Ariel Ione

The following is an article regarding adhering to employee subjective wellbeing through the workplace design

Introduction

“By 2020 mental health disorders and cardiovascular diseases will be the two prime types of illnesses in workers” (World Health Organization, 2010). Noting that the average human spends ninety percent of their life in indoor environments, a majority being the workplace, it is imperative we explore this environment (Eberhard, 2009). As Alain de Botton philosophizes in his book, “we are different people in different places”, further emphasizing the impact our environments have on our experiences (2006). It is the minutia of our environments that can have subtle subconscious affects on our mental and emotional states. As a result of the exciting development in mental health,  positive psychology and subjective wellbeing come into realization. The term subjective wellbeing will and can be represented and defined here as happiness due to its commonly interchangeable nature, however, this paper will predominantly use the phrase subjective wellbeing to indicate that wellbeing is an individual’s experience of wellness.  

The purpose of this literature review is to analyze the research done thus far on subjective wellbeing, the current stasis of the workplace, and how workplace environments can be utilized to stimulate high levels of subjective well being for employees. The workplace environment can be described as the traditional office space where employees work. Since we spend a predominant part of our lives in these spaces, it is imperative we understand our relationship with them. This paper will begin by providing an overview of subjective wellbeing from the perspective of positive psychology including a definition, model, and listing of benefits physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally. This will then be followed by a section introducing 21st century workplace environments, their design, and an understanding through environmental psychology, and end with integrative examples of subjective wellbeing in the workplace. Next, the theoretical frameworks and models will be discussed. Lastly, the conclusion will be presented and include a critical evaluation of the existing literature and be followed by direction for future work.
                                                Summary of Existing Work

Subjective Wellbeing

Positive Psychology Definition

Historically, psychology is derived of off pathology. According to a positive psychology study, the ratio of psychological articles focusing on negative states opposed to positive states is 17:1 (Diener, Eunkoo, & Suh, 1999). It wasn’t until the likes of Viktor Frankl, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and today’s Martin Seligman at the University of Pennsylvania that initiatives in studying positive states began to take place. In 1967, Warner Wilson declared subjective wellbeing (or happiness) as the individual who is “young, healthy, well educated, well-paid, extroverted, optimistic, worry-free, religious, married person with high self-esteem, job morale, modest aspirations, of either sex and of a wide range of intelligence” (1967). Three decades later, the emphasis on demographic description has metamorphosed to the study of “understanding the processes that underlie happiness” (Diener, Eunkook, & Suh, 1999).

There are a variety of theories on what elements take priority within these processes in order to achieve higher states of subjective wellbeing. The focus for prioritization ranges from social support, coping skills, goals, emphasis on strengths, disposition, values, emotional regulation, previous experiences, to unique expectations (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). However, much like Diener and Suh found in their isolated analysis of social indicators on subjective wellbeing, no factorial can fully provide subjective wellbeing in its entirety (1997). Instead, subjective wellbeing is an amalgamation of life balances. While this sequencing has been theorized in a variety of fashions, this article will focus on the most prevalent model to create consistency, the PERMA model. Consequently, there is an array of contributors to subjective wellbeing that will not be addressed within this article.

After his studies on helplessness Martin Seligman founded the area of Positive Psychology. The argument currently stands on whether positive psychology is a school in itself or an additive lens to the entire field of psychology. Nonetheless, Seligman’s (and positive psychology’s) main focus was and is subjective wellbeing. Through his pursuits, Seligman construed subjective wellbeing as a determinant of and can be described as collection of physiological, psychological, and emotional states. Collectively, these states govern an individual’s interpretation of the world and therefore behavior and informational intake (Seligman, 2011). A widely used benchmark model developed by Seligman is PERMA, which stands for Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Achievement (Seligman, 2011). By strengthening each area, the model serves as a guide in the pursuit of subjective wellbeing. It is this model that Seligman hoped would help people flourish.

PERMA

Because of its universal application and positioning as a benchmark model, the PERMA model will be the primary source of calibrating subjective wellbeing in the capacity of workplace design. Martin Seligman suggested this model represent the five core components of subjective wellbeing; positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and achievement. We will now divulge further into each area as to provide an understanding of later application.

Experiencing frequent positive emotions, or otherwise referred to as positive affect (affect meaning moods and emotions), is postulated to longitudinally play an important role in sustained levels of subjective wellbeing while simultaneously experiencing infrequent negative emotions (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Positive emotions can range from joy, anticipation, optimism, compassion, curiosity, inspiration, gratitude, awe, and most frequently used, happiness. Those within this research field, believe it is important to recognize their acknowledgment and acceptance of negative emotions as well (Diener et al., 1999). They simply choose to accept negative emotions in order to cultivate a more positive understanding of a situation. There are studies on individuals with sustained lower levels of subjective wellbeing and the increased challenges they face in returning to a “base line” state of wellbeing (Seligman, 2011). For this reason, PERMA exists to guide those experiencing lower states of subjective wellbeing with ways to increase states or return to a baseline state of subjective wellbeing.

Engagement can be interpreted as flow or “a positive state of intense focus and engagement with a challenging activity” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). This state can be expressed as deep concentration, loss of sense of time, and working through challenges (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). While this topic often is auxiliary to subjective wellbeing and happiness, we will isolate it here as just one factorial of subjective wellbeing. A landmark study using experience-sampling methods (ESM) by Csikszentmihalyi, Larson, and Prescott sheds light on the variability of positive and negative states experienced in everyday life using real time data (1977). Pagers were provided to participants that prompted open-ended questions throughout the day and week asking them to report their thoughts and feelings in provided self-report forms. As a result, they were able to operationalize flow states, examine types of activities and mental states conducive to flow, and correlate regularity of flow with characteristics of the person (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987). They were surprised to find people predominantly engaging in flow states at work rather than during leisure. This surprise derived from the perpetuated complaining within society about having to work. Thus, Csikszentmihalyi declared that leisure time be more structured and challenging in order to produce happiness in leisure (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

The relationship sector of PERMA is specific to positive social relationships. Amongst the diverse findings of cultural prioritization and perspectives of happiness, social relationships are found to be universal aspects of subjective wellbeing even amongst individualist and collectivist countries (Diener & Seligman, 2002). While studying the association of social interactions and mood using ESM, Lucas and Diener found that participants reported significantly more positive while amongst others than being alone (2001). In addition to the ESM research, comparative studies on the subjective wellbeing of those married versus single have shown fascinating results of both men and woman having higher levels of sustained subjective wellbeing from being in a long-term relationship (Glen, 1975) (Gove & Shin, 1989) (White, 1992) (Mastekaasa, 1995)(Diener, Gohm, Suh, & Oishi, 1998). Core Lee. M. Keyes at Emory State University wrote an article on social wellbeing illustrating the developmental stages of social responsibility and influence, as well as, the important elements social engagements bring about to form subjective wellbeing (2016). Keyes emphasized social structure’s responsibility in constraining or facilitating “individuals’ ability and opportunity to respond successfully to the social challenges of life “(Keyes, 2016). These social structures chronologically become more important later on in life for cultivating other dimensions of health and wellbeing (Keyes, 2016)(Ryff, 1989c).

Meaning, according to the PERMA model, is finding purpose and fulfillment in life (Seligman, 2011). According to Michael F. Steger in the Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, meaning operates on two pillars, comprehension and purpose (2009).  Steger then expresses, “in some ways, the ability to derive meaning form experience and environment is fundamental to the success of humanity” (2009). Viktor Frankl theorized in 1963 that meaning is “having a clear sense of what they are trying to do with their lives or what the purpose of their existence is “ (Steger, 2009). In essence, people with stronger meaning and purpose in their lives have been found to have higher levels of subjective wellbeing.

Achievement can be best described as having goals and ambitions in life in order to achieve a sense of accomplishment (Seligman, 2011). There is a large body of research just on goal setting alone that encapsulates the profundity goals serve in our lives. Within our neurological and endocrine frameworks there is an entire system devoted to reward-based responses and sensations (Diener et al., 1999).

            Benefits of Higher Levels of Subjective Wellbeing

1948 the World Health Organization declared health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not being merely the absence of disease and infirmity”. Ryff and Singer postulated, “it is what occurs in the body when the mind is fully engaged in living and loving that most fully captures the essential meaning of positive human health” (1998). The subject itself of wellbeing has captivated humans from the dawn of time, however, these comparable definitions of health and wellness emphasize the oscillation over time.  

Albeit nominal in quantity compared to the opposing research on pathology, quality findings on the long-term benefits of higher levels of subjective wellbeing have proven consistent. Physiologically, studies have proven to increase health, faster cardiovascular recovery, recovery from health threats, and increased (Ryff & Singer, 1998)(Frederickson & Levenson, 1998). Key studies on improving psychological wellbeing following diagnosis of breast cancer have become pivotal in linking positive states with recovery, survival rates, and spontaneous remissions (Melnechuk, 1988 ) (Grossarth-Maticek, 1980)(Pert, Euff, Weber, & Werkenham, 1984).These studies emphasize the potent relationship between positive emotion and physiological response.

Psychologically and emotionally, heightened levels of subjective wellbeing have been found to produce positive emotions, increased competency and efficacy, resilience, rapid return to basal levels, increased levels of dopamine and serotonin, broad-minded-coping, and decrease in levels of depression (Ryff & Singer, 1998) (Frederickson & Joiner, 2002) (Seligman, et al, 2005). Emotionally, people with higher states of wellbeing have more meaningful relationship, social support, coping skill, self-acceptance, purpose, and fulfillment (Diener et al., 1999) (Frederickson & Joiner, 2002) (Mauss et al, 2011). The topic of altruism or giving to others, often another component of subjective wellbeing, was linked to the release of endorphins (Hafen, Karren, Frandsen, & Smith, 1996a). While these results are exciting, the methodology used is still up for debate. Typical scales or methods come from self-report questionnaires, context not being considered. The two predominant scales used to measure subjective wellbeing are Diener’s Life Satisfaction Scale and Ryff’s Personal Subjective Wellbeing, both being in the format of short questionnaries (Diener et al., 1999). Seligman tested a series of exercises immediately and six months post such as ‘three good things’ and ‘gratitude visit’ assessing the impact on levels of happiness and depression (Seligman, et al, 2005). These were found to be favorable in increase states of happiness on both occasions. Nonetheless, the methodology for quantifying and qualifying subjective wellbeing is questionable.

Subjective Wellbeing in the Workplace

            21st Century Workplace

We will now look at the demands of 21st century workplace environments, how humans interact with their sociophysical environments through the lens of environmental psychology, and how design characteristics can be utilized to synthesize our understandings of workplace environments and human sociophysical behavior in order to generate higher states of subjective wellbeing for employees.

Currently, we are in a world of climaxing technology, immediacy, profound awareness, and generational evolvement (Steinmetz, 2017). All of which are moving at a rapid rate and have no mind in stopping. It is imperative that we embrace these changes in order to grow as a species and society. For example, technology has reconfigured the scope of communication and interpersonal relations, providing new avenues for companies to communicate virtually (Steinmetz, 2017). The accessibility of information and dependency on the internet has created a general societal disposition of immediacy. With this disposition and communication format emanates a need for immediate change and a litany of new demands from employees. Since employees make up the biggest portion of costs for companies, it is their existence that has beckoned a shift in infrastructure and demand for change. Typically, most companies still host workplace environments for their employees and 54% of waking life is spent in the workplace. Consequentially, the design of workplace environments has been under investigation for its involvement in subjective wellbeing (Sodexo, 2014.) A shift from the once a grey toned palate of rowed cubicles has now become an open workspace with pool tables and a plethora of windows, illustrating companies’ desire to satiate employee demands for greater levels of subjective wellbeing within the workplace.

Areas such as neuroergonomics, biomechanics, and medical imaging have come together to enhance workplace design, specifically for the individual (Gielo-Perezak & Karwowski, 2005). One driving factor of this coagulation in disciplines is the increase in musculoskeletal disorders, which are believed to be byproducts of habituated physiological behaviors within the workplace (Gielo-Perezak & Karwowski, 2005). One theory on the development of musculoskeletal disorders and other physical impairments is the duration spent sitting, which is estimated to be an average of 9.5 hours a day. The American Cancer Society reported, “people who sat for more than 6 hours per day, versus just 3 hours, are more likely to die sooner (males – 18 percent more likely; females – 37 percent more likely)” (Haworth, 2015). Physical health is a major player when it comes to subjective wellbeing. It is important to understand the current conditions being potentially a consequence of poor workplace design planning.  

As a society, there has been an increased awareness how we are spending our time, as well as, a need for autonomy and identification. The workplace environments are typically homogenously rendered for the group and not for individual experiences. However, there are research initiatives being made to understand how design within social settings can be curated for the individual. While initiatives are being made for a more holistic experience for employees, researchers are still flummoxed on how to cater to the individual in a group setting (Gielo-Perezak & Karwowski, 2005). Designing for individualization within the workplace environment is a propagating topic of research and development.

In addition to the new demands in the workplace, there remain traditional expectations of occupations. General work expectations include performance, contribution of strengths, quality interpersonal relationships, organizational resilience, fast effective decisions making, and productivity (Csikszentmihalyi & Lefevre, 1989). In studies on flow, Csikszentmihalyi observed that people are generally three times more engaged at work than they are during leisure activities (Csikszentmihalyi & Lefevre, 1989). Hypocritically, employee engagement has been found to be one of the biggest challenges within the workplace with an average 32% reporting to be engaged (Haworth, 2015). Engagement at work is not only vital for the employees’ level of subjective wellbeing; it is critical in production for companies. Over the past decades, however, companies have been more focused on prosperous results rather than increasing the significance of employee wellbeing. Due to reports of spiked mental health issues, high turnover rates, absenteeism, lack of motivation and fulfillment, and sick-building syndrome, companies begun shifting concerted efforts towards employee subjective wellbeing (Hue & Aye, 2018).  In order to boost morale companies have taken to concepts such as meditation rooms, workout facilities, and culture facilitators. Workplace initiatives have a ways to go to reach the complexity of employee satisfaction and subjective wellbeing, especially for the generation Z to come.

Additionally, evolutionary development from technology has enhanced curiosity (Steinmetz, 2017). Generation Z is said to abstractly defy the infrastructure laid out by their predecessors. For instance, “60% of Generation Z-ers, ages 13-22, say they are doing some form of freelancing… There’s this expectation of diversity in everything they do” (Steinmetz, 2017). In order to appease incoming generations, the workplace collaboration space and cultural environmental will need to cater to elements of security. Curiosity needs some level of comprehension in order to be facilitated otherwise people will stray from too much abstract, which motivates also learning and exploration (Silva, 2014). For this new generation and to provide decrease in turnover, sparking curiosity within the workplace environment would be key.

            Environmental Psychology

For many architects and design planners, the relationship between the user and the sociophysical surroundings plays a key role in development of user experience (Stokols, 1995). Sociophysical surroundings can be defined as spatial contexts of an individual or group. Environmental psychology is just one way this relationship has been defined, however, over time this concept has been bestowed several titles such as ecological psychology, architectural psychology, and green psychology to name a few (Giuliani & Scopelliti, 2009). This relationship has fascinated researchers and continues to grow interdisciplinary (Stokols, 1995).

            Environmental psychology can be defined as “ the scientific study of the interplay between human behavior and its environmental setting”, an inherently multidisciplinary field (Schultz & Kaiser, 2012). This trending field emphasizes the growing demand for human centered designs while honing in on the individual user needs with concepts like place, identity, and attachment (Giuliani & Scopelliti, 2009). It is critical here that we understand this field when approaching workplace design, because once again, employees will spend a majority of their time and life within these constrains.

Within environmental psychology, there is a belief that people are directly affected by their environment whether they are conscious of it or not (Stokols, 1978).  Potency of behaviors for example goal setting, perceiving future activity, and achievement can all be attributed to the quality of the context of the surroundings (Stokols, 1978). Productively, these behaviors take priority and determine the quality of contributions and outcomes from employees. Goal setting and achievement are also critical for subjective wellbeing and relate directly to the PERMA model. Therefore, it is important to understand the environmental factors characteristic to stimulating higher levels of perceived contexts that support goal attainment, planning, and future activity.

            Workplace Design

“Architectural settings inspire and constrain behavior and cognition through the affordances they offer, and users, by actualizing affordances, change conditions in their environments thereby shaping affordances available to them” (Malinin, 2016). Elements within our environments have profound capacity to excite, delight, and transform us. With their considerations, we are able to tap into the relationship possibilities between humans and design. It is here we will address a concise list of design elements most responsible for our subjective wellbeing and experience within the workplace. While a litany of universal elements exist, for the purpose of this paper we will focus on direction, aesthetics, lighting, ventilation, noise, and biophilia. It is important to note, areas such as ergonomics, safety, construction, and other operational characteristics seen as fundamental to architectural and spatial design will not be mentioned (i.e. security, maintenance, and flexibility in use).

Direction A major component in curating a user experience through environmental design is providing the user with direction or intention. Without direction, the environment may become too complex or distracting for the user. Direction through designs strives to motivate users either explicitly or implicitly. An explicit element may be a door or passageway providing precise navigational direction for a specific location. An implicit element on the other hand may be cathedrals “designed with a narthex (entryway) that is small to prepare our mind for the awe inspiring experience that follows as we enter the nave“ (Eberhard, 2009). This implicit element is an example of how design can be used to direct perspective and emotion. Focal points of direction can be navigation, emotion, spatial perception, socializing and collaboration, and physical activity. Much of this interaction occurs within the senses. The design elements instruct senses to react and formulate behaviors accordingly. The term alliesthesia is the theory that “what human’s want is the stimulation of your senses and you want it to vary and oscillate throughout the day” (Cabanac, 1979). With this consideration, it is important to have diversity with the environmental design. While senses are fundamental operative existences of the human body, it is not to be dismissed that a user’s experience is subjective and not everyone will abide by the listed design cues of direction. This individualization is an opportunity for further research in the field of design with the partnering of subjective wellbeing.

Other navigational design cues aside from doorways and passageways are staircases, signage, and office arrangement. Emotions can be directed by window placement, generating direction outside of the workplace environment, thus invoking emotions such as calmness, tranquility, and inspiration from the witnessing of nature amongst the chaos that is often times found in the workplace (Haworth, 2015). Spatial perception is another major component of design direction. For example, it has been found that ceiling height directs the brain to certain functioning (Wyatt, 2017). High ceilings generally produce creativity and innovation, while low ceilings produce mathematical or linear processing (Wyatt, 2017). Lines, curves, and harmony of form are supply spatial perception; lines provoking linear processing, curves generating calmness and innovation, and harmony of form inspiring unity, coherence, and clarity (Wyatt, 2017).  Areas of socializing and collaboration are immensely important as socializing is inherently critical for workplace satisfaction and productivity. Thus, creating spaces that allow and inspire collaboration and socializing is crucial for workplace subjective wellbeing. Lastly, direction for physical activity is an increasing demand within the workplace, especially as technological demands have increased and there is a prolonged period of time sitting (Rassia, 2017). Staircases, for example, provide actual exercise, while stand up desks provide ancillary to the modern day desk (cf. Joseph et al, 2005). These are some examples of how design can provide direction of user experience.

Color & Texture  “50 percent of our brain is visual”, making our environment and those around us instrumental to our experience (Walker, 2017). The retina and the hypothalamus react to color in the form of hormones producing mood and stress (Agarwal, 2018). For purposes of this section, the focus will be color and texture. Historically, researchers have been fascinated with colors’ relationship on mood and human emotions. While studies remain inconsistent in their findings, longitudinal studies show general stability of a benchmark study done in 1941 by Eysenck on 21, 060 people from different cultures. Eysenck found preferences in an array of six colors; Blue being first, followed by red, green, violet, orange, and yellow, form both genders. While color preferences do mildly alter over time, these variations often reflect the era and trends to which they are studied (Mikellides, 2017). Other studies on impact from hue and saturation have been done using variable such as time estimation, heart rate, and EEG scans (Mikellides, 2017). An example of how color has been integrated within a workplace capacity is the concept of pink room found in police quarters (Walker, 2017). Officers will bring inmates to the pink room in order to generate calmness and sleep (Walker, 2017). Often the colors blue and green are used to invoke calmness and other mood-enhancing responses (Agarwal, 2018). Schools in the Bronx have utilized color on school property to enhance students experience and attendance at school (Walker, 2017).       

Lighting Placement and quality of lighting are pivotal in user experience. The interpretations and affects from insufficient natural and artificial light, glaring, geometry of windows, and photometry of surfaces are viscerally impactful on subjective wellbeing (Leech et al., 2002) (McNicholl and Lewis, 1994).  Artificial and natural lighting, when used appropriately, can stimulate either comfort or discomfort for employees (Yun et al., 2012) (Agarwal, 2018).

Ventilation  Air quality and exposure to harmful elements gravely affects the subjective wellbeing of those within a workspace (Agarwal, 2018) (Hue & Aye, 2018). Often if unmanaged or not regulated, ventilation sources can contain and transfer toxic agents causing cognitive impairments and sick building syndrome, two surprisingly common phenomena within current workplace spaces (Grzywacz, Segel-Karpas, Lachman, 2016) (Hue & Aye, 2018). Poor heating, ventilation and air conditioning, sound absorbing surfaces, materials on furnishings, cleaning chemicals, natural lighting, and filtration and monitoring systems also correlate to sick building syndrome (Rassia, 2017). Due to the health risk air quality imposes, international standards have been created including Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREAM), and Global Sustainability Assessment System (GSAS) (Rassia, 2017).

Noise   Acoustics and noise regulation are imperative to the emotional states of employees within the workplace (Al horr, et al, 2016)(Hue & Aye, 2018). Airborne sounds, outdoor noise, noise from adjacent spaces, noise from office equipment, and sound of nearby facilities put the body the a stressful state and are often disruptive to cognitive processing (Al horr, et al. 2016) (Hue & Aye, 2018).  Without regulation or proper distributing acoustics, an office can quickly become an unproductive workspace causing headaches, distraction, and distress (Hue & Aye, 2018). Design cues to execute noise control can be refraining from creating areas that generate noise (e.g., hands-free speaker phones), arranging noisier teams or collaborative areas strategically away from more focused teams (Hue & Aye, 2018).. Acoustic devices are also available to direct noise control.          

Biophilia   Biophilia is believed to be the intrinsic relationship of human beings and nature (Wyatt, 2017). For humans, witnessing and interacting with nature elicits positive, positive expressions, therapeutic benefits, sense of identity, and belonging (Moller, 1968) (Tauber, 2012)(Gifford, 1995) (Wyatt, 2017) (Aries, 2005). Exposure to nature has also unearthed relations to communal fostering and obesity in children, specifically in urban areas (Moller, 1968). This sense of belonging and community can be channeled in the workplace to harness positive social relationships among employees. Healthier and calmer workplace environments can be further created through large window views of natural settings, natural furnishings and materials, water features, organic curves and lines, fresh air, photos or artificial decorations emulating nature, and nature itself (Hue & Aye, 2018). Within the medical world, hospitals have begun to incorporate these finding within their patient units in order to spawn faster recovery (Gillis & Gatersleben, 2015). Massachusetts General Hospital Brain Center incorporated biophilia through the installations of garden views and an atrium, seeing prosperous results among patients’ recovery (Wyatt, 2017).

 Current Examples

Several companies have integrated design efforts for employee subjective wellbeing within their newly established headquarters. Three examples of these innovative companies are Apple, Samsung, and Amazon. As mentioned before, technology companies are leading edge in innovation and have taken to the concepts of biophilia. Apple’s facility in Cupertino, California strived to use human-centered design in its entirety. The facility is surrounded and built around its own forest, allowing employees to have 180-degree views of nature, as well as, a walking path within the forest to promote physical activity (Walker, 2017). Samsung went from a conservative building to a completely generative building “fostering new relationships and movement” in San Jose, California (Wyatt, 2017). They provide amenities such as nap pods, music listening rooms, open-air terraces, garden floor, double height spaces, floor-to-ceiling windows, fitness center, colored lighting, natural materials, and a “chill zone” (McKnight, 2016). Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle, Washington now incorporates what is called the “spheres” (Amazon, 2018). These dome shaped window paneled spheres operate as an inspirational botanical garden where walkways and working space is available for employees to think, work, and collaborate (Amazon, 2018). Within their headquarters are newly established dog park and a city inclusive design format where the office does not end at the front door and the city is naturally led into the workspace (Wyatt, 2017). As the field of subjective wellbeing and design expands, it will be interesting to see where other industries apply this research.

Conclusions about Existing Work

Critical Evaluations of Existing Work

            The field of subjective wellbeing within the office workplace design is a fairly new area. Despite this newness, there are various researches done on each of the elements involved in the PERMA model. One can find numerous articles on positive emotions, engagement or flow, significance in relationships, meaning, and achievement. Studies of the modern day workplace similarly are abundant from evolutionary proceedings and demands of new generations. Thus, strength in the literature is the tenacity and value in the subject from the general population. Because people strive for higher levels of subjective wellbeing or happiness, this focus is intrinsically attractive and will continue in its momentum. The necessity for survival, growth in economy, and societal expectation to work, drives the curiosity of the workplaces’ operation with our subjective wellbeing. However, due to its recent fruition as a interdisciplinary topic, it is nave in its application, evidence, methodology, and scientific analysis. The respects of personality, individualism, and autonomy are also scant in study (Giuliani & Scopelliti, 2009). Results have also been inconsistent.

Direction for Future Work

            Although the interdisciplinary field of subjective wellbeing and workplace design is premature, it is picking up momentum rapidly. With this progression, will come further inquiry and curiosities in other applications, such as institutions, residential homes, and perhaps even public domain. Further understanding through quantum physics, psychoneuroimmunology, and other scientific analysis are important for commercial expansion and adaption of information. Customization and consideration in design for the individual user experience is an opportunity where individual needs catered to as opposed to the individual catering to the group environment. Lastly, conducting longitudinal studies utilizing methods of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) and post-occupancy review of office buildings and their engineering (PROBE) can assist finding affect studies of workplace design on subjective wellbeing (Bordass et. Al, 2001; Leaman, 2003). Conclusively, this is a growing field and is robust in avenues of interdisciplinary potential.

References

Agarwal, P. (2018). How do we create workspaces that support mental health and well-being. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/pragyaagarwaleurope/2018/06/24/how-can-workplace-design-help-mental-health/#775f83074dc1

Al horr, Y., Arif, M., Katafygiotou, M., Mazroei, A., Kaushik, A., & Elsarrag, E. (2016). Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: A review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1). 1-11.

Alain, B. D. (2006). The architecture of happiness. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Amazon, (2018). The spheres. Amazon. Retrieved from https://www.seattlespheres.com/

Anand, P. (2016). Happiness, well-being and human development: The case for subjective measures. UNDP Human Development Report.

Aries, M. B. C. (2005). Human lighting demands: Healthy lighting in an office environment. Ph.D. Dissertation, Eindhoven, the Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology.

Aries, M. B., Veitch, J. A., Newsham, G. R. (2010). Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J. Environ. Psychol, 30(4), 533–541.

Baumgarten, A. G. (1750). Aesthetica. Traiecti cis Viadrum: Impens. Ioannis Christiani Kleyb.

Cabanac, M. (1979). Sensory pleasure. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 54(1), 1-29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2825493

Colombo, B., Laddaga, S., Antionietti, A. (2015). Psychology and design: The influence of the environment’s representation over emotion and cognition. An ET study on Ikea design. Elsevier B.V.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56( 5), 815-822.

Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body, emotion, and the making of Consciousness. London: Heinemann.

Diener, E., Eunkook, M., Suh, L.E., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302.

Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189-216.

Eberhard, J. P. (2009). Applying neuroscience to architecture. Neuron.

Eijkelenboom, A., Verbeek, H., Felix, E., Hoof, J. van. (2017). Architectural factors influencing the sense of home in nursing homes: An operationalization for practice. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6, 111-122.

Gifford, R. (1995). Natural psychology: An introduction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 167-168.

Eysenck, H. (1941). A critical and experimental study of colour preferences. The American Journal of Psychology, 54(3), 385-394. doi:10.2307/1417683

Gielo-Perczak, K. & Karwowski, W. (2005). Are we ready to consider individual differences in human capabilities in our workplace designs? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society’s 49th Annual Meeting.

Gillis, K & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A review of psychological literature on the health and wellbeing benefits of biophilic design. Buildings, 5, 948-963.

Giuliani, M., & Scopelliti, M. (2009). Empirical research in environmental psychology: Past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 375-386.

Haworth, (2015). Workplace design for well-being. Haworth. Retrieved from http://www.thercfgroup.com/files/resources/workplace-design-for-well-being.pdf

Helson, H., & Lansford, T. (1970). The role of spectral energy of source and background color in the pleasantness of object colors. Applied Optics, 9, 1513-1562.

Hue, F. K. P. & Aye, L. (2018). Occupational stress and workplace design. Buildings.

Keyes, C. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121-140.

Kurtiz, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Positive psychology. Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life, 553-568.

Leech, J. A., Nelson, W. C., Burnett, R. T., Aaron, S., Raizenne, M. E. (2002). It’s about time: a comparison of canadian and american time activity patterns. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 12 (6), 427–432. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500244

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616-628.

Malinin, L. (2015). Creative practices embodied, embedded, and enacted in architectural settings: Toward an ecological model of creativity. Frontiers of Psychology.

McKnight, J (2016). Samsung’s silicon valley offices by nbbj features nap pods and music listening rooms. Dezeen. Retrieved from https://www.dezeen.com/2016/06/09/samsung-nbbj-silicon-valley-office-campus-california-usa-nap-pods-music-listening-rooms/

Mikellides, B. (2017). Colour psychology: The emotional effects of colour perception. Colour Design, 2, 193-214.

Melnechuk, T. (1968). Emotions, brain, immunity, and health: A review. In M. Clynes & J. Panskepp (Eds.), Emotions and psychopathology, (181-247).

Moller, C. B. (1969). Architectural environment and our mental health. Taipei: Reprinted by Central Book.

Oseland, N., & Hodsman, P. (2015). Planning for psychoacoustics: A psychological approach to resolving office noise distraction. Workplace Unlimited.

Parsaee, M.,  Parva, M., & Karimi, B. (2015). Space and place concepts analysis based on semiology approach in residential architecture: The case study of traditional city of Bushehr, Iran. HBRC Journal, 11(3), 368-383.

Patel, A., Bernstein, L., Deka, A., Spencer, H., Campbell, P., Gapstur, S., Colditz, G. and Thun, M. (2010). Leisure time spent sitting in relation to total mortality in a prospective cohort of US adults, American Journal of Epidemiology, 172(4).

Trauber, P. G. (2012). An exploration of the relationships among connectedness to nature, quality of life, and mental health. Master’s Thesis, Utah State University.

Rassia, S. (2017). Physical activity and health promotion. Workplace Environmental Springer Briefs in Public Health: Design in Architecture for Public Health: Impact on Occupant Space Use and Physical Activity. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-53444-2_1

Ryff, C.D. (1989c). In the eye of the beholder: Views of psychological well-being in middle and old-aged adults. Psychology and Aging, 4, 195-210.

Ryff, C.D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry,  125(2), 276-302.

Schultz, P.W.,  & Kaiser, F. (2012) Promoting pro-environmental behaviour. In Clayton, S.D. (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservational Psychology, 556-580.

Seligman, M. E. (2011).  Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York, NY: Free Press.

Silva, P. J. (2008). Interests: Curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 17(1), 57-60.

Slavin, S. J., Schindler, D., Chibnall, J. T., Fendell, G., and Shoss, M. (2011.) PERMA: A model for institutional leadership and cultural change. Academic Medicine, 87(11).

Sodexo, (2014). Workplace Trends Report. Sodexo.

Steger, M. F., Shim, Y., Rush, B. R., Brueske, L. A., Shin, J. Y., & Merriman, L. A. (2013). The mind’s eye: A photographic method for understanding meaning in people’s live. The Positive Psychology Journal.

Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In Lopez, S. J., and Snyder, C. R (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, 2.

Steinmetz, K. (2017). Generation z finds the upside to growing up amid total disruption. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/5066641/generation-z-disruption/

Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 253-295.

Wyatt, S. (2016). Cubicles don’t work. How architectural design affects your brain. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFkJCpD0_V0

Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294-306.

World Health Organization, (2010). Global status report on noncommunicable diseases. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report_full_en.pdf