ICognitive, Affective
and Behavioral Responses to Three Classroom Designs
Daniel Arkkelin &
Patricia Freeman
Valparaiso University
Paper Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association
Chicago, 2000
Judgments of classroom aesthetics and
functionality were significantly related to positive affect, and these
responses were related to approach responses. Pleasure was the best predictor
of approach, followed by aesthetics and seating comfort. Seminar rooms were
generally evaluated more favorably than tiered lecture balls, and both of these
were preferred over rooms with tablet-arm desks.
A, Title: Cognitive, Affective and
Behavioral Responses to Three Classroom Designs
B. Area: Applied Social; Attitudes
C. Problem or Major Purpose:
Research on environmental
evaluation has focused on either cognitive or affective responses (Kaplan,
1987; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) under the assumption that these responses
predict approach behaviors. The present study obtained multidimensional
measures of cognition, affect and behavior in three types of classrooms:
seminar rooms, tiered lecture halls, and rooms with tablet-arm desks.
Intercorrelations among the variables and differences in these responses to the
three types of rooms were examined.
D. Procedure:
Students enrolled in
courses in three instances of each of the three classroom types (seminar, N =
118; tiered, N = 163; desks, N 116) were asked to evaluate their classroom by
responding to 7-point scales measuring aesthetic judgments (aesthetic value,
coherence, legibility, complexity and mystery) and functionality judgments
(quality of lighting, seating comfort, writing surface and ability to see/bear)
and completing the Mehrabian and Russell (1970) scales of affect (pleasure,
arousal and dominance) and approach-avoidance (desire to stay, explore, work
and affiliate).
E. Results:
The cognitive responses of
aesthetics and functionality and the affective response of pleasure were
strongly related to one another and to approach responses, while arousal and
dominance were more weakly related to these responses (see Table 1).
Stepwise multiple regression analyses
indicated that of all of the individual scales of cognitive and affective
responses, pleasure was the best predictor of approach, followed by judged
seating comfort and aesthetic quality (B. .70).
ANOVA’s yielded
significant effects of classroom type on all measured variables (see Table 2). LSD comparisons
revealed that the tiered moms were rated higher than the seminar and desk rooms
on complexity and aesthetics. The seminar rooms were rated higher than the
tiered and desk rooms on functionality, arousal, dominance and approach. The
seminar and tiered rooms were rated higher than the desk rooms on coherence,
legibility, mystery and pleasure.
F. Conclusions and Implications:
The correlational results
are interpreted in the context of a model of environment-behavior, which posits
cognitive and affective processes as interrelated mediators of the effects of environmental
design features on approach behaviors (Veitch & Arkkelin, 1995). The ANOVA
results indicate that seminar rooms are generally evaluated more favorably than
are tiered lecture halls, and both of these are preferred over rooms with
tablet-arm desks. Implications for classroom design are discussed.
References
Kaplan, S. (1987).
Aesthetics, affect, and cognition. Environment and Behavior, 19(fl,
3-32.
Mehrabian, A., &
Russell, J.A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology.
Cambridge, Mass. 7 MIT Press.
Veitch, R, & Arkkelin,
D. (1995). Environmental Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Table 1
Intercorrelations of Cognitive. Affective and Behavioral Responses1
______________________________________________________________
Aesthetics Functionality Pleasure Arousal Dominance Approach
Aesthetics -- .51 .58 .39 .22 .59
Functionality — .49 .24 .27 .56
Pleasure -- .53 .39 .60
Arousal -- .32 .43
Dominance -- .36
Approach -
_______________________________________________________________
1p < .01 for all correlations (df= 395).
Table 2
Mean Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral
Responses to Three Classroom Types1
________________________________________________________________
Room Type
Variables
Seminar Desk
Tier F(2.394)
Cognition
Coherence 4.75b 4.05a 4.75b 17.86
Legibility 5.09b 4.42a 5.Olb 10.67
Complexity 3.04a 3.27a 4.09b 22.75
Mystery 3.26b 2.64a 3.48b 9.54
Aesthetics 3.95b 3.03a 4.41c 27.65
Functionality 22.59c 16.41a 20.61b 70.59
Affect
Pleasure 27.30b 23.90a 27.15b 9.77
Arousal 21.79b 18.44a 19.86a 8.46
Dominance 24.88c 21.32a 23.07b 12.46
Behavior
Approach 33.31c 24.37a 30.31b 41.11
1p < .001 for all F-values. Means with different
subscripts are significantly different by LSD comparisons (p < .05).