Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Environment and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Biner, P. M.
Right arrow Articles by Burns, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Windowlessness in the Workplace

A Reexamination of the Compensation Hypothesis

Paul M. Biner

Ball State University

Darrell L. Butler

Ball State University

Theresa E. Lovegrove

Rachel L. Burns

A series of studies was performed to explore the hypothesis that employees in windowless offices compensate for the lack of windows. In Experiment 1, students rated the degree to which they perceived various office features to be substitutes for windows. Analyses revealed four general categories of potential window substitutes: other apertures (e.g., skylights), paintings/art, living things (e.g., plants), and panels (e.g., light panels). Experiment 2 supported the external validity of the data in Experiment 1 in that full-time office workers produced virtually identical ratings of window substitutability. Experiment 3 was a field study of 173 offices. Measurements were made of the number and size of windows, number and size of all potential window substitutes, and size of wall space available for pictures. Size was measured in degrees of visual angle from the office workers' chairs. No evidence was obtained to indicate that any of the features measured were more prevalent or larger in offices without windows. Furthermore, power analyses indicated that the study had sufficient power to find such effects. Experiment 4 was designed to investigate other potential reasons for the use of the items that were examined in Experiment 3. Several reasons, such as space personalization, were found to be perceived by office occupants as more important than the desire to compensate for lack of windows.

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 25, No. 2, 205-227 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0013916593252003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Environment and BehaviorHome page
R. Kaplan
The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological Benefits
Environment and Behavior, July 1, 2001; 33(4): 507 - 542.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Environment and BehaviorHome page
N. J. Stone
Windows and Environmental Cues on Performance and Mood
Environment and Behavior, May 1, 1998; 30(3): 306 - 321.
[Abstract]