Environment Preference Assessment

Abstract

The Environment Preference Assessment (EPA) is a specialized psychological instrument designed to quantify an individual’s affective and behavioral preferences concerning their physical surroundings, particularly architectural environments. Developed by Richmond and McCroskey, this 16-item scale measures preference along a continuum ranging from traditional, heavy, and dark architectural styles to modern, open, and light designs. Furthermore, the scale assesses the perceived impact of these environments on the respondent’s mood, alertness, and subsequent productivity, placing it within the domain of Environmental psychology and nonverbal communication research.

Keywords

Environmental preference, architectural communication, architectural style, lighting, productivity, nonverbal behavior, environmental impact, workplace environment.

Authors

Virginia P. Richmond, James C. McCroskey

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Environment Preference Assessment is to measure specific, measurable differences in how individuals react to and prefer distinct types of built environments. By quantifying these preferences, researchers can better understand the role that physical surroundings play in influencing individual affect, cognitive performance, and communication behavior, particularly in professional or academic settings.

The scale is structured to differentiate between individuals who prefer older, often described as “dull, dark, heavy” buildings, and those who favor newer, “clear, open, airy” architecture. The resulting scores provide a clear metric for categorizing subjects into groups favoring older architecture, newer architecture, or exhibiting no strong preference, thereby facilitating studies on environmental fit and personal well-being.

Construct

The EPA measures the psychological construct of Environmental Preference, often operationalized within the larger field of nonverbal communication as a form of environmental influence (or “chronemics”). It specifically targets two interwoven dimensions: affective preference for certain architectural style elements (e.g., light, openness, age, history) and the perceived efficacy/performance correlation within those environments (e.g., impact on alertness, irritability, and assignment outcome).

This construct is vital in understanding how the physical environment—ranging from workplace design to classroom layout—acts as a silent, yet powerful, channel of nonverbal communication that significantly influences occupant behavior and satisfaction. The scale provides a standardized way to measure this crucial interaction between person and place.

Validity

While specific psychometric data (such as detailed concurrent or predictive validity coefficients) are often found in subsequent studies utilizing the EPA, the scale exhibits strong face validity. The items clearly and directly address preferences for architectural characteristics (e.g., light, age of building) and their subjective effects (e.g., irritability, alertness, performance). The instrument is widely accepted within communication studies due to its clear linkage to established theoretical frameworks concerning environmental influences.

Researchers typically assess criterion validity by correlating EPA scores with behavioral outcomes, such as actual workplace performance ratings, measures of job satisfaction, or communication apprehension in environmentally specific contexts. The differential scoring system designed to isolate preferences for “older” versus “newer” architecture suggests a robust structural foundation for measuring this distinct bipolar construct.

Reliability

As a widely disseminated scale, the EPA is presumed to demonstrate acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability. Although the original source material does not explicitly state the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, scales derived from the work of McCroskey and Richmond are typically rigorously tested and generally report alpha values well above the acceptable threshold of 0.70. High reliability is essential given the clear scoring dichotomy established by the formula, which requires consistent responses across positively and negatively worded items.

Future research or primary studies citing the EPA should be consulted for specific estimates of test-retest reliability, which would confirm the stability of an individual’s environmental preferences over time. Given that architectural preferences are generally stable traits, high temporal stability is expected.

Factor Analysis

Though explicit factor analysis results are not detailed in the summary source, the structure of the scoring formula strongly suggests a unidimensional or bidimensional structure. The method of reversing scores and summing them indicates that the primary measured factor is a bipolar preference for one type of environment over another (Older Architecture Preference vs. Newer Architecture Preference).

A factor analysis would likely confirm that the 16 items load heavily onto a single underlying factor representing General Environmental Preference, or potentially two related factors: one focused on Architectural Aesthetics (e.g., item 3: “I prefer old, dark, heavy buildings…”) and a second focused on Environmental Impact on Performance (e.g., item 4: “I perform at my best when there is a lot of sunlight…”). The scoring key integrates both preference and impact items to create the final, single EPA score.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report attitude scale

Format: 5-point Likert scale

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population; typically used with students or employees in organizational settings.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (18+)

Population Details: The scale is applicable to any population whose performance or well-being is potentially affected by the physical characteristics of their immediate environment (workplace, educational setting, or residence).

Test Methodology: Respondents rate 16 statements based on their level of agreement, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Scoring involves differential weighting and reversal of specific items to yield a final score between 16 and 80, indicating a preference for older versus newer architectural styles. The instrument is readily available online: http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/environment.htm

Keywords

Environmental preference, psychological construct, architectural design, light preference, performance, Richmond, McCroskey, nonverbal communication, organizational behavior.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material; typically required for modern academic publications.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence is typically directed through the institution of James C. McCroskey or Virginia P. Richmond, associated with their work in communication studies.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Environment Preference Assessment is generally treated as a public-domain instrument for academic research and educational use, consistent with many scales developed by James C. McCroskey. Users should reference the primary source material when utilizing the scale. There is typically no fee associated with its use in non-commercial academic settings.

The scale was published as part of the third edition of Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations, dating its formal dissemination and widespread use to 1995.

Reference’s

Richmond‚ V. P.‚ & McCroskey‚ J. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations (3rd Ed.). Boston‚ MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Items of the Environment Preference Assessment

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

The response format is a 5-point Likert scale:

• Strongly Disagree = 1
• Disagree = 2
• Neutral = 3
• Agree = 4
• Strongly Agree = 5

Scoring Calculation:

1. Add scores for items 3‚ 5‚ 6‚ 10‚ 13‚ 14‚ and 16 (These items reflect a preference for older/darker environments or indifference to environment quality).
2. Add the scores for items 1‚ 2‚ 4‚ 7‚ 8‚ 9‚ 11‚ 12‚ 15 (These items reflect a preference for newer/lighter environments or sensitivity to environment quality).
3. Complete the following formula: EPA = 42 + Total from Step 1 – Total from Step 2.

Interpretation: Scores should range between 16 and 80. Scores >58 indicate a preference for older architecture. Scores <38 indicate a preference for newer architecture. Scores between 38 and 58 indicate no major preference for older or newer environments.

1. I really dislike dull‚ dark‚ heavy looking buildings.
2. I like clear‚ open‚ airy buildings.
3. I prefer old‚ dark‚ heavy buildings with a history.
4. I perform at my best when there is a lot of sunlight coming into my work area.
5. I really dislike open‚ airy‚ sunny architecture.
6. I dislike new‚ modern architecture.
7. I am very irritable when I have to work in a dark building.
8. I am very alert in clean‚ clear‚ open buildings.
9. I am very irritable when I have to work in new modern buildings with lots of windows.
10. I am very alert when I am working in a building where there is little light.
11. I rarely do well on assignments when I work in a setting where the environment is ugly.
12. I usually do very well on assignments when I work in attractive buildings.
13. Working in unattractive environments does not affect the outcome of my work.
14. I do well on assignments when working where there are a lot of distractions.
15. I like to do my assignments in attractive buildings.
16. Doing my assignments in unattractive buildings does not impact my productivity.