An exploration of environmental psychology in architecture

Everyone knows a big, tall room feels ‘open’, and a small, low-ceilinged room feels ‘cosy’ or ‘intimate’. These axioms are a key part of Adolf Loos’ Raumplan concept, whereby rooms are sized according to their function and intended ‘feel’ and arranged in three-dimensions to guide the user along a journey. These assumptions are also evident in phenomenology, where certain truths for how forms, textures, and colours make the user feel are assumed.

However, are these axioms universal? Does an agoraphobic find a cavernous room open or intimidating; does a claustrophobic find small rooms cosy or stifling? Not just limited to phobias and disorders, but personality and even feelings in the moment could also change one’s perception of architectural spaces. These psychological assumptions may also be highly cultural, and many of these perceived truths may be simply Westernised design norms exported through historical Western cultural hegemony - from the Classical era to the International Style and beyond. How one person from one culture feels about an architectural space may be drastically different to another person from somewhere else; conversely there may be significant universal agreement between people and cultures. With much of design seemingly rooted in accepted psychological & physiological assumptions, where is the truth of the matter to be found?

Firstly, how can one test these assumptions, and is there any empirical evidence behind them? Is red truly ‘warm’ and blue truly ‘cold’; how do these colours make the user feel on a deeper level and - most importantly - why? Testing this basic hypothesis alone is not simple, requiring controlled psychological studies, isolating variables, and a working knowledge of psychology and neurology.

But before even thinking about testing these assumptions – and there are many – it is important to question whether even the notion of assigning empirical analysis to something as subjective as design is appropriate. It strays dangerously close to an ancient, and likely unsolvable, philosophical quandary: can there be truth in beauty? Can beauty be quantified, understood, and studied by the scientific method? Arguably, yes, given that these various design assumptions are supposedly universal axioms and therefore it should be possible to prove that the majority of people do indeed think red is a warm colour, for example. Of course, this is scaling back the scope of the discussion away from the study of universal beauty in form, texture, and colour, which likely remains a philosophical pursuit, and simply assesses and aggregates people’s attitudes towards these various elements of architectural design. If it can be found, through scientific study, that the majority of people do in fact think of the colour red as ‘warm’, then it proves the axiom true and it can be said with factual confidence that this colour is indeed warm.

The field of this study is environmental psychology, and it is surprisingly difficult to find good literature on the topic. There are thousands of ‘pop-psychology’ articles to be found on search engines espousing, with no uncertainty, that certain colours make people feel certain things for example. These articles, however, almost never back up their assumptions with fact based research. They are just that – assumptions so ubiquitous and commonly accepted that they have become axioms. As such, can it be simply assumed that they are true given that they are opinions near universally held? Anyone who understands the scientific method should now be answering no; as one should never assume, and everything should be tested. As such, it is most certainly worthwhile researching environmental psychology to better understand people’s reactions to all kinds of decisions made by designers and architects on a daily basis – even if this research only confirms these commonly held beliefs.

What to do with this information is an obvious question. Once we have found out that there are certain universal truths in perception of design (or, indeed, that there is no basis for these assumptions and people are wholly divided), what can an architect do with this information? Designing spaces that accurately tap into the psychological and physiological responses of most users is clearly the first reason to research this topic. Not only can spaces be better designed to illicit desired responses from a building’s users, such as a calming bedroom or energising office lobby, but understanding psychologically why these responses occur allows for even tighter control and more effective designs. Additionally, more granular data again enables more effective delivery of a certain desired ‘feel’. Not just that blue is calming colour, for example, but which shade of blue, and if it is a light then what wavelength, and is it affected by reflectivity, shadows, forms, volume sizes, etc.? Perhaps a certain shade of blue is more effective at being calming in smaller spaces, and another shade works better for larger spaces? Knowing which exact colour, form, texture, or combination, to pick for a design will make it more effective at eliciting its intended user response and thus arguably be ‘better’ architecture.

Even in this simple example above regarding the colour blue, however, the number of variables that could affect a user's reaction to the blue stimulus is staggering; a room's length, width, height, ambient light levels, reflectivity of the blue surface, cleanliness of the room, the surrounding environment, sounds, smells, the users mood, expectations and culture, the time of day and year, and much more besides. Despite this difficulty in isolating variables, attempts have been made at studying this field. A difficult to track down book is Psychology for Architects by David Canter from the University of Surrey, published in 1974, which considers open plan offices, individual differences to designs, the use of space and usage patterns, and how the built environment should be user-orientated for not just consider physical comfort (light, warmth, etc.) but also psychological comfort. Environmental Psychology for Design by Dak Kopek at Radford University, published 2012, is a larger tome and devotes whole chapters each to the psychology of the home, the community/neighbourhood, learning & education facilities, office environments, healthcare facilities, resorts & recreation establishments, and retail & service environments. The book also covers sensation and perception, and how this might change for different ages and abilities of user groups.

However, neither of these books address the issue at hand – namely, can we be sure of the many design assumptions made by designers and architects every day, and how can we improve the efficacy of these design choices? I intend to continue to research the topic and will upload another blog post if/when I have any further information to share.