Spatial and Behavioral Variables That Affect “Emotional Attachment” of Users: A Multi-Dimensional Approach for Private Offices

Abstract

Attachment to workplaces is a new concept for which appropriate assessment approaches are required. The present study proposes a multi-dimensional model for the issue. The model is based on following variables: (i) technical, (ii) functional, (iii) spatial impact, (iv) emotional status of the studying person and (v) attachment. A questionnaire of 43 items was conducted to measure user satisfaction regarding performances. 170 academicians from Gazi University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture replied. All subjects were full time academicians and owned a private room. Within the framework of the proposed model, firstly correlations between variables were analyzed. Secondly, causality analyses were performed to diagnose the effect of each performance variable on “emotional attachment”. Findings diagnosed emotional status as the variable that had the most significant effect on emotional attachment. Spatial impact was the second and functional performance was the third and the last. No significant effect of technical performance was valid. Further analysis re-tested these effects to find out discrepancies in terms of personal factors; (i) age, (ii) status, (iii) department and (iv) gender. Findings identified the personal factors that were and were not in line with the aforementioned effects. The present study underlines the importance of functional and behavioral performances in the assessment of private offices and supports a holistic approach for such environments. In this context, it is not in line with several previous researches that focused on technical issues as a primary concern.

 Keywords: attachment, workplace, private offices, gender, age, status, performance, user satisfaction

 

Keywords

• -

References

1. Vischer, J.C., Environmental Quality in Offices, Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1989)
2. Vischer, J.C., Workspace Strategies: Environment as a Tool for Work, Van Nostrand Reinhold, USA (1996)
3. Reffat R.B. ve Harkness E.L., “Environmental Comfort Criteria: Weighing and Integration”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 108 (2001)
4. Mahdavi, A. ve Unzeiting, U., “Occupancy Implications of Spatial, Indoor-environmental and Organizational Features of Office Spaces”, Building and Environment, 40: 113-123 (2005)
5. Sundstrom et al., “Office Noise, Satisfaction and Performance”, Environment and Behavior, 26: 195- (1994)
6. O’ Neill, M.J., “Workspace Adjustability, Storage and Enclosure as Predictors of Employee Reactions and Performance”, Environment and Behavior, 26 (4) 504-526 (1994).
7. Wells M. & Thelen L., “What Does Your Workplace Say About You?”, Environment and Behavior, 34 (3) 300-321 (2002).
8. Stone N.J. & English A.J., “Task Type Posters and Workspace Color on Mood, Satisfaction and Performance”, Psychology, 18: 175-185 (1998) Environmental

9. Kupritz, V., 2001, “Aging Worker Perceptions about
10. Design and Privacy Needs for Work”, Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 18 (1): 13-22 (2001)
11. Kupritz, V., “The effects of Physical Design on Routine Work Activities”, Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 20 (2): 110-121 (2003)
12. Kupritz, V., “Accommodating Privacy to Facilitate New Ways of Working”, Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 20 (2): 123-135 (2003)
13. Preiser, W.F.E., Rabinowitz, H.Z., White, E.T., Post-Occupancy Evaluation, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York (1988)
14. İnce, F.S., Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Closed Offices: Example of GUFEA Academic Staff Building, Gazi University, Institute of Science and Technology, unpublished Master’s Degree Thesis (2006)
15. Leather, P., Beale, D. ve Sullivan L., “Noise, Psychosocial Stress and Their Interaction in the Workplace”, Psychology, 23: 213-222 (2002)
16. Muhic, S. ve Butala V., “The Influence of Indoor Environment in Office Buildings on Their Occupants: Expected - Unexpected”, Building and Environment, 39: 289-296 (2004)