Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
* Corresponding author: sugino@tanabe.arch.waseda.ac.jp
Relationship between attributes of individual workers
and concentration at work
Reo Sugino1,*, Shin-ichi Tanabe1, Mikio Takahashi2, Tomoko Tokumura2, Kazuki Wada2, Tomohiro Kuroki2,
Jun Nakagawa1, Jun Shinoda1, and Takuma Shinoyama1
1Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan
2Takenaka Corporation, 5-1-1 Otsuka, Inzai-shi, Chiba 270-1395, Japan
Abstract. Working environments are becoming far more diverse. For example, Activity-Based
Working (ABW), a new style of working where workers choose their own work environment, is
now attracting attention. An office that introduces ABW is comprised of various spaces, including
open plan workspaces, corresponding to the ways of working. However, such an office may result in
distraction. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the environmental factors that affect individual
workers’ concentration at work. This study aimed to ascertain the relationship between individual
workers’ attributes, such as the Big Five personality traits, personal control, and age, and the factors
that distract them from their work. A questionnaire-based field survey was conducted at an office
that partially adopted ABW to investigate the relationship between selection of seats and
concentration at work. The results revealed different tendencies among workers for the type of work
environment needed to concentrate according to their individual attributes. Additionally, it was
suggested that the changing of seats lead to improved concentration at work, thus increasing
productivity.
1 Introduction
In Japan, the number of workers is expected to decline
due to rapid population declines, decreasing birth rates,
and an aging population. Therefore, it is a social
challenge to maintain the mental and physical health of
workers, to motivate them, and to improve their
intellectual productivity in order to achieve sustainable
economic growth. Further, with the advancement of
information technology, working environments are
becoming far more diverse.
For example, Activity-Based Working (ABW), a new
style in which workers choose their own work
environment, is now attracting attention. An office that
introduces ABW comprises various spaces, including
open plan workspaces, each corresponding to the ways
of working. However, previous field studies have
revealed that the provided space was not necessarily
used as intended, and it has been suggested that simply
introducing ABW does not contribute to improving
intellectual productivity [1]. Specifically, although such
an office may activate communication, it may cause
distraction due to conversation and noise or the lack of
privacy [2]. Thus, it is necessary to pay close attention to
the work style of each worker and to clarify the
environmental factors which are important for
concentration at work.
Previous studies focusing on individual workers in
terms of personality, occupation, and age have revealed
the possibility that individual workers’ attributes may
affect their perception of the office environment, such as
the environmental satisfaction level, environment
preference, etc. [3, 4]. However, few studies have
examined both the attributes and environmental factors
in detail.
The present study aimed to ascertain the relationship
between individual workers’ attributes, including the Big
Five personality traits, personal control, and age, and the
factors that distract them from their work.
2 Methods
2.1. Outline of the surveyed offices
A questionnaire-based survey was conducted in a
technical research institute located in Chiba Prefecture,
Japan. Additionally, a field survey using a more detailed
questionnaire was conducted in a laboratory in which
ABW was partially adopted.
Fig. 1 shows the layout of the observed ABW office.
The target ABW office belongs to a department with 2
divisions and 5 groups, and ABW was introduced in
April 2016, with the installation of 20 assigned and 54
unassigned seats. When installing ABW, assigned-seat
workers were given reduced personal space. About 80%
of the workers who did not have assigned seats in the
ABW office worked on laptop personal computers (PCs)
,0(201
Web of Conferences https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/2019111020
9)
201
E3S
111
CLIMA 9
2050 50
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
and were able to select their office locations based on
their work content and preferences. The unassigned seats
included concentration spaces (with a front and side
dividers), semi-concentration spaces (with a front
divider), open spaces (with no dividers), movable table
spaces, and communication spaces.
Stairs
Machine
room
Open space
Communication space
Assigned seat space
Window
Magnet space
Storage space
Concentration space
Semi-concentration space
Movable table space
Fig. 1. Layout of the ABW office.
2.2 Questionnaires
Table 1 shows the details of each questionnaire. To
ascertain the relationship between individual workers’
attributes, three types of questionnaires were
implemented in the entire building and ABW office.
Table 1. Details of each questionnaire.
Questionnaire
Q1（one time）Q2（one time）Q3（every day）
Date
Oct/3 ~
Oct/20/2017
Target office
Entire building
(N=203)
Survey items
1. Personality
2. Personal control
3. Distraction
1. Satisfactio n level
of indoor environment
2. Factors of s eat selection
1. Selected seat
2. Work type and
concentration level
Oct/4 ~ Oct/16/2017
ABW office
(N=37)
First, a survey (Q1) on personality traits, personal
control, and distraction was conducted for the entire
building from 4th to 16th October, 2017, to investigate
the relationship between individual workers’ attributes
and the factors that distract them from their work.
Personality traits were assessed using the Japanese Ten
Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J) [5]. The TIPI-J is a
translation of the TIPI created by Gosling et al. [6], a
measure of the Big Five personality traits of
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness to experience,
Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness. It comprises two
questions (positive and negative sides) for each factor,
answered on a seven-point Likert scale from ‘Disagree
strongly’ to ‘Agree strongly’. In addition, 8 questions
were set to investigate personal control regarding the
indoor environment and work-style (rated on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to
‘Strongly Agree’), and 27 questions were set to identify
the possible causes of distraction (rated on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from ‘Least Distracted’ to ‘Most
Distracted’), such as air quality and sanitation, sound,
light, ICT (Information and Communication
Technology), interior environment.
Additionally, during the same period, another survey
(Q2) was conducted to the ABW office workers to
investigate their satisfaction with the indoor environment
(thermal, light, IAQ, sound, space, internet, and visual)
and the factors that affect seat selection.
Subsequently, a questionnaire (Q3) was completed
by employees every day after work, from 3rd to 20th
October, 2017. It comprised items pertaining to the
selected seat and the time spent at that seat, work type
(‘data entry or paper work’, ‘idea gathering’, or ‘others’),
and concentration level achieved for each type of work
(rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘could
not concentrate’ to ‘could concentrate well’).
3 Results
The following data were analysed to ascertain the
relationship between individual workers’ attributes. For
Q1, the response rate was 56.2%, and data on 114
individuals (106 males, 8 females) were analysed. For
Q2, the response rate was 62.2%, and data on 23
individuals (22 males, 1 female) were analysed. For Q3,
the response rate was 67.6%, and data on 25 individuals
(24 males, 1 female) were analysed. Spearman’s
correlation analyses were conducted using SPSS ver. 24.
3.1 Workers’ attributes and distraction
3.1.1 Personality traits/age and distraction
Table 2 shows the relationship among personality
traits/age and distraction during data entry or paper work.
Some weak correlations were observed between
personalities/age and environmental factors causing
distraction. For example, workers displaying higher
agreeableness tended to be more distracted by the ICT
environment or interior environment. In addition, some
negative correlations were observed among extraversion
or openness to experience and environmental factors of
distraction. There were no correlation between age and
distraction.
Table 2. Relationship among personality traits/age and
distraction during data entry or paper work.
Table 3 shows the relationship among personality
traits/age and distraction during idea gathering. Several
weak correlations were found between agreeableness,
openness to experience, neuroticism, and distraction.
As observed for data entry or paper work, workers
displaying higher agreeableness tended to be more
distracted by the ICT environment when engaging in
idea gathering. On the other hand, a positive correlation
was observed between the light environment and ability
to perform idea gathering. Regarding neuroticism, some
N : Number of subjects
Note. n (number of samples)=114 **. p<0.01 *. p<0.05
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
Factors
Sound
sound from others
(footsteps, etc.)
-.23 * .03 -.12
Light natural light -.12 .03 -.28 **
PC communication
environment
.01 .27 ** -.04
number and capacity of
electrical outlets
.01 .29 ** -.15
location of electrical outlets -.02 .31 ** -.14
crowdiness arround the seat -.08 .05 -.19 *
openess of the front side -.04 .21 * -.10
non-height adjustable desks -.12 .02 -.19 *
types or position of furnituire -.01 .08 -.05
Distraction Factors
ICT
Interior
Environment
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Openness to
experience
,0(201
Web of Conferences https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/2019111020
9)
201
E3S
111
CLIMA 9
2050 50
2
correlations were observed with the ICT and interior
environment, while there were no correlations in the case
of data entry or paper work. Specifically, for idea
gathering, workers displaying higher neuroticism tended
to be more distracted by the location of electrical outlets,
interior design, and atmosphere of the office.
Although no correlation was found between age and
distraction during data entry, some correlation was seen
for idea gathering. Specifically, older workers tended to
be more distracted by the sound and light environment,
and less distracted by the interior environment.
Table 3. Relationship among personality traits/age and
distraction during idea gathering.
3.1.2 Personal control and distraction
Table 4 shows the relationship between personal control
and distraction. Workers who could cope well with
external stimuli tended not to be distracted by sound,
ICT, interior environment, and so on. Additionally, it
was suggested that workplace-related personal control,
such as ‘being able to work where they want’ or ‘being
able to adjust the layout or furniture according to one’s
personal preferences’ could help workers cope well with
several distractions caused by environmental factors.
Table 4. Relationship between personal control and distraction.
3.2 Satisfaction level of the indoor environment
and distraction
An analysis of the relationship between the distraction
level of workers and their satisfaction with the indoor
environment revealed that workers with a higher degree
of distraction tended to have lower levels of satisfaction
with the indoor environment, regardless of the type of
work. Particularly, the higher the distraction of ICT or
interior environment, the lower the satisfaction level.
3.3 Satisfaction level of the indoor environment
and personal control
Fig. 2 shows the relationship between personal control
and satisfaction of the indoor environment. Workers who
could cope well with external stimuli tended to have
higher levels of satisfaction with the indoor environment.
A similar tendency was observed among workers who
worked where they wanted to.
Fig. 2. Relationship between personal control and satisfaction
of indoor environment.
3.4 Workers’ attributes and seating selection
Fig. 3 shows the relationship between personality traits
and the selection of seats at the beginning of work. Each
personality score obtained from the questionnaire was
analysed in relation to the selection of seats at the
beginning of work. Seat selection differed based on
personality scores. Specifically, workers displaying
higher extraversion tended to choose open spaces more
often as compared to concentration spaces. On the other
hand, those displaying higher neuroticism or openness to
experience tended to choose movable table space more
often as compared to other types of seats.
Fig. 3. Relationship between personality traits and selection of
seat at the beginning of the work.
Factors
noise of air-conditioner .12 -.16 .15 .20 *
outdoor noise .13 -.13 .14 .21 *
brightness at the desk .04 -.13 .06 .20 *
brightness of the room .22 * -.13 -.05 .23 *
number and capacity of
electrical outlets
.21 * -.08 .14 -.05
location of electrical
outlets
.29 ** -.12 .21 ** -.11
poor visibility .22 * -.08 .17 -.04
insufficient work space .02 -.09 .01 -.21 *
close proximity to others .09 -.25 ** .00 -.06
interior design .12 -.05 .26 ** -.07
atmoshere/ambiance .13 -.02 .26 ** -.09
Neuroticism
Age
Distraction Factors
Sound
Light
ICT
Interior
Environment
Agreeableness
Openness to
experience
Note. n (number of samples)=114 **. p<0.01 *. p<0.05
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
work
type
Factors
ambient temperature -.25 ** .05 -.29 ** -.09
air quality (cleanliness,
smell, etc.)
-.21 * .00 -.09 -.03
sound from others
(footsteps, etc.)
-.23 * -.02 -.10 .03
conversation by others -.28 ** .03 -.14 -.06
outdoor noise -.22 * .13 -.05 .12
Light natural light -.22 * -.02 -.08 .02
PC communication
environment
-.12 -.15 -.25 ** -.23 *
number and capacity of
electrical outlets
-.30 ** -.14 -.14 .04
location of electrical
outlets
-.21 * -.14 -.09 -.02
visibility from others -.31 ** -.11 -.03 -.08
crowdiness arround the
seat
-.27 ** -.21 * -.25 ** -.29 **
non-height adjustable
chairs
-.25 ** .04 -.07 .02
non-height adjustable
desks
-.21 * -.09 -.07 .08
Air quality and
sanitary
ambient temperature -.17 .03 -.37 ** -.12
sound from others
(footsteps, etc.)
-.24 ** -.02 .06 .00
conversation by others -.25 ** .02 -.05 -.08
insufficient work space -.03 .11 -.21 * .05
types or position of
furnituire
-.10 .09 -.19 * .08
Environment
Data entry, Paper work
Distraction Factors
Air quality and
sanitary
Sound
ICT
Interior
Idea gathering
Sound
Interior
Coping well
with external
stimuli such
as noise
Working
where you
want
Adjustability
of thermal
environment
for personal
preferences
Adjustability
of layout or
furniture for
personal
prferences
Note. n (number of samples)=114 **. p<0.01 *. p<0.05
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
53
87
1
1
8
11
2
y = 0.47x + 1.93
R² = 0.87
y = 0.76x + 0.66
R² = 0.86
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Slightly
satisfied
Neither
Slightly
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
[Satisfaction of indoor environment ]
[Personal Control]
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1
1
8
11
2
5
3
87
y = 0.86 x - 2.89
R² = 0.75
y = 0.47 x - 1.09
R² = 0.85
[コミュニケーション満足度]
[自己効力感]
働きたい場所で作業ができている（n=23）騒音などの外部の刺激へ対応できている（n=23）
線形 (働きたい場所で作業ができている（n=23）)線形 (騒音などの外部の刺激へ対応できている（n=23）)
非常に不満
どちらともいえない
非常に満足
不満 満足
やや満足
やや不満
思わない 非常に思う
全く思わない どちらでもない 思う
Working where you want(n=23)
Coping well with external stimul i
such as nois e(n=23)
1
1
8
11
2
5
3
87
y = 0.86 x - 2.89
R² = 0.75
y = 0.47 x - 1.09
R² = 0.85
[コミュニケーション満足度]
[自己効力感]
働きたい場所で作業ができている（n=23）騒音などの外部の刺激へ対応できている（n=23）
線形 (働きたい場所で作業ができている（n=23）)線形 (騒音などの外部の刺激へ対応できている（n=23）)
非常に不満
どちらともいえない
非常に満足
不満 満足
やや満足
やや不満
思わない 非常に思う
全く思わない どちらでもない 思う
1
1
8
11
2
5
3
87
y = 0.86 x - 2.89
R² = 0.75
y = 0.47 x - 1.09
R² = 0.85
[コミュニケーション満足度]
[自己効力感]
働きたい場所で作業ができている（n=23）騒音などの外部の刺激へ対応できている（n=23）
線形 (働きたい場所で作業ができている（n=23）)線形 (騒音などの外部の刺激へ対応できている（n=23）)
非常に不満
どちらともいえない
非常に満足
不満 満足
やや満足
やや不満
思わない 非常に思う
全く思わない どちらでもない 思う
1
1
8
11
2
5
3
87
y = 0.86 x - 2.89
R² = 0.75
y = 0.47 x - 1.09
R² = 0.85
[コミュニケーション満足度]
[自己効力感]
働きたい場所で作業ができている（n=23）騒音などの外部の刺激へ対応できている（n=23）
線形 (働きたい場所で作業ができている（n=23）)線形 (騒音などの外部の刺激へ対応できている（n=23）)
非常に不満
どちらともいえない
非常に満足
不満 満足
やや満足
やや不満
思わない 非常に思う
全く思わない どちらでもない 思う
Note. n (number of samples)=23
Concentration space (n=11)
Seimi-concentration space (n=10)
Open space (n=8)
Movable table space (n=3)
Concentration space (n=11)
Seimi-concentration space (n=10)
Open space (n=8)
Movable table space (n=3)
Concentration space (n=11)
Seimi-concentration space (n=10)
Open space (n=8)
Movable table space (n=3)
[Personality Score]
→higher
lower←
Extraversion
Neuroticism
Openness to
experience
1357911 13
Note. n :number of samples
,0(201
Web of Conferences https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/2019111020
9)
201
E3S
111
CLIMA 9
2050 50
3
3.5 Seat selection tendency and concentration
level
Fig. 4 shows the occupancy rate for each type of seat by
workers who did not have assigned seats. The numerical
value in the figure indicates the total hours the worker
occupied each seat type during the investigation period.
While few workers changed seats during the same day, a
certain number of workers changed their seats each day.
Therefore, in order to confirm the influence of changing
the seats on the level of concentration on work, workers
were divided into the following two groups: 14 workers
(a - n) that occupied the same type of seats for more than
90% of the time, and 11 workers (o - y) who exhibited
more variation in their choice of seats.
40 24 1 11
5
3
62
3
9 9
27 32 50 2
32
16
20
10
52
13
1 1
51 97 82 62
12
2 2
2 43 22 56
11 6 15
29
4
13
30
29
11 11
1
18 9
2 2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y
Open space Semi-concentration space Movable table space
Concentration space Com munication space
Workers with consistent
choice of seats
Workers with inconsistent
choice of seats
Fig. 4. Occupancy rate for each type of seat by workers who do
not have assigned seats.
Figure 5 shows work type and degree of
concentration. Regardless of the type of work, workers
who changed their type of seat each day showed a higher
percentage of concentration at work than did those who
selected the same type of seat each day.
1
1
1
6
3
2
1
32
14
15
10
43
27
57
16
10
7
36
16
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Data entry, paper work (n=92)
Idea gathering (n=52)
Data entry, paper work (n=110)
Idea gathering (n=44）
Workers with
consistent choice
of seats
Workers with
inconsistent
choice of seats
Not-concentrated Slightly not-concentrated Neither
Slightly concentrated Concentrated well
Fig. 5. Work type and degree of concentration.
4 Discussion
Three types of questionnaires were administered in the
entire building and ABW office in the present study.
In relation to environmental factors of distraction,
some correlations were observed among personality
traits, age, and personal control. It was revealed that
there are several tendencies among workers in the type
of work environment needed to concentrate according to
their individual attributes. Additionally, satisfaction with
the indoor environment, which contributes to higher
intellectual productivity [7], was correlated with
distraction and personal control. Thus, workers’ personal
attributes may influence their intellectual productivity.
Furthermore, the field survey revealed that workers
tended to select different workspaces depending on their
personalities. While few workers in an ABW office
changed seats during the same day, two patterns of daily
seat selection were confirmed. Specifically, some
changed their type of seat each day, while others selected
the same type of seat each day. The former showed a
higher percentage of concentration at work than the latter
did, suggesting that changing seats daily may improve
concentration at work, and thus increasing productivity.
5 Conclusion
As observed for research workers in the present study,
even in the same job type, various attributes could be
observed among workers. In the future, in order to
design offices that facilitate higher productivity, it is
necessary to design spaces considering individual
workers’ attributes rather than the attributes of general
groups based on occupation. Particularly, it is necessary
that a diverse environment is provided, where workers
can select their workplace according to their preferences
for sound, interior environment, and other environmental
factors.
Additionally, the present study revealed that workers
who changed their seat type each day may have been
well adapted to ABW, while those who selected the
same type of seat each day may not have. It seems to be
necessary to consider the workers’ attributes in the
introduction of ABW itself.
This study was supported by the Takenaka Research &
Development Institute. The authors would like to express
sincere gratitude to all those involved in this study for their
cooperation.
References
1. M. Takahashi et al. Effects of Active Design for
Workplace on Occupants Behavior Part 2
Productivity (SHASE. 8, 25-28, 2017)
2. L. Engelen et al. Is activity-based working
impacting health, work performance and
perceptions? A systematic review (Build. Res. Inf.
47, 468-479, 2018)
3. C. Wohlers et al. Choosing where to work at work–
towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of
activity-based flexible offices (Ergonomics 60 (4),
467-486, 2017)
4. A. Seddigh et al. Does personality have a different
impact on self-rated distraction, job satisfaction,
and job performance in different office types? (PLoS
One 11 (5), 2016)
5. A. Oshio et al. Development, Reliability, and
Validity of the Japanese Version of Ten Item
Personality Inventorn (Jpn. J. Pers. 21 ,40-52, 2012)
6. S. D. Gosling et al. A very brief measure of the Big-
Five personality domains (J. Res. Pers. 37, 504-528,
2003)
7. T. Ikaga et al. The Influence of Office Building
Space and Communication on Intellectual
Productivity (AIJ 3, 149-152, 2010)
,0(201
Web of Conferences https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/2019111020
9)
201
E3S
111
CLIMA 9
2050 50
4
