PREMISAS DE DISEÑO ACÚSTICO PARA MÓDULOS DE

This chapter describes Experiments 2 and 3 which were designed to replicate the Maslow and Mintz study. These experiments were prompted by the previous experiment which failed to replicate the Maslow and Mintz finding although with certain design differences between that experiment and the Maslow and Mintz experiment which might explain the failure of replication. Therefore the intention was to replicate the Maslow and Mintz paradigm as closely as possible and in this regard Experiment 3 was a closer replication than Experiment 2. These

experiments also incorporated tests of theories mentioned earlier and not directly relevant to the Maslow and Mintz finding. Apart from describing the relevant dependent measures employed and the results briefly the work will be discussed in a later chapter.

Experiment 2

In attempting to replicate the Maslow and Mintz study it must be

remembered that the original experiment was run in a different country and culture over 30 years ago and these factors alone must limit the extent to which these or any experiment can be referred to as a replication. As explained Experiment 1 had certain obvious design differences from the original Maslow and Mintz study which might

experiment. Therefore Experiment 2 employed experimenters not including the author, and negative rather than positive prints of people's faces as the stimuli and these were scaled for energy and well-being as in the Maslow and Mintz study.

Design differences still existed between this experiment and the

original and it was believed that these would not compromise a test of the Maslow and Mintz study. In the Maslow and Mintz study the

experimenter stayed in the room with the subject throughout the

session. However Experiment 2 was intended as a test of the effects of room aesthetic only, the procedure was therefore automated as much as possible with instructions to subjects contained in sealed envelopes and on a cassette recorder and with therefore virtually no interaction between the experimenter and subject in the experimental room.

Experimenters were kept blind to the room manipulation and the purpose of the experiment and to further ensure experimenter naivety different experimenters were employed in the two room conditions. Whilst this procedure does confound experimenter effects within room condition it does ensure that experimenters could be kept completely naive about the room condition manipulation. Experimenter effects within room

conditions can however be considered as an indication of experimenter effects between rooms. As in Experiment 1, and also different to the Maslow and Mintz paradigm, only one experimental room was employed with changes to furniture and decorations to implement the independent manipulation thus achieving controls for architectural and other

attributes.

This experiment also tested other ideas as in Experiment 1 in addition to the scaling of the photographs and also had subjects come back for

repeat sessions. The additional measures included measurement of subject's heart rate. However this and the other additional measures were not intrusive and believed not to compromise the main test. The original Maslow and Mintz finding was that scores obtained in the pleasant room would be higher (more energy and well-being) than those in the unpleasant room.

Method

Design

One room was used, which measured x 3-Om with a 2.8m high ceiling. The room, which was not the same room as employed in Experiment 1, was a laboratory room in the Department although with furniture and

decoration so as to appear as an office and with otherwise no special meaning or significance to subjects or experimenters. The entrance door was labelled only "427", the room number. The room was in a reasonable state of decor and had light brown carpet with all walls painted a light beige and the ceiling in white. Furniture and other items of decoration which stayed in the room in both independent conditions included the subject's chair, two desks, two 4 -draw filing cabinets, wall cabinet, BBC microcomputer, screens partitioning off some of the room, two sets of bookshelves and various reference books and files.

Items of furniture and decoration placed in the room in each of the two experimental conditions were as follows:

Pleasant Room (PH): 3 posters of attractive scenic views, 3 house­ plants, 2 attractive cards on the pinboard, low modern coffee table, 3

fruit in a bowl, empty new waste paper bin, books and everything generally tidily arranged and clean.

Unpleasant Room (UR): 2 defaced pictures, torn line drawing on the pinboard, 2 dead houseplants, 3 old chairs, one ripped and one covered in chalk dust, torn crooked lampshade, cardboard boxes, projector stand, old newspapers and files scattered around, 2 full ashtrays, orange peel, confectionery papers, used coffee cups, dust on the floor, dented and full waste paper bin, books and everything generally untidy. Photographs of two views of each setting are shown in Figures ^ and 4-. Subjects were randomly allocated in equal numbers to the following

conditions: Room, Experimenter and Subject Sex. In addition l8 of the subjects were recruited for a repeat session, 8 (2 male, 6 female) in the PR repeat session and 10 (6 male, 4 female) in the UR repeat session.

The experiment was run in blocks with the independent room manipulation to furniture and decoration altered between each block to reduce

confounding due to time. Four experimenters (one male, three female) were employed, a different experimenter in each of the first 4 blocks, so that two experimenters were nested within each of the room

conditions. Each of the first four 4 blocks were run with 6 male and 6 female subjects. As different experimenters were employed in each of the room conditions, thus ensuring they were blind to the other room condition, it is impossible to measure experimenter effects which are confounded with room condition. Repeat session subjects were run with different experimenters to those employed in the first sessions, although time limitations with respect to the room facilities meant that only subjects from the first two blocks could be run in the repeat sessions. The order of presentation of the dependent measure materials

Figure 3* Experiment 2: Two views of the Pleasant Room

was the same for all subjects such that any order effects from the materials were controlled across subjects.

Subjects

24 male and 24 female subjects were recruited from the Department’s subject register with a letter describing the experiment only in pretext terms according to it s name "Cognitive Styles in Problem Solving". Psychology and Architecture faculty students were screened from the recruitment to minimise the possibility of subjects guessing the true purpose of the experiment. The author did not interact with subjects except on the telephone to arrange session appointments. Subjects were paid cl.00 each for their participation.

Experimenters

Four experimenters were recruited, one male and three female, from the Department's second and third year undergraduate student population. The experiment was described to the experimenters in terms of interest in the way people solve problems and perform tasks according to their mood. Experimenters did not run sessions in the other room condition nor did they see it at any time. They were asked not to discuss the experiment with other experimenters or students until completion of the experiment and were kept blind to the nature of the experimental

manipulation and hypotheses. The experimenters were paid c2.50 per session for their participation.

Stimuli

8 negative-print photographs of head-and-shoulders views of people were employed, arranged alternately male and female. The photographs