Subjective Evaluation of the Physical Work Environment and the Influence of Personality

  • Knut Inge FostervoldEmail author
  • Anne-Marie Halberg
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 819)


Subjective evaluations of physical working conditions are common in the field of human factors and ergonomics (HFE). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of personality factors on judgements of important physical factors in the work environment. The sample consisted of 80 informants working in a white-collar organization. User evaluations of Lighting, Indoor air, Privacy, Negative affect (NA) and Positive affect (PA) were collected twice, over two consecutive years. The results confirm that personality characteristics do affect appraisals of physical conditions, although only for Negative affect. The results also revealed high stability in subjective judgements across time, both with regard to trait-like emotions (NA and PA) and with regard to appraisal of environmental conditions.


User evaluations Physical work environment Personality characteristics 


  1. 1.
    Newsham GR, Veitch JA (2001) Lighting quality recommendations for VDT offices: a new method of derivation. Lighting Res Technol 33:97–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spector PE, Zapf D, Chen PY, Frese M (2000) Why negative affectivity should not be controlled in job stress research: don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. J Organ Behav 21:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Girardi D, Falco A, Dal Corso L, Kravina L, De Carlo A (2011) Interpersonal conflict and perceived work stress: the role of negative affectivity. TPM 18:257–273Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell JM (1983) Ambient stressors. Environ Behav 15:355–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker J, Cameron M (1996) The effects of the service environment on affect and consumer perception of waiting time: an integrative review and research propositions. J Acad Mark Sci 24:338–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang X, Zuo B, Erskine K, Hu T (2016) Feeling light or dark? Emotions affect perception of brightness. J Environ Psychol 47:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hsee CK, Lowenstein GF, Blount S, Bazerman MH (1999) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis. Psychol Bull 125:576–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thompson ER (2007) Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). J Cross Cult Psychol 38:227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kline RB (2016) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McDonald RP, Ho MHR (2002) Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol Methods 7:64–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model: Multidisciplin J 6:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Watson D, Walker LM (1996) The long-term stability and predictive validity of trait measures of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 70:567–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leue A, Lange S (2011) Reliability generalization: an examination of the positive affect and negative affect schedule. Assessment 18:487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vischer JC (2008) Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: how people are affected by environments for work. Archit Sci Rev 51:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations