Effects of color schemes on aesthetic response of the work environment

Abstract

Color can enhance subjective aesthetic judgment and provide an effective work environment. This study investigated the influences of workplace color schemes on participants' aesthetic response. Two monochromatic (red, purple-blue) and two analogous color schemes (warm, cool) were studied in the simulated work environments. 53 interior designers who volunteered to participate in this study, rated evaluative factors using the semantic differential scale on a questionnaire. The results indicated that the different color schemes can affect participants' aesthetic evaluation. The purple-blue space creates a feeling of calmness while red can provoke the feeling of stimulating. The cool colored space is generally perceived more positively regarding visual comfort, being comfortable, and relaxing. The warm colored space tends to provide more vivid, bright and warm sensation. Monochromatic color schemes can create a sense of harmony and simplicity within space. Some of the aesthetic evaluations are rated as equal under the monochromatic and analogous colored space. The results suggested that the color schemes have both positive and negative influences on participants' aesthetic response of the work environment.

Full text

Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41 (2020) 581–586
Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences
journal homepage: http://kjss.kasetsart.org
Effects of color schemes on aesthetic response of the work environment
Nattha Savaviboola,b
a Multidisciplinary Design Research Program, Faculty of Architecture, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, Thailand
b Faculty of Architecture, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, Thailand
Abstract
Color can enhance subjective aesthetic judgment and provide an effective work
environment. This study investigated the inuences of workplace color schemes on
participants’ aesthetic response. Two monochromatic (red, purple-blue) and two
analogous color schemes (warm, cool) were studied in the simulated work
environments. 53 interior designers who volunteered to participate in this study, rated
evaluative factors using the semantic differential scale on a questionnaire. The results
indicated that the different color schemes can affect participants’ aesthetic evaluation.
The purple-blue space creates a feeling of calmness while red can provoke the feeling
of stimulating. The cool colored space is generally perceived more positively regarding
visual comfort, being comfortable, and relaxing. The warm colored space tends to
provide more vivid, bright and warm sensation. Monochromatic color schemes can
create a sense of harmony and simplicity within space. Some of the aesthetic
evaluations are rated as equal under the monochromatic and analogous colored space.
The results suggested that the color schemes have both positive and negative inuences
on participants’ aesthetic response of the work environment.
© 2020 Kasetsart University.
Article Info
Article history:
Received 15 October 2018
Revised 18 January 2019
Accepted 21 January 2019
Available online
Keywords:
aesthetic response,
color combination,
color scheme,
work environment
E-mail address: nattha@msn.com.
https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2020.41.3.20
2542-3151/© 2020 Kasetsart University.
Introduction
The work environment, composed of physical factors such
as workplace layout, furniture, color, lighting, etc., appears to
have both positive and negative impacts on the perception of
workers. Many organizations have implemented open-plan
ofces to encourage teamwork and collaboration.
Color is one of the most important and inuential elements
(Küller, Ballal, Laike, Mikellides, & Tonello, 2006; Kwallek,
Lewis, Lin-Hsiao, & Woodson, 1996). It is used in workplace
design for different purposes of presenting the aesthetical and
function. Color is widely suggested to have inuences on
people’s aesthetic response associated with the affective
appraisal, physiological response, and behavior (Liu, 2016;
O’Connor, 2008). The harmony of color considering
appropriate combinations can produce a positive aesthetic
experience. If unsuitable color combinations are selected,
these might lead to negative psychological impacts on workers
(Kwallek, Woodson, Lewis, & Sales, 1997). Previous research
has been carried out in investigating the affective and cognitive
effects of workplace colors on people (Küller, Mikellides, &
Janssens, 2009; Kwallek & Lewis, 1990) Those studies have
often focused on a few prominent hues such as red, blue, and
green. Little research has been conducted to analyze the
inuences of color combinations which may be a more
representative color for a real existing work environment.
Blue and red are frequently used in workplace design in
Thailand to represent the company brand and takes a
predominantly monochromatic approach. Some workplaces
tend to add more color for providing creativity particularly in
the design rm. However, interior designers are sometimes
unaware of the effects of color. Thus, for creating an effective
work environment, more studies are required to understand
and validate how color combination inuences aesthetic
response.

N. Savavibool / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41 (2020) 581–586582
Moreover, previous studies used the semantic differential
method to evaluate the inuence of color on aesthetical
consideration. However, the word pairs varied by meaning
depending on culture and context. Accordingly, it is essential
in expanding knowledge and understanding how the
combination of colors can provide peoples’ aesthetic
perception. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the
effects of color schemes on workers’ aesthetic response. The
study mainly focused on monochromatic and analogous color
schemes within the open-plan work environments and
proposed the scales to assess overall aesthetic dimension.
Literature Review
The aesthetic response in environmental aesthetic is
dened as a subjective experience, judgment, and evaluation
of human with aesthetic factors. The probabilistic framework
developed by Nasar (1997) clearly explains the relation and
interaction between human and the aesthetic considerations;
building physical attributes, that results in aesthetic response.
Besides, the aesthetic response may vary due to individual
differences such as personality, experience, and background.
For example, professional interior designers have different
preferences with the general public regarding interior
environment (Liu, 2016).
A common research method to investigate the effects of
room color on the subjective perception of space is the
semantic differential scale. Most researchers have created the
scale by choosing the word pairs that have related meaning
from previous studies. Some problems exist in this area of
color research. The aesthetic evaluative factors vary across
different studies in different contexts, which may be
complicated by meanings among various cultures. Moreover,
some set of rating items may not be suitable for workplace
investigation.
In the work environment, color is one of the physical
factors that inuence the perception of space and affect the
mental and physiological feeling states of workers. A number
of studies have investigated the impact of warm colors (e.g.
reds, orange, yellow) and cool colors (e.g. blue, green, purple).
For instance, warm colors were perceived as having more
activating effects than cool colors. A red ofce was perceived
as causing more anxiety than other colored ofces (Kwallek &
Lewis, 1990; Kwallek et al., 1997). Managers did not prefer
the workplace with mainly warm colors because of over
stimulating (Ceylan, Dul, & Aytac, 2008). Yellow could create
a sense of cheerfulness and happiness as well as inspired
thinking and creative ideas, but too much yellow would cause
visual discomfort. Moreover, warm colors tend to make space
seem smaller than the spaces with cool colors. The red room
was perceived as more enclosed than the blue room (Küller et
al., 2009).
On the contrary, cool environments were perceived as
pleasant, calm, and comfortable, but unattractive (Stone,
2003; Stone & English, 1998; Yildirim, Cagatay, & Ayalp,
2015). The cool ofce could boost creativity and let people
focus on visual and mental tasks (Ceylan et al., 2008). Blue
was found to be the most preferred workplace color among
workers (Kamaruzzaman & Zawawi, 2010; Poursafar, Devi,
& Rodrigues, 2016). However, blue was reported to have
negative impacts such as drowsiness and depressing (Küller et
al., 2009; Kwallek et al., 1997). Green was associated with
restful and relaxing. Regarding the neutral, workers preferred
white and wanted to work in a white environment (Kwallek &
Lewis, 1990; Poursafar et al., 2016). Nevertheless, white was
found to be perceived as dull, depressing and causing visual
fatigue (Kamaruzzaman & Zawawi, 2010; Kwallek et al.,
1996). Using only white color without introducing some
chromatic colors may not be suitable for the work environment.
As for color combination, the mix of cool color and
neutral could enhance the perception of space (Kamaruzzaman
& Zawawi, 2010). Architects preferred the cool together with
warm colors (Poursafar et al., 2016). The multicolor workplace
might contribute to a more positive mood for workers (Küller
et al., 2006) but caused conict perception if more chromaticity
colors were added and not in harmony (Küller et al., 2009). It
is widely assumed that the harmonic color schemes (e.g.
monochromatic, analogous) can provide aesthetic appeal.
However, little research has been conducted to investigate the
effects of those combinations.
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the inuences of
color schemes in the work
environment on aesthetic response. Figure 1 shows the
conceptual framework of this study. Research questions of the
study were as follows:
1. Are there any differences between the monochromatic
red and purple-blue scheme in term of aesthetic response?
2. Are there any differences between the warm and the
cool analogous scheme in term of aesthetic response?
3. Are there any differences between the monochromatic
red and warm analogous scheme in term of aesthetic response?
4. Are there any differences between the monochromatic
purple-blue and cool analogous scheme in term of aesthetic
response?
COLOR SCHEME IN
THE WORK ENVIRONMENT
- Monochromatic red
- Monochromatic blue
- Warm Analogous
- Cool Analogous
AESTHETIC RESPONSE
Figure 1 The conceptual framework for the study
Methodology
To identify the inuences of workplace color schemes on
participants’ aesthetic response, the quantitative experimental
design was used in this study.
Participants
A total of 53 Thai interior designers participated in this
study, including 30 males (56.6%) and 23 females (43.4%).
Their age ranged from 21–43, with most of the participants
falling between 26–30 years old (56.6%). They were recruited
from interior design rms in Bangkok and volunteered to
participate in this study. All participants reported normal or
correct to normal vision.

N. Savavibool / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41 (2020) 581–586582
Moreover, previous studies used the semantic differential
method to evaluate the inuence of color on aesthetical
consideration. However, the word pairs varied by meaning
depending on culture and context. Accordingly, it is essential
in expanding knowledge and understanding how the
combination of colors can provide peoples’ aesthetic
perception. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the
effects of color schemes on workers’ aesthetic response. The
study mainly focused on monochromatic and analogous color
schemes within the open-plan work environments and
proposed the scales to assess overall aesthetic dimension.
Literature Review
The aesthetic response in environmental aesthetic is
dened as a subjective experience, judgment, and evaluation
of human with aesthetic factors. The probabilistic framework
developed by Nasar (1997) clearly explains the relation and
interaction between human and the aesthetic considerations;
building physical attributes, that results in aesthetic response.
Besides, the aesthetic response may vary due to individual
differences such as personality, experience, and background.
For example, professional interior designers have different
preferences with the general public regarding interior
environment (Liu, 2016).
A common research method to investigate the effects of
room color on the subjective perception of space is the
semantic differential scale. Most researchers have created the
scale by choosing the word pairs that have related meaning
from previous studies. Some problems exist in this area of
color research. The aesthetic evaluative factors vary across
different studies in different contexts, which may be
complicated by meanings among various cultures. Moreover,
some set of rating items may not be suitable for workplace
investigation.
In the work environment, color is one of the physical
factors that inuence the perception of space and affect the
mental and physiological feeling states of workers. A number
of studies have investigated the impact of warm colors (e.g.
reds, orange, yellow) and cool colors (e.g. blue, green, purple).
For instance, warm colors were perceived as having more
activating effects than cool colors. A red ofce was perceived
as causing more anxiety than other colored ofces (Kwallek &
Lewis, 1990; Kwallek et al., 1997). Managers did not prefer
the workplace with mainly warm colors because of over
stimulating (Ceylan, Dul, & Aytac, 2008). Yellow could create
a sense of cheerfulness and happiness as well as inspired
thinking and creative ideas, but too much yellow would cause
visual discomfort. Moreover, warm colors tend to make space
seem smaller than the spaces with cool colors. The red room
was perceived as more enclosed than the blue room (Küller et
al., 2009).
On the contrary, cool environments were perceived as
pleasant, calm, and comfortable, but unattractive (Stone,
2003; Stone & English, 1998; Yildirim, Cagatay, & Ayalp,
2015). The cool ofce could boost creativity and let people
focus on visual and mental tasks (Ceylan et al., 2008). Blue
was found to be the most preferred workplace color among
workers (Kamaruzzaman & Zawawi, 2010; Poursafar, Devi,
& Rodrigues, 2016). However, blue was reported to have
negative impacts such as drowsiness and depressing (Küller et
al., 2009; Kwallek et al., 1997). Green was associated with
restful and relaxing. Regarding the neutral, workers preferred
white and wanted to work in a white environment (Kwallek &
Lewis, 1990; Poursafar et al., 2016). Nevertheless, white was
found to be perceived as dull, depressing and causing visual
fatigue (Kamaruzzaman & Zawawi, 2010; Kwallek et al.,
1996). Using only white color without introducing some
chromatic colors may not be suitable for the work environment.
As for color combination, the mix of cool color and
neutral could enhance the perception of space (Kamaruzzaman
& Zawawi, 2010). Architects preferred the cool together with
warm colors (Poursafar et al., 2016). The multicolor workplace
might contribute to a more positive mood for workers (Küller
et al., 2006) but caused conict perception if more chromaticity
colors were added and not in harmony (Küller et al., 2009). It
is widely assumed that the harmonic color schemes (e.g.
monochromatic, analogous) can provide aesthetic appeal.
However, little research has been conducted to investigate the
effects of those combinations.
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the inuences of
color schemes in the work
environment on aesthetic response. Figure 1 shows the
conceptual framework of this study. Research questions of the
study were as follows:
1. Are there any differences between the monochromatic
red and purple-blue scheme in term of aesthetic response?
2. Are there any differences between the warm and the
cool analogous scheme in term of aesthetic response?
3. Are there any differences between the monochromatic
red and warm analogous scheme in term of aesthetic response?
4. Are there any differences between the monochromatic
purple-blue and cool analogous scheme in term of aesthetic
response?
COLOR SCHEME IN
THE WORK ENVIRONMENT
- Monochromatic red
- Monochromatic blue
- Warm Analogous
- Cool Analogous
AESTHETIC RESPONSE
Figure 1 The conceptual framework for the study
Methodology
To identify the inuences of workplace color schemes on
participants’ aesthetic response, the quantitative experimental
design was used in this study.
Participants
A total of 53 Thai interior designers participated in this
study, including 30 males (56.6%) and 23 females (43.4%).
Their age ranged from 21–43, with most of the participants
falling between 26–30 years old (56.6%). They were recruited
from interior design rms in Bangkok and volunteered to
participate in this study. All participants reported normal or
correct to normal vision.
N. Savavibool / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41 (2020) 581–586 583
Simulated Working Environment
For testing the color effects, the simulate realistic
perspective of the workplaces was used as the visual stimuli
developed from 3Ds Max. The simulated images had the
following dimension: 9.70 x 16.00 x 3.00m (a total area
155m2). Ceiling and oor were white with matte nishes.
Windows were covered with blackout roller blinds. Fluorescent
lamps were set to provide general lighting level of 500lux, and
the temperatures at 4000K. The room was furnished with an
open-plan ofce layout, included 24 workstations with
partitions, ofce chairs, and tall cabinets along the left wall.
The color of workstations, cabinets, doors, and window blinds
were neutral and kept constant, only colors on the walls and
workstation partitions were changed. Some area of the walls
remained white to prevent sensory overload.
The sample of colors chosen were from the Color Image
Scale of Kobayashi (1990) and applied to the rendering. Four
color schemes: two monochromatic and two analogous color
schemes, were tested in this experiment. As for the
monochromatic conditions (scene 1 & 2), red and purple-blue
were used as dominant colors on the wall combined with
darker and lighter tones. The warm analogous color condition
(scene 3) used predominately red on the wall mixed with
yellow-red and yellow on the workstation partitions. The cool
analogous color condition (scene 4) used purple-blue
predominately on the wall combined with blue and blue-green
on the workstation partitions. The four scenes are illustrated in
Figure 2.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire for aesthetic response in this study
consisted of two parts: the rst part contained questions about
participants’ general characteristics relating to age, gender and
color preference; and the second part consisted of seven-point
semantic differential scales evaluating the aesthetic response
to the differently colored work environment. Lists of adjectives
pairs were gathered from the previous studies related to color
and environmental aesthetic (Franz, 2006; Odabaşioğlu, &
Olguntürk, 2015; Öztürk, Yılmazer, & Ural, 2012; O’Connor,
2008; Valdez & Mehrabian, 1994; Yildirim et al., 2015). The
adjective pairs were translated from English to Thai and those
that had similar meanings or were not suitable for evaluating
the workspace were eliminated. The remaining 21 adjective
pairs were divided into ve dimensions according to the factor
they evaluated (Table 1), and were used in the questionnaire to
measure the aesthetic response.
Procedure
The participants were assigned to all four simulated
working environments (SWEs). These SWEs were showed to
the participants by face to face meetings during a two-week
period in 2018. At the beginning, the participants were tested
for their color vision with the Ishihara color blindness test.
After that, the brief instructions were given. Participants asked
to evaluate the four workplace scenes were presented with a
tablet device at a resolution of 2224 x 1668 pixels. They took
approximately 15 min to complete the questionnaires.
Figure 2 The four simulated working environments: (A) Scene 1 Monochromatic red; (B) Scene 2 Monochromatic purple-blue;
(C) Scene 3 Warm analogous color scheme; (D) Scene 4 Cool analogous color scheme
(A)
(C)
(B)
(D)

N. Savavibool / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41 (2020) 581–586584
Data Analysis
The data gathered from the aesthetic response scale was
analysed by using statistical programs. Then, a paired t-test
was conducted to determine the effects of different color
schemes in the work environments on the participants’
aesthetic response. The mean scores of the four workplace
scenes were compared with each other as following: two
monochromatic scenes (scene 1 vs. scene 2), two analogous
scenes (scene 3 vs. scene 4), monochromatic red and warm
analogous scenes (scene 1 vs. scene 3), monochromatic purple
blue and cool analogous scenes (scene 2 vs. scene 4).
Results and Discussion
Reliability of the dependent variables covering the
participant’s aesthetic response evaluations of the work
environments was tested using the Cronbach Alpha. The
reliability coefcient for the set of 21 bipolar semantic
differential items was .94. The coefcient of the scale above .70
was accepted for good reliability according to some previous
studies (Odabaşioğlu & Olguntürk, 2015; Yildirim et al., 2015).
Therefore, the semantic scale in this study was considered to
be reliable. The effects of color schemes of the workplace on
aesthetic response were determined by the paired t-test
(signicant, p < .05).
According to the comparison between the two
monochromatic color conditions: red (scene 1) and purple-
blue (scene 2), the results indicated that there were statistically
signicant differences among participants’ aesthetic evaluation
of the workplace color schemes (p < .05) for most of the
adjective items (Table 2). The purple-blue workplace generally
received higher mean rating than the red workplace, ranging in
order from the top ve scores as follows: visual comfort
(M = 2.26, SD = 0.68), harmonious (M = 2.21, SD = 0.77),
calm (M = 2.09, SD = 0.71), simple (M = 2.09, SD = 0.77), and
satisfying (M = 2.04, SD = 0.71). On the other hand, the red
workplace obtained higher score for bright (M = 2.11,
SD = 0.67), vivid (M = 2.02, SD = 0.72), warm (M = 1.81,
SD = 0.92) than the purple-blue workplace. There was no
statistically signicant difference between the two monochromatic
conditions with respect to attractive and proportional. In
previous studies, some showing blue space was perceived
more positively, and some were indicating the opposite
(Kamaruzzaman & Zawawi, 2010; Küller et al., 2009).
Table 2 Results of paired t-tests between the monochromatic red and blue conditions
Pair Adjective pairs Red Purple-Blue t p
M SD M SD
1 Unsatisfying-Satisfying 0.00 1.74 2.04 0.71 -9.521 .000*
2 Unattractive-Attractive 1.57 0.93 1.28 0.89 1.819 .075
3 Ugly-Beautiful 0.53 1.67 1.74 0.88 -5.462 .000*
4 Unimpressive-Impressive 0.43 1.70 1.51 0.80 -5.036 .000*
5 Uncomfortable-Comfortable -0.62 1.39 1.87 0.65 -12.286 .000*
6 Visual discomfort-Visual comfort -0.57 1.47 2.26 0.68 -13.948 .000*
7 Gloomy-Cheerful 1.21 1.22 0.58 1.49 3.229 .002*
8 Tense-Relaxing -0.66 1.26 1.87 0.88 -14.729 .000*
9 Exciting-Calm -1.02 1.42 2.09 0.71 -13.846 .000*
10 Boring-Interesting 1.34 0.90 0.28 1.61 5.367 .000*
11 Dynamic-Static -0.08 1.52 1.42 1.12 -6.729 .000*
12 Dislike-Like 0.25 1.78 1.60 0.97 -6.616 .000*
13 Cramped-Spacious 0.51 1.84 1.58 0.95 -5.295 .000*
14 Low-High 1.00 1.45 1.40 0.93 -2.670 .010*
15 Enclosed-Open 0.04 1.78 0.87 1.59 -2.852 .006
16 Complex-Simple 1.06 1.45 2.09 0.77 -5.505 .000*
17 Cool-Warm 1.81 0.92 -1.89 1.07 16.824 .000*
18 Dark-Bright 2.11 0.67 1.45 1.01 4.480 .000*
19 Dull-Vivid 2.02 0.72 1.00 1.06 7.643 .000*
20 Not proportional-Proportional 1.70 0.93 1.77 0.93 -0.663 .510
21 Inharmonious-Harmonious 1.75 1.18 2.21 0.77 -3.800 .000*
Note. M = Mean value ranging from -3 to 3, SD = Standard deviation.
It is signicant at the level of * p < .05.
Table 1 The scale with adjective pairs for evaluating the
aesthetic response
Dimension Adjective pairs
Pleasure Unsatisfying-Satisfying
Unattractive-Attractive
Ugly-Beautiful
Unimpressive-Impressive
Uncomfortable-Comfortable
Visual discomfort-Visual comfort
Preference Dislike-Like
Spaciousness Cramped-Spacious
Low-High
Enclosed-Open
Complex-Simple
Arousal Gloomy-Cheerful
Tense-Relaxing
Exciting-Calm
Boring-Interesting
Dynamic-Static
Color perception Cool-Warm
Dark-Bright
Dull-Vivid
Not proportional-Proportional
Inharmonious-Harmonious

N. Savavibool / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41 (2020) 581–586584
Data Analysis
The data gathered from the aesthetic response scale was
analysed by using statistical programs. Then, a paired t-test
was conducted to determine the effects of different color
schemes in the work environments on the participants’
aesthetic response. The mean scores of the four workplace
scenes were compared with each other as following: two
monochromatic scenes (scene 1 vs. scene 2), two analogous
scenes (scene 3 vs. scene 4), monochromatic red and warm
analogous scenes (scene 1 vs. scene 3), monochromatic purple
blue and cool analogous scenes (scene 2 vs. scene 4).
Results and Discussion
Reliability of the dependent variables covering the
participant’s aesthetic response evaluations of the work
environments was tested using the Cronbach Alpha. The
reliability coefcient for the set of 21 bipolar semantic
differential items was .94. The coefcient of the scale above .70
was accepted for good reliability according to some previous
studies (Odabaşioğlu & Olguntürk, 2015; Yildirim et al., 2015).
Therefore, the semantic scale in this study was considered to
be reliable. The effects of color schemes of the workplace on
aesthetic response were determined by the paired t-test
(signicant, p < .05).
According to the comparison between the two
monochromatic color conditions: red (scene 1) and purple-
blue (scene 2), the results indicated that there were statistically
signicant differences among participants’ aesthetic evaluation
of the workplace color schemes (p < .05) for most of the
adjective items (Table 2). The purple-blue workplace generally
received higher mean rating than the red workplace, ranging in
order from the top ve scores as follows: visual comfort
(M = 2.26, SD = 0.68), harmonious (M = 2.21, SD = 0.77),
calm (M = 2.09, SD = 0.71), simple (M = 2.09, SD = 0.77), and
satisfying (M = 2.04, SD = 0.71). On the other hand, the red
workplace obtained higher score for bright (M = 2.11,
SD = 0.67), vivid (M = 2.02, SD = 0.72), warm (M = 1.81,
SD = 0.92) than the purple-blue workplace. There was no
statistically signicant difference between the two monochromatic
conditions with respect to attractive and proportional. In
previous studies, some showing blue space was perceived
more positively, and some were indicating the opposite
(Kamaruzzaman & Zawawi, 2010; Küller et al., 2009).
Table 2 Results of paired t-tests between the monochromatic red and blue conditions
Pair Adjective pairs Red Purple-Blue t p
M SD M SD
1 Unsatisfying-Satisfying 0.00 1.74 2.04 0.71 -9.521 .000*
2 Unattractive-Attractive 1.57 0.93 1.28 0.89 1.819 .075
3 Ugly-Beautiful 0.53 1.67 1.74 0.88 -5.462 .000*
4 Unimpressive-Impressive 0.43 1.70 1.51 0.80 -5.036 .000*
5 Uncomfortable-Comfortable -0.62 1.39 1.87 0.65 -12.286 .000*
6 Visual discomfort-Visual comfort -0.57 1.47 2.26 0.68 -13.948 .000*
7 Gloomy-Cheerful 1.21 1.22 0.58 1.49 3.229 .002*
8 Tense-Relaxing -0.66 1.26 1.87 0.88 -14.729 .000*
9 Exciting-Calm -1.02 1.42 2.09 0.71 -13.846 .000*
10 Boring-Interesting 1.34 0.90 0.28 1.61 5.367 .000*
11 Dynamic-Static -0.08 1.52 1.42 1.12 -6.729 .000*
12 Dislike-Like 0.25 1.78 1.60 0.97 -6.616 .000*
13 Cramped-Spacious 0.51 1.84 1.58 0.95 -5.295 .000*
14 Low-High 1.00 1.45 1.40 0.93 -2.670 .010*
15 Enclosed-Open 0.04 1.78 0.87 1.59 -2.852 .006
16 Complex-Simple 1.06 1.45 2.09 0.77 -5.505 .000*
17 Cool-Warm 1.81 0.92 -1.89 1.07 16.824 .000*
18 Dark-Bright 2.11 0.67 1.45 1.01 4.480 .000*
19 Dull-Vivid 2.02 0.72 1.00 1.06 7.643 .000*
20 Not proportional-Proportional 1.70 0.93 1.77 0.93 -0.663 .510
21 Inharmonious-Harmonious 1.75 1.18 2.21 0.77 -3.800 .000*
Note. M = Mean value ranging from -3 to 3, SD = Standard deviation.
It is signicant at the level of * p < .05.
Table 1 The scale with adjective pairs for evaluating the
aesthetic response
Dimension Adjective pairs
Pleasure Unsatisfying-Satisfying
Unattractive-Attractive
Ugly-Beautiful
Unimpressive-Impressive
Uncomfortable-Comfortable
Visual discomfort-Visual comfort
Preference Dislike-Like
Spaciousness Cramped-Spacious
Low-High
Enclosed-Open
Complex-Simple
Arousal Gloomy-Cheerful
Tense-Relaxing
Exciting-Calm
Boring-Interesting
Dynamic-Static
Color perception Cool-Warm
Dark-Bright
Dull-Vivid
Not proportional-Proportional
Inharmonious-Harmonious
N. Savavibool / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41 (2020) 581–586 585
In the current study, the purple-blue environment was
perceived as more positive to create a sense of calm, harmony,
and simple and offered the optimal conditions for visual
comfort. The workspace with the red scheme was perceived as
higher arousal and excitement compared to purple-blue.
However, the mean scores were not too high. It is possible that
using red with neutral might reduce the impact of the
stimulating environment. The nding also suggested that the
workplace might appear brighter and vivid in red. People
could feel warm or cold inuencing from color scheme within
the space at the cognitive level.
According to the comparison between the two analogous
color conditions: warm colors (scene 3) and cool colors (scene
4), the results revealed that there were statically signicant
differences among participants’ aesthetic response of the
workplace (p < .05) for most of the evaluated items (Table 3).
The cool colored workplace generally received greater mean rating
than warm colored workplace, ranging in order from the top three
scores as follows: visual comfort (M = 2.40, SD = 0.77), relaxing
(M = 2.23, SD = 0.75), comfortable (M = 2.11, SD = 0.75).
In contrast, the warm colored workplace obtained higher score
for vivid (M = 2.57, SD = 0.54), bright (M = 2.28, SD = 0.72),
cheerful (M = 2.17, SD = 0.75), attractive (M = 2.11, SD = 0.64),
and warm (M = 2.11, SD = 0.75). There was no statistically
signicant difference between the effect of the two analogous
rooms on impressive, interesting, proportional, and harmonious.
Similar to the comparing of two monochromatic conditions,
the cool space was rated more positively than the warm space.
Participants preferred the cool space to the red one. The
ndings also suggested that cool color scheme might enhance
the feeling of visual comfort, be relaxing and comfortable.
These results support previous studies that cool colors are
associated with high pleasure emotions and low arousal
emotions (Stone & English, 1998; Yildirim et al., 2015). On
the contrary, the warm scheme could be more arousing,
Table 3 Results of paired t-tests between the two analogous color conditions.
Pair Adjective pairs Warm Cool tp
M SD M SD
1 Unsatisfying-Satisfying 1.38 0.93 2.06 0.72 -4.873 .000*
2 Unattractive-Attractive 2.11 0.64 1.43 0.75 5.284 .000*
3 Ugly-Beautiful 1.45 0.82 1.72 0.84 -2.083 .042*
4 Unimpressive-Impressive 1.47 0.85 1.62 0.86 -1.272 .209
5 Uncomfortable-Comfortable -0.19 1.52 2.11 0.75 -10.801 .000*
6 Visual discomfort-Visual comfort -0.70 1.74 2.40 0.77 -11.894 .000*
7 Gloomy-Cheerful 2.17 0.75 1.74 0.92 2.825 .007*
8 Tense-Relaxing -0.42 1.01 2.23 0.75 -14.602 .000*
9 Exciting-Calm -2.06 0.75 1.74 0.88 -21.891 .000*
10 Boring-Interesting 1.62 0.93 1.51 0.89 0.772 .444
11 Dynamic-Static -1.79 0.97 1.04 1.21 -11.766 .000*
12 Dislike-Like 0.75 1.56 1.75 0.90 -4.604 .000*
13 Cramped-Spacious 0.70 1.46 1.57 0.93 -4.424 .000*
14 Low-High 0.74 1.38 1.43 0.93 -3.971 .000*
15 Enclosed-Open 0.00 1.78 1.58 0.93 -7.387 .000*
16 Complex-Simple -0.98 1.53 0.64 1.82 -7.039 .000*
17 Cool-Warm 2.11 0.75 -1.38 0.84 21.125 .000*
18 Dark-Bright 2.28 0.72 1.40 0.91 6.768 .000*
19 Dull-Vivid 2.57 0.54 1.47 0.82 9.506 .000*
20 Not proportional-Proportional 1.58 1.28 1.62 1.00 -0.351 .727
21 Inharmonious-Harmonious 0.66 1.81 0.92 1.53 -1.095 .278
Note: M = Mean value ranging from -3 to 3, SD = Standard deviation.
It is signicant at the level of * p < .05.
tending to make the workspace appear more vivid, bright,
cheerful, and warm. The warm scheme might not be
particularly relevant to the comfort of the workplace.
Regarding the comparison between the workplace with
monochromatic red (scene 1) and warm analogous colors
(scene 3), there were both similarities and differences in the
results. The warm colored workplace obtained the high score
for vivid (M = 2.57, SD = 0.54), cheerful (M = 2.17, SD = 0.75),
attractive (M = 2.11, SD = 0.64), warm (M = 2.11, SD = 0.75)
and evaluated to be exciting (M = -2.06, SD = 0.75) and
dynamic (M = -1.79, SD = 0.97). However, the red workplace
got a higher score for harmonious (M = 1.75, SD = 1.61),
simple (M = 1.06, SD = 1.48) compared to the workplace with
warm color scheme. There was no statistically signicant
difference between the effect of the red and warm colored
workplace with respect to comfort, visual comfort, relaxing,
interesting, preference, spacious, high, open, bright and
proportional.
The nding suggested that the workspace with the warm
analogous color scheme was perceived as somewhat more
pleasant for emotions compared to the monochromatic red.
The warm space was also experienced as higher in arousal and
color perception. Yellow and yellow-red added as accent color
could evoke the different responses to the environment. It
implies that the warm combinations may be applied to the
workplaces where the tasks are boring so that those colors can
stimulate and excite workers.
According to the comparison between the workplace with
monochromatic purple-blue (scene 2) and cool analogous
colors (scene 4), there were both similarities and differences in
the results. The workplace with cool colors received the higher
score ranging in order from the top three scores as follows:
relaxing (M = 2.23, SD = 0.75), cheerful (M = 1.74, SD = 0.92),
open (M = 1.58, SD = 0.93).However, the purple-blue
workplace was perceived to be more harmonious (M = 2.21,

N. Savavibool / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 41 (2020) 581–586586
SD = 0.77), calm (M = 2.09, SD = 0.71), and simple (M = 2.09,
SD = 0.77) than the cool colored workplace. There was no
statistically signicant difference between the two schemes
with respect to satisfying, attractive, beautiful, impressive,
comfortable, visual comfort, static, preference, spacious, high,
bright, and proportional. The ndings imply that purple-blue
and cool color combinations are both appreciated by most
participants. As it can be seen, some of the evaluative factors
related to pleasure dimension of emotion, preference, and
spaciousness were perceived similarity in responses between
the two conditions. This evidence may be involved with color
preference as participants within this experiment chose blue
for their favorite color. The ndings here coincide with several
previous reports (Kamaruzzaman & Zawawi, 2010; Poursafar
et al., 2016).
This would seem to suggest that the preference of color
may inuence subjective evaluation and enhance positive
perception of the work environment. However, it is interesting
that the cool space was perceived more positively than the
purple-blue space for some of the aesthetic evaluations. The
cool colors could make the workspace feel more relaxing,
cheerful, open, and interesting. This nding might be explained
in that green, which was combined to purple-blue color, could
promote a sense of relaxation. It is suggested that the cool
color scheme may be useful for workplaces where the tasks
are stressful. For the monochromatic space, purple-blue
seemed to make the workplace feel more harmonious, calm,
and simple.
It is interesting that the proportional item was rated at
approximately the same level for all the color conditions. This
nding indicated that when the quantity of color in the
workplace does not change, the perceptual effect regarding
proportional would be similar.
Conclusion and Implication
The contribution of this study has increased knowledge as
to how color scheme inuences the aesthetic experience in the
work environment. In designing workspace, the proper
selection of color is critical to the aesthetic appearance. This
study suggests some approaches from the designer’s viewpoint
to choosing color schemes for open-plan work environments.
Using a monochromatic color scheme can provide a sense of
harmony and simplicity and is suitable for a workplace
concerning low level of complexity, whereas the analogous
was more favorable for some of the aesthetic considerations
than the monochromatic scheme. The analogous scheme can
make the workplace more cheerful and interesting. The
purple-blue and cool analogous scheme tended to create a
more positive workplace than the red and warm analogous
scheme. Interior designers require a lot of time using
computers. Thus, the color scheme used must consider a
scheme for visual comfort such as cool analogous scheme.
A limitation of this study is that only one type of workplace
and four color schemes were used in the experiment. Hence,
more color combinations within different workspace should
be investigated. Besides, the current study considered Thai
interior designers. Individual differences (e.g. gender, culture,
profession) should be included in future research as well. In
addition to the method development, this research proposed
the scales to assess overall dimension of aesthetic responses.
The scale needs to be developed and integrated into further
studies to provide more effective assessments of the work
environment.
Conict of Interest
There is no conict of interest.
References
Ceylan, C., Dul, J., & Aytac, S. (2008). Can the ofce environment stimulate a
manager’s creativity? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing &
Service Industries, 18(6), 589–602.
Franz, G. (2006). Space, color, and perceived qualities of indoor environments.
Proceedings of the 19th International Association for People-Environment
Studies Conference (IAPS 2006). Seattle, WA.
Kamaruzzaman, S. N., & Zawawi, E. M. A. (2010). Employees’ perceptions
on color preferences towards productivity in Malaysian ofce buildings.
Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(3), 283–293.
Kobayashi, S. (1990). Colour image scale (1st ed.). New York, NY: Kodansha
International.
Küller, R., Ballal, S., Laike, T., Mikellides, B., & Tonello, G. (2006). The impact
of light and colour on psychological mood: A cross-cultural study of indoor
work environments. Ergonomics, 49(14), 1496–1507.
Küller, R., Mikellides, B., & Janssens, J. (2009). Color, arousal, and
performance—A comparison of three experiments. Color Research &
Application, 34(2), 141–152.
Kwallek, N., & Lewis, C. M. (1990). Effects of environmental colour on males
and females: A red or white or green ofce. Applied ergonomics, 21(4),
275–278.
Kwallek, N., Lewis, C. M., Lin-Hsiao, J. W. D., & Woodson, H. (1996). Effects
of nine monochromatic ofce interior colors on clerical tasks and worker
mood. Color Research and Application, 21(6), 448–458.
Kwallek, N., Woodson, H., Lewis, C. M., & Sales, C. (1997). Impact of
three interior color schemes on worker mood and performance relative
to individual environmental sensitivity. Color Research and Application,
22(2), 121–132.
Liu, S. Y. (2016). Aesthetic factors analysis of interior space. International
Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature, 4(9), 61–74.
Nasar, J. L. (1997). New developments in aesthetics for urban design. Advances
in Environment, Behavior and Design, 4, 149–193.
O’Connor, Z. (2008). Façade colour and aesthetic response: Examining
patterns of response within the context of urban design and planning policy
in Sydney (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Sydney,
Sydney.
Odabaşioğlu, S., & Olguntürk, N. (2015). Effects of coloured lighting on the
perception of interior spaces. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 120(1), 183–201.
Öztürk, E., Yılmazer, S., & Ural, S. E. (2012). The effects of achromatic and
chromatic color schemes on participants’ task performance in and appraisals
of an ofce environment. Color Research & Application, 37(5), 359–366.
Poursafar, Z., Devi, N. R., & Rodrigues, L. R. (2016). Evaluation
of color and lighting preferences in architects’ ofces for enhancing
productivity. International Journal of Current Research and Review, 8(3), 1.
Stone, N. J. (2003). Environmental view and color for a simulated telemarketing
task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 63–78.
Stone, N. J., & English, A. J. (1998). Task type, posters, and workspace color on
mood, satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
18(2), 175–185.
Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 123(4), 394 –409.
Yildirim, K., Cagatay, K., & Ayalp, N. (2015). Effect of wall colour on the
perception of classrooms. Indoor and Built Environment, 24(5), 607–616.