0% 0% 0% 16 Q 12:43 12:55 00:12 0 0% 0% 0%
17 Q 08:46 08:50 00:04 0 0% 0% 0% 17 T 12:55 13:00 00:05 0 0% 0% 0%
18 T 08:50 09:00 00:10 0 0% 0% 0% 18 Q 13:00 13:50 00:50 00:50 8% 8% 0%
19 Q 09:00 09:39 00:39 00:39 7% 7% 0% 19 T 13:50 14:05 00:15 0 0% 0% 0%
20 T 09:39 09:53 00:14 0 0% 0% 0% 20 Q 14:05 14:18 00:13 0 0% 0% 0%
21 Q 09:53 10:00 00:07 0 0% 0% 0% 21 T 14:18 14:55 00:37 00:37 6% 0% 6%
22 22 Q 14:55 15:05 00:10 0 0% 0% 0%
23 23 T 15:05 15:40 00:35 00:35 6% 0% 6%
10:00 10:36
P7 1 T 46:00 55:00 09:00 09:00 0% 1 T 27:00 27:43 00:43 00:43 8% 0% 82% 8%
P8 2 09:00 2 Q 27:43 28:25 00:42 00:42 8% 8% 0%
3 3 T 28:25 28:40 00:15 0 0% 0% 0%
4 4 Q 28:40 29:00 00:20 0 0% 0% 0%
5 5 T 29:00 29:20 00:20 0 0% 0% 0%
6 6 Q 29:20 36:00 06:40 06:40 74% 74% 0%
09:00
P9 1 T 05:05 15:00 09:55 09:55 0% 0% 0% 1 T 27:00 35:30 08:30 08:30 0% 0% 0%
P10 09:55 08:30 0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
Appendix C.
Raw data from the Video Recordings 62
This page is intentionally left blank
P11 1 T 35:57 37:35 01:38 01:38 0% 0% 18% 0% 1 T 21:48 31:00 09:12 09:12 90% 0% 0% 90%
P12 Q 37:35 37:55 00:20 0 0% 0% 0% Q 31:00 31:20 00:20 0 0% 0% 0%
T 37:55 38:33 00:38 00:38 5% 0% 5% T 31:20 31:40 00:20 0 0% 0% 0%
Q 38:33 40:05 01:32 01:32 13% 13% 0% Q 31:40 31:50 00:10 0 0% 0% 0%
T 40:05 40:10 00:05 0 0% 0% 0% T 31:50 31:58 00:08 0 0% 0% 0%
Q 40:10 40:40 00:30 0 0% 0% 0%
T 40:40 41:45 01:05 01:05 9% 0% 9% 10:10
Q 41:45 42:03 00:18 0 0% 0% 0%
T 42:03 42:30 00:27 0 0% 0% 0%
Q 42:30 43:10 00:40 00:40 6% 6% 0%
T 43:10 43:15 00:05 0 0% 0% 0%
Q 43:15 43:30 00:15 0 0% 0% 0%
T 43:30 48:00 04:30 04:30 37% 0% 37%
12:03
P13 1 T 24:20 24:22 00:02 0 0% 0% 41% 0% 1 Q 07:09 07:13 00:04 0 0% 0% 49% 0%
P14 2 Q 24:22 24:39 00:17 0 0% 0% 0% 2 T 07:13 08:15 01:02 01:02 9% 0% 9%
3 T 24:39 24:45 00:06 0 0% 0% 0% 3 Q 08:15 09:33 01:18 01:18 11% 11% 0%
3 Q 24:45 25:20 00:35 00:35 6% 6% 0% 4 T 09:33 09:40 00:07 0 0% 0% 0%
5 T 25:20 26:15 00:55 00:55 9% 0% 9% 5 Q 09:40 10:34 00:54 00:54 8% 8% 0%
4 Q 26:15 26:30 00:15 0 0% 0% 0% 6 T 10:34 10:46 00:12 0 0% 0% 0%
7 T 26:30 27:05 00:35 00:35 6% 0% 6% 7 Q 10:46 11:30 00:44 00:44 6% 6% 0%
5 Q 27:05 28:28 01:23 01:23 13% 13% 0% 8 T 11:30 11:35 00:05 0 0% 0% 0%
9 T 28:28 28:35 00:07 0 0% 0% 0% 9 Q 11:35 12:00 00:25 0 0% 0% 0%
6 Q 28:35 28:55 00:20 0 0% 0% 0% 10 T 12:00 12:35 00:35 00:35 5% 0% 5%
11 T 28:55 29:00 00:05 0 0% 0% 0% 11 Q 12:35 13:16 00:41 00:41 6% 6% 0%
7 Q 29:00 29:42 00:42 00:42 7% 7% 0% 12 T 13:16 13:20 00:04 0 0% 0% 0%
13 T 29:42 31:15 01:33 01:33 15% 0% 15% 13 Q 13:20 14:08 00:48 00:48 7% 7% 0%
8 Q 31:15 31:35 00:20 0 0% 0% 0% 14 T 14:08 14:20 00:12 0 0% 0% 0%
15 T 31:35 33:00 01:25 01:25 14% 0% 14% 15 Q 14:20 14:33 00:13 0 0% 0% 0%
9 Q 33:00 33:57 00:57 00:57 9% 9% 0% 16 T 14:33 14:40 00:07 0 0% 0% 0%
17 T 33:57 34:00 00:03 0 0% 0% 0% 17 Q 14:40 15:20 00:40 00:40 6% 6% 0%
10 Q 34:00 34:40 00:40 00:40 6% 6% 0% 18 T 15:20 16:23 01:03 01:03 9% 0% 9%
19 Q 16:23 16:38 00:15 0 0% 0% 0%
10:20 20 T 16:38 16:48 00:10 0 0% 0% 0%
21 Q 16:48 17:25 00:37 00:37 5% 5% 0%
22 T 17:25 17:30 00:05 0 0% 0% 0%
23 Q 17:30 17:56 00:26 0 0% 0% 0%
24 T 17:56 18:03 00:07 0 0% 0% 0%
25 Q 18:03 18:23 00:20 0 0% 0% 0%
26 T 18:23 18:45 00:22 0 0% 0% 0%
27 Q 18:45 18:50 00:05 0 0% 0% 0%
11:41
P15 1 T 33:29 43:40 10:11 10:11 100% 0% 0% 100% 1 T 04:49 10:15 05:26 05:26 58% 0% 0% 58%
P16 10:11 2 Q 10:15 10:40 00:25 0 0% 0% 0%
3 T 10:40 11:32 00:52 00:52 9% 0% 9%
4 Q 11:32 11:47 00:15 0 0% 0% 0%
Appendix C. Raw data from the Video Recordings
62
This page is intentionally left blank
5 T 11:47 12:53 01:06 01:06 12% 0% 12%
6 Q 12:53 13:20 00:27 0 0% 0% 0%
7 T 13:20 13:46 00:26 0 0% 0% 0%
8 Q 13:46 14:10 00:24 0 0% 0% 0%
09:21
P17 1 T 02:18 04:17 01:59 01:59 20% 0% 21% 20% 1 T 30:43 31:05 00:22 0 0% 0% 39% 0%
P18 2 Q 04:17 04:40 00:23 09:47 0 0% 0% 0% 2 Q 31:05 31:48 00:43 00:43 8% 8% 0%
3 T 04:40 06:50 02:10 02:10 22% 0% 22% 3 T 31:48 31:55 00:07 0 0% 0% 0%
4 Q 06:50 07:14 00:24 0 0% 0% 0% 4 Q 31:55 32:10 00:15 0 0% 0% 0%
5 T 07:14 07:35 00:21 0 0% 0% 0% 5 T 32:10 33:00 00:50 00:50 10% 0% 10%
6 Q 07:35 08:25 00:50 00:50 9% 9% 0% 6 Q 33:00 33:10 00:10 0 0% 0% 0%
7 Q 08:25 08:32 00:07 0 0% 0% 0% 7 T 33:10 34:53 01:43 01:43 20% 0% 20%
8 T 08:32 08:50 00:18 0 0% 0% 0% 8 Q 34:53 35:25 00:32 00:32 6% 6% 0%
9 Q 08:50 09:00 00:10 0 0% 0% 0% 9 T 35:25 36:35 01:10 01:10 14% 0% 14%
10 T 09:00 09:30 00:30 00:30 5% 0% 5% 10 Q 36:35 37:04 00:29 0 0% 0% 0%
11 Q 09:30 10:11 00:41 00:41 7% 7% 0% 11 T 37:04 37:10 00:06 0 0% 0% 0%
12 T 10:11 10:30 00:19 0 0% 0% 0% 12 Q 37:10 39:15 02:05 08:32 02:05 24% 24% 0%
13 Q 10:30 11:05 00:35 00:35 6% 6% 0%
14 T 11:05 11:35 00:30 00:30 5% 0% 5%
15 Q 11:35 11:40 00:05 0 0% 0% 0%
16 T 11:40 11:59 00:19 0 0% 0% 0%
17 Q 11:59 12:05 00:06 0 0% 0% 0%
P19 1 T 19:59 21:00 01:01 01:01 10% 0% 39% 10% 1 T 35:00 35:50 00:50 00:50 10% 0% 49% 10%
P20 2 Q 21:00 21:58 00:58 00:58 9% 9% 0% 2 Q 35:50 36:10 00:20 0 0% 0% 0%
3 T 21:58 22:21 00:23 0 0% 0% 0% 3 T 36:10 36:12 00:02 0 0% 0% 0%
4 Q 22:21 22:48 00:27 0 0% 0% 0% 4 Q 36:12 37:10 00:58 00:58 11% 11% 0%
5 T 22:48 22:55 00:07 0 0% 0% 0% 5 T 37:10 38:35 01:25 01:25 16% 0% 16%
6 Q 22:55 23:13 00:18 0 0% 0% 0% 6 Q 38:35 39:10 00:35 00:35 7% 7% 0%
7 T 23:13 24:04 00:51 00:51 8% 0% 8% 7 T 39:10 40:40 01:30 01:30 17% 0% 17%
8 Q 24:04 25:16 01:12 01:12 12% 12% 0% 8 Q 40:40 41:37 00:57 00:57 11% 11% 0%
9 T 25:16 25:28 00:12 0 0% 0% 0% 9 T 41:37 41:55 00:18 0 0% 0% 0%
10 Q 25:28 25:52 00:24 0 0% 0% 0% 10 Q 41:55 43:40 01:45 08:40 01:45 20% 20% 0%
11 T 25:52 25:56 00:04 0 0% 0% 0%
12 Q 25:56 26:29 00:33 00:33 5% 5% 0%
13 T 26:29 26:59 00:30 0 0% 0% 0%
14 Q 26:59 27:48 00:49 00:49 8% 8% 0%
15 T 27:48 28:02 00:14 0 0% 0% 0%
16 Q 28:02 28:30 00:28 0 0% 0% 0%
17 T 28:30 28:45 00:15 0 0% 0% 0%
18 Q 28:45 29:17 00:32 00:32 5% 5% 0%
19 T 29:17 29:20 00:03 0 0% 0% 0%
20 Q 29:20 29:47 00:27 0 0% 0% 0%
21 T 29:47 30:17 00:30 10:18 00:30 5% 0% 5%
P21 1 T 35:45 41:43 05:58 05:58 70% 0% 9% 70% 1 T 02:40 10:13 07:33 07:33 78% 0% 0% 78%
P22 2 Q 41:43 42:27 00:44 00:44 9% 9% 0% 2 Q 10:13 10:30 00:17 0 0% 0% 0%
3 T 42:27 44:20 01:53 08:35 01:53 22% 0% 22% 3 T 10:30 12:20 01:50 09:40 01:50 19% 0% 19%
Appendix C.
Raw data from the Video Recordings 62
This page is intentionally left blank
P23 1 T 20:20 22:28 02:08 02:08 23% 0% 0% 23% 1 T 35:40 37:00 01:20 01:20 14% 0% 13% 14%
P24 2 Q 22:28 22:49 00:21 0 0% 0% 0% 2 Q 37:00 37:10 00:10 0 0% 0% 0%
3 T 22:49 29:40 06:51 09:20 06:51 73% 0% 73% 3 T 37:10 39:44 02:34 02:34 28% 0% 28%
4 Q 39:44 40:26 00:42 00:42 7% 7% 0%
5 T 40:26 42:50 02:24 02:24 26% 0% 26%
6 Q 42:50 43:23 00:33 00:33 6% 6% 0%
7 T 43:23 45:00 01:37 09:20 01:37 17% 0% 17%
P25 1 T 32:50 42:04 09:14 09:14 09:14 100% 0% 0% 100% 1 T 11:20 12:49 01:29 01:29 15% 0% 41% 15%
P26 2 Q 12:49 13:13 00:24 0 0% 0% 0%
3 T 13:13 15:00 01:47 01:47 18% 0% 18%
4 Q 15:00 15:41 00:41 00:41 7% 7% 0%
5 T 15:41 15:58 00:17 0 0% 0% 0%
6 Q 15:58 17:00 01:02 01:02 10% 10% 0%
7 T 17:00 17:10 00:10 0 0% 0% 0%
8 Q 17:10 17:54 00:44 00:44 7% 7% 0%
9 T 17:54 18:50 00:56 00:56 9% 0% 9%
10 Q 18:50 19:52 01:02 01:02 10% 10% 0%
11 T 19:52 20:21 00:29 0 0% 0% 0%
12 Q 20:21 20:40 00:19 0 0% 0% 0%
13 T 20:40 20:42 00:02 0 0% 0% 0%
14 Q 20:42 21:17 00:35 00:35 6% 6% 0%
15 T 21:17 21:20 00:03 10:00 0 0% 0% 0%
P27 1 T 01:50 03:50 02:00 02:00 20% 0% 20% 20% 1 T 38:40 45:15 06:35 06:35 71% 0% 13% 71%
P28 2 Q 03:50 04:17 00:27 0 0% 0% 0% 2 Q 45:15 46:30 01:15 01:15 13% 13% 0%
3 T 04:17 05:10 00:53 00:53 9% 0% 9% 3 T 46:30 48:00 01:30 09:20 01:30 16% 0% 16%
4 Q 05:10 06:11 01:01 01:01 10% 10% 0%
5 T 06:11 07:00 00:49 00:49 8% 0% 8%
6 Q 07:00 07:14 00:14 0 0% 0% 0%
7 T 07:14 07:40 00:26 0 0% 0% 0%
8 Q 07:40 08:37 00:57 00:57 10% 10% 0%
9 T 08:37 11:46 03:09 09:56 03:09 32% 0% 32%
Appendix C. Raw data from the Video Recordings
62
This page is intentionally left blank
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P5
P5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P7
P7 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P11
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P15
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P17
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P19
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P21
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P23
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P25
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DIM DOWN SHELF
P27
Time in silence for each group
Appendix C.
Raw data from the Video Recordings 62
This page is intentionally left blank
Eyemovement
P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10
DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF
113113331212333223
113113331221331221
131111211211331221
113113211211131221
313113111112331221
113111111111331211
113111121221331211
122112211311333211
311111121222333212
331313221222123222
113321211211211212
113113111311231211
131111111213321121
111111111213131121
213231111113211211
212212111131231121
113113111231223221
121113111132123321
111111121331321121
111111111111211221
123111111131321111
123111111113111111
313113111112123113
113212111112131121
313312113113213111
313112111313221211
212233111112221211
111113111111332322
113113131131331232
112123111232311131
123132111112113111
133123111311111111
111313211111331111
331111111111133121
311111111111133113
1 21 3111112113113
1 11 3111132131111
1 23 3111112211211
1 3211211131211
1 3111322111211
2 2111132131131
2 1111212113131
1311331 31 1
1211211 31 3
1132323 31 1
2111312 11 3
1 1 2 2 2 2 3
1313
1211
3 1
1 2
3 1
COUNT
TV 1 27 25 15 29 29 15 36 38 48 25 28 24 19 12 31 23 22 36
Towardsperson 2 3 5 8 4 3 7 8 5 0 15 7 20 11 9 2 22 16 5
Inspace 3 8 5 19 5 3 20 2 4 4 6 12 8 16 21 16 2 4 8
Total 38 35 42 38 35 42 46 47 52 46 47 52 46 42 49 47 42 49
Percentage
1 71% 71% 36% 76% 83% 36% 78% 81% 92% 54% 60% 46% 41% 29% 63% 49% 52% 73%
2 8% 14% 19% 11% 9% 17% 17% 11% 0% 33% 15% 38% 24% 21% 4% 47% 38% 10%
3 21% 14% 45% 13% 9% 48% 4% 9% 8% 13% 26% 15% 35% 50% 33% 4% 10% 16%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Totalanwers 21
All DIM DOWN SHELF 15%
1 69% 72% 57%
2 17% 12% 13%
3 14% 15% 30%
100% 100% 100%
WatchTV>20 1 1 3
1 70% 72% 50%
2 19% 9% 15%
3 11% 19% 35%
100% 100% 100%
WatchTV<10 1 1 3
1 71% 74% 69%
2 12% 8% 5%
3 17% 18% 26%
100% 100% 100%
Male 1 2 1
1 72% 76% 59%
2 14% 10% 9%
3 14% 14% 33%
100% 100% 100%
Female 1 1 3
1 63% 64% 54%
2 23% 18% 22%
3 14% 18% 24%
100% 100% 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
TV TOWARDSPERSON INSPACE
EYEMOVEMENT
DIM
DOWN
SHELF
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
TV TOWARDSPERSON
EYEMOVEMENT
Direcon of View
Eyemovement
P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10
DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF
113113331212333223
113113331221331221
131111211211331221
113113211211131221
313113111112331221
113111111111331211
113111121221331211
122112211311333211
311111121222333212
331313221222123222
113321211211211212
113113111311231211
131111111213321121
111111111213131121
213231111113211211
212212111131231121
113113111231223221
121113111132123321
111111121331321121
111111111111211221
123111111131321111
123111111113111111
313113111112123113
113212111112131121
313312113113213111
313112111313221211
212233111112221211
111113111111332322
113113131131331232
112123111232311131
123132111112113111
133123111311111111
111313211111331111
331111111111133121
311111111111133113
1 21 3111112113113
1 11 3111132131111
1 23 3111112211211
1 3211211131211
1 3111322111211
2 2111132131131
2 1111212113131
1311331 31 1
1211211 31 3
1132323 31 1
2111312 11 3
1 1 2 2 2 2 3
1313
1211
3 1
1 2
3 1
COUNT
TV 1 27 25 15 29 29 15 36 38 48 25 28 24 19 12 31 23 22 36
Towardsperson 2 3 5 8 4 3 7 8 5 0 15 7 20 11 9 2 22 16 5
Inspace 3 8 5 19 5 3 20 2 4 4 6 12 8 16 21 16 2 4 8
Total 38 35 42 38 35 42 46 47 52 46 47 52 46 42 49 47 42 49
Percentage
1 71% 71% 36% 76% 83% 36% 78% 81% 92% 54% 60% 46% 41% 29% 63% 49% 52% 73%
2 8% 14% 19% 11% 9% 17% 17% 11% 0% 33% 15% 38% 24% 21% 4% 47% 38% 10%
3 21% 14% 45% 13% 9% 48% 4% 9% 8% 13% 26% 15% 35% 50% 33% 4% 10% 16%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Totalanwers 21
All DIM DOWN SHELF 15%
1 69% 72% 57%
2 17% 12% 13%
3 14% 15% 30%
100% 100% 100%
WatchTV>20 1 1 3
1 70% 72% 50%
2 19% 9% 15%
3 11% 19% 35%
100% 100% 100%
WatchTV<10 1 1 3
1 71% 74% 69%
2 12% 8% 5%
3 17% 18% 26%
100% 100% 100%
Male 1 2 1
1 72% 76% 59%
2 14% 10% 9%
3 14% 14% 33%
100% 100% 100%
Female 1 1 3
1 63% 64% 54%
2 23% 18% 22%
3 14% 18% 24%
100% 100% 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
TV TOWARDSPERSON INSPACE
EYEMOVEMENT
DIM
DOWN
SHELF
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
TV
TOWARDSPERSON
EYEMOVEMENT
P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17
DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN
31211111311 11311211
22311311311 11111311
21131311313 11111311
2111121111 11131111
21212311113 31321311
23121311311 13111311
32112131311 11111111
22212111211 11123111
22313331211 11111111
21111131211 31111111
21111311111 11331111
21111111131 11123311
22212111311 31321111
11211213111 11311111
23311312311 11312131
21311112112 11331211
21311111112 11321211
12313321111 11121211
21211221121 11113211
21311321111 11311131
22321311113 11111211
21211321111 11111111
21121111111 31321211
13211212113 11121111
31321221112 31111321
21111111111 11312111
11111111311 11311111
11121111311 11331111
31211111113 11111121
13133111111 13112311
11121111 11 11311111
21313312 11 33311111
31133311 11 11311111
21213311 11 13111111
12111111 11 11133111
22311332 11 32313111
11211311 11 11313113
12212331 11 11112311
13113311 11 12312311
12221311 11 11123111
12211331 11 11311311
12113111 11 32313111
21312111 11 11311231
22112121 11 3131123
22111321 21 11 31 3
32113311 21 11 11 1
11313111 11 11 13 3
23213111 31 3 1 2
2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1
2 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 1
1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 1
1 1 3 3
1 1 1 1
1 1 3 1
3 1 2 1
1 1 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
2 1
2 3
1 1
1 1
2 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
30 27 21 62 30 22 38 47 18 46 47 0 39 40 21 36 33 25 39 42
38161587677334003095940
7 6 16 5 11 24 7 4 9 4 7 0 12 4 23 6 9 10 6 1
75 49 52 75 48 52 52 58 30 53 58 0 51 47 44 51 47 44 49 43
40% 55% 40% 83% 63% 42% 73% 81% 60% 76% 85% 48% 71% 70% 57% 80% 98%
51% 33% 29% 11% 15% 12% 13% 12% 10% 0% 6% 0% 18% 11% 20% 8% 0%
9% 12% 31% 7% 23% 46% 13% 7% 30% 24% 9% 52% 12% 19% 23% 12% 2%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
TOWARDSPERSON
INSPACE
EYEMOVEMENT
DIM
DOWN
SHELF
Appendix C. Raw data from the Video Recordings
62
This page is intentionally left blank
P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17
DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN
31211111311 11311211
22311311311 11111311
21131311313 11111311
2111121111 11131111
21212311113 31321311
23121311311 13111311
32112131311 11111111
22212111211 11123111
22313331211 11111111
21111131211 31111111
21111311111 11331111
21111111131 11123311
22212111311 31321111
11211213111 11311111
23311312311 11312131
21311112112 11331211
21311111112 11321211
12313321111 11121211
21211221121 11113211
21311321111 11311131
22321311113 11111211
21211321111 11111111
21121111111 31321211
13211212113 11121111
31321221112 31111321
21111111111 11312111
11111111311 11311111
11121111311 11331111
31211111113 11111121
13133111111 13112311
11121111 11 11311111
21313312 11 33311111
31133311 11 11311111
21213311 11 13111111
12111111 11 11133111
22311332 11 32313111
11211311 11 11313113
12212331 11 11112311
13113311 11 12312311
12221311 11 11123111
12211331 11 11311311
12113111 11 32313111
21312111 11 11311231
22112121 11 3131123
22111321 21 11 31 3
32113311 21 11 11 1
11313111 11 11 13 3
23213111 31 3 1 2
2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1
2 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 1
1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 1
1 1 3 3
1 1 1 1
1 1 3 1
3 1 2 1
1 1 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 1
2 1
2 3
1 1
1 1
2 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
30 27 21 62 30 22 38 47 18 46 47 0 39 40 21 36 33 25 39 42
38161587677334003095940
7 6 16 5 11 24 7 4 9 4 7 0 12 4 23 6 9 10 6 1
75 49 52 75 48 52 52 58 30 53 58 0 51 47 44 51 47 44 49 43
40% 55% 40% 83% 63% 42% 73% 81% 60% 76% 85% 48% 71% 70% 57% 80% 98%
51% 33% 29% 11% 15% 12% 13% 12% 10% 0% 6% 0% 18% 11% 20% 8% 0%
9% 12% 31% 7% 23% 46% 13% 7% 30% 24% 9% 52% 12% 19% 23% 12% 2%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
TOWARDSPERSON INSPACE
EYEMOVEMENT
DIM
DOWN
SHELF
Direcon of View
Appendix C.
Raw data from the Video Recordings 62
This page is intentionally left blank
P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24
SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM
1331113113311312131
1111113113311123131
1111113113111111231
1111113113123121111
1113113113111131232
1111113113111111113
1111313113112312131
1111113113211311313
1211111113111212133
3111111111111111111
1111113113113111111
1111113113111111112
1111113113111311112
1111111131111111113
1111111111211131111
1111111111111321113
1111111111331111211
1111111111111311111
1111111111211311111
3111111111111311121
1111111131111111113
1111111111113133111
1113111111113113213
1111111111113111133
1111111111111121113
1111111131111113111
1111111113113213113
3211111111113113113
1233111112133112113
1111111111311113133
3113113111331131311
2313111131133313133
3211111131333332113
3111111111 33 23113
3311111131 33 13111
1113111131 31 11111
3121111111 1 3211
3313211121 3 3111
3111111113 323
3111111111 312
3311111131 211
1111111311 111
11111 11 3 111
3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3
3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2
3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2
1 3 3 1 1 3
1 1 3 1
1 1 3 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 3
1 1
1 2
33 36 40 42 48 42 45 47 33 39 24 27 24 21 26 21 35 33 24 0
16101000123112556260
16 7 2 8 3 0 13 5 8 17 6 8 13 10 5 12 4 11 19 0
50 49 43 50 52 42 58 52 42 58 33 36 38 33 36 38 45 46 49 0
66% 73% 93% 84% 92% 100% 78% 90% 79% 67% 73% 75% 63% 64% 72% 55% 78% 72% 49%
2% 12% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 9% 3% 3% 6% 14% 13% 13% 4% 12%
32% 14% 5% 16% 6% 0% 22% 10% 19% 29% 18% 22% 34% 30% 14% 32% 9% 24% 39%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Direcon of View
Appendix C. Raw data from the Video Recordings
62
This page is intentionally left blank
P25 P26 P27 P28
DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF DIM DOWN SHELF
23 3213122
11 1111122
11 1112122
21 1211211
11 1211211
11 1111221
31 2111112
12 1131232
11 1111322
12 1111111
21 1211331
11 1231211
11 2111111
11 3231112
21 1211312
21 1111111
21 1112122
21 1331122
21 1232112
11 1313112
13 1113212
21 1213122
21 1231112
13 3113111
21 3213111
12 3113111
21 3213112
11 3213112
11 3113122
23 1111121
21 3113123
21 3111121
21 1111112
11 1111222
11 1111222
11 2111111
11 2113122
11 1113122
11 1113113
11 1112132
31 2111112
12 1131232
31 1231133
31 1111122
33 2211112
11 121112
31 133212
21 111123
21 1313 3
11 2332
11 3131
12 3121
32 3113
23 3113
11 3313
31 1313
32 1313
21 1121
11 1213
11 1113
13 1111
11 3313
11 1111
11 3133
11 3111
11 3113
13 2213
21 3123
2 3 3
1 3
1 1
3 1
1 1
1 3
3 3
0 0 38 57 40 41 56 35 35 23 14 0 0 0
0 0 22 7 8 18 3 6 10 19 28 0 0 0
0 0 9 11 20 9 16 27 3 7 3 0 0 0
0 0 69 75 68 68 75 68 48 49 45 0 0 0
55% 76% 59% 60% 75% 51% 73% 47% 31%
32% 9% 12% 26% 4% 9% 21% 39% 62%
13% 15% 29% 13% 21% 40% 6% 14% 7%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Direcon of View
Appendix D
Calculations to support the main
body
The following pages include results from calculations, including those that were insignif-
icant. This appendix include:
•T-tests
•Correlation graphs
60
Appendix D. Calculations
64
This page is intentionally left blank
T‐Tests
MOOD
StandardDeviationsofpositiveMood
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 0.978388 1.090074 Mean 0.978388 1.08408 Mean 1.090074 1.08408
Variance 0.021743 0.004388 Variance 0.021743 0.053892 Variance 0.004388 0.053892
Observations 10 10 Observations 10 10 Observations 10 10
PooledVariance 0.013065 PooledVariance 0.037817 PooledVariance 0.02914
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 18 df 18 df 18
tStat ‐2.18486 tStat ‐1.21529 tStat 0.078517
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.021183 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.119977 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.469142
tCriticalone‐tail 1.734064 tCriticalone‐tail 1.734064 tCriticalone‐tail 1.734064
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.042366 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.239955 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.938283
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.100922 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.100922 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.100922
active
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 1.958333 2 Mean 1.958333 2.125 Mean 2 2.125
Variance 0.824275 1.130435 Variance 0.824275 0.896739 Variance 1.130435 0.896739
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 45 df 46 df 45
tStat ‐0.146 tStat ‐0.62239 tStat ‐0.4301
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.442287 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.26838 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.334588
tCriticalone‐tail 1.679427 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.679427
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.884573 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.536759 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.669175
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.014103 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.014103
alert
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 2.916667 2.916667 Mean 2.916667 2.916667 Mean 2.916667 2.583333
Variance 1.123188 1.210145 Variance 1.123188 1.210145 Variance 1.210145 1.818841
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 44
tStat 0 tStat 0 tStat 0.938287
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.5 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.5 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.17661
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.68023
P(T<=t)two‐tail 1 P(T<=t)two‐tail 1 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.353219
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.015368
attentive
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 2.833333 2.75 Mean 2.833333 2.583333 Mean 2.75 2.583333
Variance 1.275362 1.152174 Variance 1.275362 1.123188 Variance 1.152174 1.123188
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0.262024 tStat 0.790808 tStat 0.541289
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.397236 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.216557 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.29546
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.794473 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.433114 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.590921
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
determined
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 1.958333 1.833333 Mean 1.958333 1.791667 Mean 1.833333 1.791667
Variance 1.172101 1.188406 Variance 1.172101 0.867754 Variance 1.188406 0.867754
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 45 df 45
tStat 0.398578 tStat 0.571682 tStat 0.142353
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.346024 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.285191 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.443718
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.679427 tCriticalone‐tail 1.679427
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.692049 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.570382 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.887437
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.014103 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.014103
enthusiastic
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 2.291667 2.625 Mean 2.291667 2.458333 Mean 2.625 2.458333
Variance 0.563406 1.288043 Variance 0.563406 1.476449 Variance 1.288043 1.476449
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 40 df 38 df 46
tStat ‐1.20013 tStat ‐0.57168 tStat 0.491074
Appendix D.
Calculations 64
This page is intentionally left blank
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.118574 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.285452 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.312855
tCriticalone‐tail 1.683851 tCriticalone‐tail 1.685954 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.237149 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.570904 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.625709
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.021075 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.02439
4
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
excited
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 2.75 2.416667 Mean 2.75 2.708333 Mean 2.416667 2.708333
Variance 1.152174 1.210145 Variance 1.152174 2.041667 Variance 1.210145 2.041667
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 43 df 43
tStat 1.062466 tStat 0.114219 tStat ‐0.79237
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.146785 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.454798 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.216247
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.681071 tCriticalone‐tail 1.681071
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.29357 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.909596 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.432493
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.016692 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.016692
inspired
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 2.166667 2.166667 Mean 2.166667 2.125 Mean 2.166667 2.125
Variance 1.014493 0.927536 Variance 1.014493 1.070652 Variance 0.927536 1.070652
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0 tStat 0.14136 tStat 0.144403
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.5 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.444101 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.442907
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 1 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.888203 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.885813
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
interested
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 3.416667 3.083333 Mean 3.416667 3.166667 Mean 3.083333 3.166667
Variance 0.862319 1.384058 Variance 0.862319 1.362319 Variance 1.384058 1.362319
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 44 df 44 df 46
tStat 1.08954 tStat 0.821138 tStat ‐0.24635
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.140924 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.207997 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.403255
tCriticalone‐tail 1.68023 tCriticalone‐tail 1.68023 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.281847 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.415995 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.806511
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.015368 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.015368 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
proud
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 1.5 1.791667 Mean 1.5 1.25 Mean 1.791667 1.25
Variance 0.521739 1.041667 Variance 0.521739 0.369565 Variance 1.041667 0.369565
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 41 df 45 df 37
tStat ‐1.14276 tStat 1.297277 tStat 2.23377
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.129883 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.100574 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.015813
tCriticalone‐tail 1.682878 tCriticalone‐tail 1.679427 tCriticalone‐tail 1.687094
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.259766 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.201148 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.03163
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.019541 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.014103 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.026192
strong
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 2.041667 2.208333 Mean 2.041667 1.916667 Mean 2.208333 1.916667
Variance 1.259058 1.389493 Variance 1.259058 1.210145 Variance 1.389493 1.210145
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat ‐0.50171 tStat 0.389706 tStat 0.886209
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.309133 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.349276 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.190057
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.618267 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.698552 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.380115
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
PERCEPTION
OverallStandardDeviationResults
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 0.903206 1.120858 Mean 0.903206 1.099925 Mean 1.120858 1.099925
Variance 0.012854 0.026482 Variance 0.012854 0.024012 Variance 0.026482 0.024012
Appendix D. Calculations
64
This page is intentionally left blank
Observations 15 15 Observations 15 15 Observations 15 15
PooledVariance 0.019668 PooledVariance 0.018433 PooledVariance 0.025247
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 28 df 28 df 28
tStat ‐4.25022 tStat ‐3.96805 tStat 0.360787
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.000107 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.000229 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.360483
tCriticalone‐tail 1.701131 tCriticalone‐tail 1.701131 tCriticalone‐tail 1.701131
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.000214 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.000458 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.720966
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.048407 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.048407 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.048407
Pleasant‐Unpleasant
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐1.08333 ‐0.70833 Mean ‐1.08333 ‐0.58333 Mean ‐0.58333 ‐0.70833
Variance 1.036232 1.693841 Variance 1.036232 1.644928 Variance 1.644928 1.693841
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 1.365036 PooledVariance 1.34058 PooledVariance 1.669384
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat ‐1.11186 tStat ‐1.49594 tStat 0.335137
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.135988 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.07075 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.369523
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.271976 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.141499 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.739045
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Confined‐Spacious
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐0.25 ‐0.25 Mean ‐0.25 ‐0.16667 Mean ‐0.16667 ‐0.25
Variance 0.804348 0.804348 Variance 0.804348 1.014493 Variance 1.014493 0.804348
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 0.804348 PooledVariance 0.90942 PooledVariance 0.90942
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0 tStat ‐0.30271 tStat 0.30271
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.5 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.381738 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.381738
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 1 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.763475 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.763475
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Public‐Private
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 1.125 0.875 Mean 1.125 0.625 Mean 0.625 0.875
Variance 0.722826 1.418478 Variance 0.722826 1.461957 Variance 1.461957 1.418478
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 1.070652 PooledVariance 1.092391 PooledVariance 1.440217
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0.836963 tStat 1.657187 tStat ‐0.72163
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.20347 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.052144 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.237086
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.40694 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.104288 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.474172
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Isolated‐Open
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐0.45833 ‐0.5 Mean ‐0.45833 ‐0.08333 Mean ‐0.08333 ‐0.5
Variance 1.302536 1.652174 Variance 1.302536 1.297101 Variance 1.297101 1.652174
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 1.477355 PooledVariance 1.299819 PooledVariance 1.474638
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0.118751 tStat ‐1.13941 tStat 1.188603
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.452995 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.130215 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.120348
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.90599 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.26043 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.240696
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Lazy‐Energetic
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐0.83333 ‐0.375 Mean ‐0.83333 0.041667 Mean 0.041667 ‐0.375
Variance 0.492754 1.11413 Variance 0.492754 0.824275 Variance 0.824275 1.11413
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 0.803442 PooledVariance 0.658514 PooledVariance 0.969203
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat ‐1.77131 tStat ‐3.73522 tStat 1.466128
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.0416 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.000258 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.074708
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
Appendix D.
Calculations 64
This page is intentionally left blank
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.083134 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.00052 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.149416
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Comfortable‐Uncomfortable
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐1.08333 ‐0.66667 Mean ‐1.08333 ‐0.29167 Mean ‐0.29167 ‐0.66667
Variance 0.862319 1.449275 Variance 0.862319 1.346014 Variance 1.346014 1.449275
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 1.155797 PooledVariance 1.104167 PooledVariance 1.397645
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat ‐1.34258 tStat ‐2.60985 tStat 1.098812
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.092999 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.006092 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.138784
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.185998 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.01218 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.277568
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Isolated‐Open
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐0.45833 ‐0.5 Mean ‐0.45833 ‐0.08333 Mean ‐0.08333 ‐0.5
Variance 1.302536 1.652174 Variance 1.302536 1.297101 Variance 1.297101 1.652174
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 1.477355 PooledVariance 1.299819 PooledVariance 1.474638
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0.118751 tStat ‐1.13941 tStat 1.188603
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.452995 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.130215 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.120348
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.90599 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.26043 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.240696
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Tense‐Relaxed
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 1.291667 0.625 Mean 1.291667 0.708333 Mean 0.708333 0.625
Variance 0.737319 1.809783 Variance 0.737319 1.519928 Variance 1.519928 1.809783
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 1.273551 PooledVariance 1.128623 PooledVariance 1.664855
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 2.046403 tStat 1.902098 tStat 0.223728
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.023228 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.0317 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.41198
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.04646 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.063431 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.823959
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Boring‐Interesting
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 0.541667 0.375 Mean 0.541667 0.333333 Mean 0.333333 0.375
Variance 0.606884 1.11413 Variance 0.606884 1.014493 Variance 1.014493 1.11413
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 0.860507 PooledVariance 0.810688 PooledVariance 1.064312
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0.622389 tStat 0.801535 tStat ‐0.13991
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.26838 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.213472 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.444671
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.536759 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.426943 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.889343
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Simple‐Complex
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐0.95833 ‐0.91667 Mean ‐0.95833 ‐0.20833 Mean ‐0.20833 ‐0.91667
Variance 0.650362 0.949275 Variance 0.650362 1.21558 Variance 1.21558 0.949275
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 0.799819 PooledVariance 0.932971 PooledVariance 1.082428
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat ‐0.16139 tStat ‐2.68979 tStat 2.358462
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.436245 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.004964 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.011328
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.872491 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.00993 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.02266
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Dark‐Bright
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐0.66667 0.625 Mean ‐0.66667 0.5 Mean 0.5 0.625
Variance 0.927536 1.027174 Variance 0.927536 1.130435 Variance 1.130435 1.027174
Appendix D. Calculations
64
This page is intentionally left blank
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 0.977355 PooledVariance 1.028986 PooledVariance 1.078804
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat ‐4.526 tStat ‐3.98412 tStat ‐0.4169
P(T<=t)one‐tail 2.11E‐05 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.00012 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.339346
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 4.2E‐05 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.000239 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.678693
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Hazy‐Visuallyclear
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 0.666667 0.833333 Mean 0.666667 0.625 Mean 0.625 0.833333
Variance 1.101449 0.753623 Variance 1.101449 1.548913 Variance 1.548913 0.753623
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 0.927536 PooledVariance 1.325181 PooledVariance 1.151268
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat ‐0.59948 tStat 0.125384 tStat ‐0.67261
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.275898 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.450383 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.252281
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.551795 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.900766 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.504562
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Conservative‐Innovative
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐0.16667 0 Mean ‐0.16667 0.125 Mean 0.125 0
Variance 0.753623 1.130435 Variance 0.753623 1.244565 Variance 1.244565 1.130435
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 0.942029 PooledVariance 0.999094 PooledVariance 1.1875
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat ‐0.59485 tStat ‐1.01082 tStat 0.39736
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.277429 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.158695 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.34647
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.554859 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.31739 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.69294
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Formal‐Casual
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 0.833333 0.708333 Mean 0.833333 0.625 Mean 0.625 0.708333
Variance 0.84058 1.867754 Variance 0.84058 1.375 Variance 1.375 1.867754
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 1.354167 PooledVariance 1.10779 PooledVariance 1.621377
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0.372104 tStat 0.685679 tStat ‐0.22671
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.355762 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.248179 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.410828
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.711524 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.496357 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.821655
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Serious‐Fun
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 0.666667 0.458333 Mean 0.666667 0.458333 Mean 0.458333 0.458333
Variance 0.927536 1.476449 Variance 0.927536 1.389493 Variance 1.389493 1.476449
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 1.201993 PooledVariance 1.158514 PooledVariance 1.432971
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0.658262 tStat 0.6705 tStat 0
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.256826 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.252946 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.5
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.513651 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.505892 P(T<=t)two‐tail 1
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Small‐Large
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean ‐0.29167 ‐0.54167 Mean ‐0.29167 ‐0.25 Mean ‐0.25 ‐0.54167
Variance 0.650362 0.95471 Variance 0.650362 0.456522 Variance 0.456522 0.95471
Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24 Observations 24 24
PooledVariance 0.802536 PooledVariance 0.553442 PooledVariance 0.705616
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 46 df 46 df 46
tStat 0.966715 tStat ‐0.19402 tStat 1.202799
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.169371 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.423508 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.117604
tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866 tCriticalone‐tail 1.67866
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.338742 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.847016 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.235208
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.012896
Appendix D.
Calculations 64
This page is intentionally left blank
BEER
Beerdrunkcomparedtolightsetting
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 5.461538 5.846154 Mean 5.461538 4.076923 Mean 4.076923 5.846154
Variance 65.4359 68.30769 Variance 65.4359 49.24359 Variance 49.24359 68.30769
Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13
PooledVariance 66.87179 PooledVariance 57.33974 PooledVariance 58.77564
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 24 df 24 df 24
tStat ‐0.11991 tStat 0.466185 tStat 0.588359
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.452776 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.322643 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.280894
tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.905551 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.645287 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.561788
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899
Beerbetweeneachsequence
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 5.307692 3.615385 Mean 5.307692 3.615385 Mean 3.615385 6.461538
Variance 55.89744 29.25641 Variance 55.89744 29.25641 Variance 29.25641 95.26923
Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13
PooledVariance 42.57692 PooledVariance 42.57692 PooledVariance 62.26282
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 24 df 24 df 24
tStat 0.661224 tStat 0.661224 tStat ‐0.9196
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.257383 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.257383 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.183465
tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.514767 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.514767 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.366931
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899
POPCORN
Amountofpopcorneatencomparedtolightsetting
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 17.92308 23.38462 Mean 17.92308 22 Mean 23.38462 22
Variance 444.9103 458.5897 Variance 444.9103 552.6667 Variance 458.5897 552.6667
Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13
PooledVariance 451.75 PooledVariance 498.7885 PooledVariance 505.6282
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 24 df 24 df 24
tStat ‐0.65512 tStat ‐0.4654 tStat 0.156989
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.25931 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.322919 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.438283
tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.518619 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.645837 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.876566
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899
Amountofpopcorneatencomparedtosequence
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 23.76923 18.61538 Mean 23.76923 20.92308 Mean 18.61538 20.92308
Variance 435.1923 516.0897 Variance 435.1923 507.9103 Variance 516.0897 507.9103
Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13
PooledVariance 475.641 PooledVariance 471.5513 PooledVariance 512
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 24 df 24 df 24
tStat 0.602488 tStat 0.334157 tStat ‐0.26002
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.27625 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.370582 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.398535
tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.5525 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.741164 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.797069
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899
QUIETTIME
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 0.212874 0.304622 Mean 0.212874 0.296607 Mean 0.304622 0.296607
Variance 0.051254 0.074077 Variance 0.051254 0.105047 Variance 0.074077 0.105047
Observations 12 12 Observations 12 12 Observations 12 12
PooledVariance 0.062665 PooledVariance 0.07815 PooledVariance 0.089562
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 22 df 22 df 22
tStat ‐0.89776 tStat ‐0.73368 tStat 0.065607
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.189518 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.235447 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.474142
tCriticalone‐tail 1.717144 tCriticalone‐tail 1.717144 tCriticalone‐tail 1.717144
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.379036 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.470893 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.948284
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.073873 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.073873 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.073873
Vie
w
TV
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Appendix D. Calculations
64
This page is intentionally left blank
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 0.699087 0.725677 Mean 0.699087 0.570236 Mean 0.725677 0.570236
Variance 0.021269 0.028178 Variance 0.021269 0.02658 Variance 0.028178 0.02658
Observations 22 22 Observations 22 21 Observations 22 21
PooledVariance 0.024724 PooledVariance 0.02386 PooledVariance 0.027398
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 42 df 41 df 41
tStat ‐0.56088 tStat 2.734273 tStat 3.078144
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.288931 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.004595 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.001853
tCriticalone‐tail 1.681952 tCriticalone‐tail 1.682878 tCriticalone‐tail 1.682878
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.577863 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.00919 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.003706
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.018082 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.019541 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.019541
EachOther
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 0.166931 0.122257 Mean 0.166931 0.131235 Mean 0.122257 0.131235
Variance 0.019265 0.012847 Variance 0.019265 0.022706 Variance 0.012847 0.022706
Observations 22 22 Observations 22 21 Observations 22 21
PooledVariance 0.016056 PooledVariance 0.020943 PooledVariance 0.017657
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 42 df 41 df 41
tStat 1.169322 tStat 0.808508 tStat ‐0.22147
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.124434 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.211732 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.412914
tCriticalone‐tail 1.681952 tCriticalone‐tail 1.682878 tCriticalone‐tail 1.682878
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.248867 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.423465 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.825829
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.018082 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.019541 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.019541
Inspace
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 0.133982 0.152066 Mean 0.133982 0.298529 Mean 0.152066 0.298529
Variance 0.006371 0.011121 Variance 0.006371 0.016261 Variance 0.011121 0.016261
Observations 22 22 Observations 22 21 Observations 22 21
PooledVariance 0.008746 PooledVariance 0.011195 PooledVariance 0.013628
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 42 df 41 df 41
tStat ‐0.64133 tStat ‐5.09755 tStat ‐4.11237
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.262397 P(T<=t)one‐tail 4.1E‐06 P(T<=t)one‐tail 9.18E‐05
tCriticalone‐tail 1.681952 tCriticalone‐tail 1.682878 tCriticalone‐tail 1.682878
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.524794 P(T<=t)two‐tail 8.19E‐06 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.000184
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.018082 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.019541 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.019541
BEER
Beerdrunkcomparedtolightsetting
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 5.461538 5.846154 Mean 5.461538 4.076923 Mean 4.076923 5.846154
Variance 65.4359 68.30769 Variance 65.4359 49.24359 Variance 49.24359 68.30769
Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13
PooledVariance 66.87179 PooledVariance 57.33974 PooledVariance 58.77564
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 24 df 24 df 24
tStat ‐0.11991 tStat 0.466185 tStat 0.588359
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.452776 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.322643 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.280894
tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.905551 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.645287 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.561788
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899
Beerbetweeneachsequence
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Shel
f
Down
Mean 5.307692 3.615385 Mean 5.307692 3.615385 Mean 3.615385 6.461538
Variance 55.89744 29.25641 Variance 55.89744 29.25641 Variance 29.25641 95.26923
Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13
PooledVariance 42.57692 PooledVariance 42.57692 PooledVariance 62.26282
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 24 df 24 df 24
tStat 0.661224 tStat 0.661224 tStat ‐0.9196
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.257383 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.257383 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.183465
tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.514767 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.514767 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.366931
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899
POPCORN
Amountofpopcorneatencomparedtolightsetting
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 17.92308 23.38462 Mean 17.92308 22 Mean 23.38462 22
Variance 444.9103 458.5897 Variance 444.9103 552.6667 Variance 458.5897 552.6667
Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13
PooledVariance 451.75 PooledVariance 498.7885 PooledVariance 505.6282
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 24 df 24 df 24
tStat ‐0.65512 tStat ‐0.4654 tStat 0.156989
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.25931 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.322919 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.438283
tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.518619 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.645837 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.876566
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899
Amountofpopcorneatencomparedtosequence
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 23.76923 18.61538 Mean 23.76923 20.92308 Mean 18.61538 20.92308
Variance 435.1923 516.0897 Variance 435.1923 507.9103 Variance 516.0897 507.9103
Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13 Observations 13 13
PooledVariance 475.641 PooledVariance 471.5513 PooledVariance 512
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 24 df 24 df 24
tStat 0.602488 tStat 0.334157 tStat ‐0.26002
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.27625 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.370582 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.398535
tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882 tCriticalone‐tail 1.710882
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.5525 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.741164 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.797069
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.063899
QUIETTIME
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Dim Down Dim Shel
f
Down Shel
f
Mean 0.212874 0.304622 Mean 0.212874 0.296607 Mean 0.304622 0.296607
Variance 0.051254 0.074077 Variance 0.051254 0.105047 Variance 0.074077 0.105047
Observations 12 12 Observations 12 12 Observations 12 12
PooledVariance 0.062665 PooledVariance 0.07815 PooledVariance 0.089562
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0 HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 22 df 22 df 22
tStat ‐0.89776 tStat ‐0.73368 tStat 0.065607
P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.189518 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.235447 P(T<=t)one‐tail 0.474142
tCriticalone‐tail 1.717144 tCriticalone‐tail 1.717144 tCriticalone‐tail 1.717144
P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.379036 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.470893 P(T<=t)two‐tail 0.948284
tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.073873 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.073873 tCriticaltwo‐tail 2.073873
Vie
w
TV
t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances t‐Test:Two‐SampleAssumingEqualVariances
Appendix D.
Calculations 64
This page is intentionally left blank
CorrelationGraphs
R²=0.2377
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50 % 60% 70%
Popcorn
Quiet
Dim
R²=0.0043
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Popcorn
Quiet
Down
R²=0.0202
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Popcorn
Quiet
Shelf
R²=0.0141
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0
Lookaroundinspace
Lazy‐ Energetic
Dim
R²=0.0162
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Lookaroundinspace
Lazy‐ Energetic
Down
R²=0.025
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
LookarouninSpace
Lazy‐ Energetic
Shelf
R²=0.2799
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Lookaroundinspace
Popcorn
Dim
R²=0.1578
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Lookaroundinspace
Popcorn
Down
R²=0.0687
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
LookarouninSpace
Popcorn
Shelf
R²=0.0214
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Lookaroundinspace
Beer
Dim
R²=0.1398
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lookaroundinspace
Beer
Down
R²=0.0247
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
LookarouninSpace
Beer
Shelf
R²=0.0619
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
LookatTV
Timespentwithoutconversation
Dim
R²=0.0277
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50 % 60% 70% 80% 90%
LookatTV
Timespentwithoutconversation
Down
R²=0.0382
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
LookatTV
Timespentwithoutconversation
Shelf
R²=0.0652
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
LookatTV
Dark‐B right
Dim
R²=0.0763
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
LookatTV
Dark‐B right
Down
R²=0.0653
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
LookatTV
Dark‐ Bright
Shelf
R²=2E‐06
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Active
Timespentwithoutconversation
Dim
R²=0.1678
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0% 10% 20% 30 % 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Active
Timespentwithoutconversation
Down
R²=0.084
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90 % 100%
Active
Timespentwithoutconversation
Shelf
R²=0.0012
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0% 10% 20 % 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Excited
Timespentwithoutconversation
Dim
R²=0.0064
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0% 10% 20% 30 % 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Excited
Timespentwithoutconversation
Down
R²=0.0224
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Excited
Timespentwithoutconversation
Shelf
Appendix D. Calculations
64
This page is intentionally left blank
CorrelationGraphs
R²=0.0267
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Interested
Timespentwithoutconversation
Dim
R²=0.3847
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Interested
Timespentwithoutconversation
Down
R²=0.2539
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Interested
Timespentwithoutconversation
Shelf
R²=0.004
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0
LooktowardsTV
Lazy‐ Energetic
Dim
R²=0.0391
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
LooktowardsTV
Lazy‐ Energetic
Down
R²=0.007
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
LooktowardsTV
Lazy‐ Energetic
Shelf
R²=0.0021
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70 %
Isolated‐Open
Timespentwithoutconversation
Dim
R²=0.0102
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40 % 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Isolated‐Open
Timespentwithoutconversation
Down
R²=0.0286
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Isolated‐Open
Timespentwithoutconversation
Shelf
R²=0.2392
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0
Comfortable‐ Uncomfortable
Lazy‐ Energetic
Dim
R²=0.0012
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
‐3‐2‐10123
Comfortable‐ Uncomfortable
Lazy‐ Energetic
Down
R²=0.0125
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
‐3‐2‐
10123
Comfortable‐ Uncomfortable
Lazy‐ Energetic
Shelf
R²=0.0426
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Comfortable‐Uncomfortable
Public‐ Private
Dim
R²=0.1324
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Comfortable‐Uncomfortable
Public‐ Private
Down
R²=0.0066
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Comfortable‐Uncomfortable
Public‐ Private
Shelf
R²=0.3875
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Comfortable‐ Uncomfortable
Ten se‐ Relaxed
Dim
R²=0.2602
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
‐3‐2‐10123
Comfortable‐ Uncomfortable
Ten se‐ Relaxed
Down
R²=0.5794
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
‐3‐2‐
10123
Comfortable‐ Uncomfortable
Ten se‐ Relaxed
Shelf
R²=0.0426
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Public‐ Private
Tens e‐ Relaxed
Dim
R²=0.2097
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Public‐ Private
Tens e‐ Relaxed
Down
R²=0.0066
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Public‐ Private
Tens e‐ Relaxed
Shelf
R²=0.32
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Dark‐B right
Beer
Dim
R²=6E‐07
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dark‐ Bright
Beer
Down
R²=0.0452
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dark‐ Bright
Beer
Shelf
Appendix D.
Calculations 64
This page is intentionally left blank
CorrelationGraphs
R²=0.0508
‐2.5
‐2
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Dark‐B right
Amountoftimespentinsilence
Dim
R²=0.1133
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40 % 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Dark‐ Bright
Amountoftimespentinsilence
Down
R²=0.1734
‐1.5
‐1
‐0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Dark‐ Bright
Amountoftimespentinsilence
Shelf
R²=0.043
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0123456
Lookaroundinspace
Levelofinterest
Dim
R²=0.0691
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0123456
Lookaroundinspace
Levelofinterest
Down
R²=0.055
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0123456
LookarouninSpace
Levelofinterest
Shelf
R²=0.0585
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Inspired
Popcorn
Dim
R²=0.189
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Inspired
Popcorn
Down
R²=0.5737
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Inspired
Popcorn
Shelf
R²=0.0948
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Interested
Dark‐ Bright
Dim
R²=0.0866
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
‐2.5 ‐2‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Interested
Dark‐ Bright
Down
R²=0.0786
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
‐1.5 ‐1‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Interested
Dark‐ Bright
Shelf
R²=0.2799
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Lookaroundinspace
Popcorn
Dim
R²=0.1578
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Lookaroundinspace
Popcorn
Down
R²=0.0687
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
LookarouninSpace
Popcorn
Shelf
R²=0.0585
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Inspired
Popcorn
Dim
R²=0.189
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Inspired
Popcorn
Down
R²=0.5737
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Inspired
Popcorn
Shelf
Appendix D. Calculations
64
This page is intentionally left blank
DimDown P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 Average
StandardDeviation
Pleasant 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 3 Unpleasant 0.375 1.408
Confined 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 3 1 Spacious 0.000 1.103
Comfortable 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 4 2 Uncomfortable 0.417 1.442
Lazy 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 3 Energetic 0.458 1.141
Public 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 1 Private 0.250 1.073
Isolated 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 1 Open 0.042 1.517
Tense 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 3 0 4 3 Relaxed 0.667 1.435
Hazy 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 Visuallyclear 0.167 1.204
Boring 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 3 1 Interesting 0.167 1.090
Simple 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Complex 0.042 0.690
Dark 1 0 1 4 2 3 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 4 1 3 2 0 Bright 1.292 1.367
Conservative 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 Innovative 0.167 1.090
Formal 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 Casual 0.125 1.035
Serious 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 2 1 Fun 0.208 1.062
Small 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 Large 0.250 1.189
DimShelf
Pleasant 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 3 4 4 3 Unpleasant 0.500 1.818
Confined 1 2 0 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 Spacious 0.083 1.248
Comfortable 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 4 4 4 3 Uncomfortable 0.792 1.615
Lazy 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 2 1 Energetic 0.875 1.035
Public 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 3 1 Private 0.500 1.285
Isolated 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 2 0 3 2 1 Open 0.375 1.408
Tense 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 4 4 3 Relaxed 0.583 1.501
Hazy 0 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 4 4 1 0 Visuallyclear 0.042 1.756
Boring 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 Interesting 0.208 1.318
Simple 4 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 2 Complex 0.750 1.359
Dark 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 3 Bright 1.167 1.341
Conservative 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 3 1 Innovative 0.292 1.268
Formal 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 3 Casual 0.208 1.021
Serious 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 Fun 0.208 1.285
Small 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 Large 0.042 0.751
DownSelf
Pleasant 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 3 4 0 0 Unpleasant 0.125 1.393
Confined 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Spacious 0.083 1.018
Comfortable 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 4 0 1 Uncomfortable 0.375 1.279
Lazy 4 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 2 Energetic 0.417 1.472
Public 2 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 Private 0.250 1.327
Isolated 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 4 2 0 0 Open 0.417 1.472
Tense 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 Relaxed 0.083 1.316
Hazy 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 0 Visuallyclear 0.208 1.351
Boring 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 Interesting 0.042 1.042
Simple 4 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 2 2 Complex 0.708 1.488
Dark 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 3 Bright 0.125 1.650
Conservative 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 Innovative 0.125 0.680
Formal 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 Casual 0.083 0.929
Serious 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 Fun 0.000 1.063
Small 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Large 0.292 0.859
Dierence Between Semanc scales
Bibliography
[1] Elizabeth Mendes. U .S. Health Habits Continue Sharp Winter Decline. Technical
report, 2011. Accessed 25.08.2014. URL http://www.gallup.com/poll/151424/
health-habits-continue-steep-winter-decline.aspx.
[2] Breanne K. Hawes, Tad T. Bruny´e, Caroline R. Mahoney, John M. Sullivan, and
Christian D. Aall. Effects of four workplace lighting technologies on perception,
cognition and affective state. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42
(1):122–128, January 2012. ISSN 01698141. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2011.09.004.
[3] John T. Cacioppo, Catherine J. Norris, Jean Decety, George Monteleone, and
Howard Nusbaum. Loneliness Affects How the Brain Operates. Technical Re-
port 1, Univeristy of Chicago, January 2009. Accessed 25.08.2014. URL www.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090215151800.htm.
[4] Robinson and Steven Martin. Unhappy people watch tv, happy people read and
socialise. Social Indicators Research, 2008.
[5] Peter R. Boyce. The impact of light in buildings on human health. In SHB2009
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Healthy Buildings, volume 36, Seoul,
Korea, 2009.
[6] M. aan het Rot, D. S. Moskowitz, and S. N. Young. Exposure to bright light is
associated with positive social interaction and good mood over short time periods:
A naturalistic study in mildly seasonal people. Journal of psychiatric research, 42
(4):311–9, March 2008. ISSN 0022-3956. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.11.010.
[7] C. L. B. McCloughan, P.a. Aspinall, and R.S. Webb. The impact of lighting on
mood. Lighting Research and Technology, 31(3):81–88, January 1998. ISSN 1477-
1535. doi: 10.1177/096032719903100302.
[8] W. Julian. Comment on ’Lighting research fir interiors: the beginning of the end or
the end of the beginning’. Lighting Research and Technology, 36(4):283–294, 2004.
62
Bibliography 63
[9] Peter R. Boyce. Lighting research for interiors: the beginning of the end or the
end of the beginning. Lighting Research and Technology, 36(4):283–294, December
2004. ISSN 14771535. doi: 10.1191/11477153504li118oa.
[10] K.W. Houser, D.K. Tiller, C.A. Berknecker, and R.G. Mistrick. The subjective
response to linear fluorescent direct / indirect lighting systems. Lighting Research
& Technology, 34(3):243–264, 2002.
[11] Peter Raynham, P. Boyce, and J. Fitzpatrick. The SLL Code for Lighting. The
Society of Light and Lighting, Norwich, Great Britain, 2012. ISBN 9781906846213.
[12] Aye Durak, Nilg¨un Camg¨oz Olgunt¨urk, Cengiz Yener, Dilek G¨uven¸c, and Yusuf
G¨ur¸cnar. Impact of lighting arrangements and illuminances on different impressions
of a room. Building and Environment, 42(10):3476–3482, October 2007. ISSN
03601323. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.048.
[13] C. Cuttle. A new direction for general lighting practice. Lighting Research
and Technology, 45(1):22–39, February 2013. ISSN 1477-1535. doi: 10.1177/
1477153512469201.
[14] C. Cuttle. Towards the third stage of the lighting profession. Lighting Re-
search and Technology, 42(1):73–93, July 2009. ISSN 1477-1535. doi: 10.1177/
1477153509104013.
[15] J. Simpson and A.W.S. Tarrant. A study of lighting in the home. Lighting Research
and Technology, 15(1), 1983.
[16] XY.. Liu, M.R. LOU, and H. Li. A study of atmosphere perceptions in a living
room. Lighting Research and Technology, 0:1–14, 2014.
[17] R. J. Hawkes, D. Loe, and E. Rowlands. A note towards the understanding of
lighting quality. Illum. Eng. Soc, 8(2):111–120, 1979.
[18] D.L. Loe, K.P. Mansfield, and E. Rowlands. A step in quantifying the appearance
of a lit scene. Lighting Research and Technology, 32:213, 2000.
[19] Kevin W. Houser and Dale T. Tiller. Measuring the subjective response to interior
lighting: paired comparisons and semantic differential scaling. Lighting Research
and Technology, 35(3):183–198, 2003.
[20] Matthias Morfeld, Corinna Petersen, Anja Kr¨uger-B¨odeker, Sylvia VonMackensen,
and Monika Bullinger. The assessment of mood at workplace - psychometric anal-
yses of the revised Profile Mood States (POMS). GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine, 4
(18605214), 2007.
Bibliography 64
[21] Robert A Baron, Mark S Rea, and Susan G Daniels. Effects of Indoor Lighting (
Illuminance and Spectral Distribution ) on the Performance of Cognitive Tasks and
Interpersonal Behaviors : The Potential Mediating Role of Positive Affect 1. 16(1),
1992.
[22] I. Knez and C. Kers. Effects of Indoor Lighting, Gender, and Age on Mood and
Cognitive Performance. Environment and Behavior, 32(6):817–831, November 2000.
ISSN 0013-9165. doi: 10.1177/0013916500326005.
[23] Dong Hyun Kim. Perceived Lighting Quality : A Critique of the Linked Mechanisms
Map Perceived Lighting Quality : A Critique of the Linked Mechanisms Map. PhD
thesis, 2012.
[24] John R Crawford and Julie D Henry. The positive and negative affect sched-
ule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in
a large non-clinical sample. The British journal of clinical psychology / the British
Psychological Society, 43(Pt 3):245–65, September 2004. ISSN 0144-6657. doi:
10.1348/0144665031752934.
[25] Oxford University Press. Oxford Dictionary, 2014. Accessed 27.08.2014. URL
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/.
[26] Shigeo Kobayashi. Lighting Effects on Interpersonal Communication. 2013.
[27] Mark Major. Light + Dark = Architecture, 2014.
[28] TV Licencing. Telescope Report 2011: A focus on the nation’s viewing habits from
TV Licensing. Technical report, 2011.
[29] SAD.org.uk. Seasonal Affective Disorder - Information, Advice and Answers from
the UK Voluntary Organisation., 2010.
[30] Katherine Seligman. Social isolation a significant health issue, March
2009. Accessed 27.08.2014. URL http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/
Social-isolation-a-significant-health-issue-3249234.php#page-2.
[31] F. Strack, L.L. Martin, and S. Stepper. Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of
the human smile: a nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. J Pers Soc
Psychol, 54(5):768–77, 1988.
[32] Daniel Goleman. Researchers Add Sounds of Silence To
the Growing List of Health Risks, August 1988. Accessed
26.08.2014. URL http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/
health-psychology-researchers-add-sounds-silence-growing-list-health-risks.
html?pagewanted=print.
Bibliography 65
[33] Robert D. Putnam. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Com-
munity. Simon & Schuster Ltd; New edition edition (11 Aug 2001), 2000. ISBN
978-0743203043.
[34] M. Canazei, P. Dehoff, S. Staggl, and W. Pohl. Effects of dynamic ambient lighting
on female permanent morning shift workers. Lighting Research and Technology, 46:
140–146, 2013.
[35] Y. A. W. de Kort and K. C. H. J. Smolders. Effects of dynamic lighting on office
workers: First results of a field study with monthly alternating settings. Lighting
Research and Technology, 42:345–360, 2010.
[36] Banu Manav. An experimental study on the appraisal of the visual environment at
offices in relation to colour temperature and illuminance. Building and Environment,
42((2007)):979–983, 2005.
[37] P.R. Boyce and C. Cuttle. Effect of correlated colour temperature on the per-
ception of interiors and colour discrimination performance. Lighting Research
and Technology, 22(1):19–36, January 1990. ISSN 1477-1535. doi: 10.1177/
096032719002200102.
[38] Goldee Ltd. Goldee App. Accessed 27.08.2014. URL http://getgoldee.com/.
