Is Interior Wood use Psychologically Beneficial? A Review of Psychological Responses Toward Wood
AbstractOver the past decades, a number of empirical studies have documented that nature or elements of nature in both outdoor and indoor settings can be beneficial for human health and well-being. Wood is a natural product and it is therefore relevant to investigate whether interior wood use might have some of the same beneficial effects. The aim of the present study is therefore to investigate whether interior wood use might be psychologically beneficial by reviewing studies that have investigated psychological responses toward wood. The study also provides a general introduction to theories that can help explain why wood might be psychologically beneficial. Studies related to psychological responses toward interior wood use have generally focused on three different outcomes: 1) perception of wood, including both visual perception and tactile sensation; 2) attitudes and preferences (aesthetic evaluation) of various wood products; and 3) psychophysiological responses toward wood. The review posits that there seem to be similarities in preferences for wood and that people prefer wood because it is natural. In addition, affective responses toward wood seem to be measurable, giving indications of psychological beneficial effects. However, caution should be made in concluding from the review that interior wood use is psychologically beneficial. Thus, theoretical, methodological, and practical implications are discussed and research needs identified.
Ajzen I (2005) Attitudes, personality, and behavior. 2nd ed. Open University Press, New York, NY. 178 pp.nAltman I, Chemers M (1984) Culture and environment. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA. 337 pp.nAndreassi JL (2007) Psychophysiology: Human behaviour and physiological response. 5th ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 538 pp.nAppleton J (1975) The experience of landscape. Wiley, London, UK. 293 pp.nBeatley T (2000) Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Island Press, Washington, DC. 491 pp.nBerger G, Katz H, Petutschnigg AJ (2006) What consumers feel and prefer: Haptic perception of various wood flooring surfaces. Forest Prod J 56(10):42-47.nBergman RD, Bowe SA (2008) Environmental impact of producing hardwood lumber using life-cycle inventory. Wood Fiber Sci 40(3):448-458.nBlomgren GW (1965) The psychological image of wood. Forest Prod J 15:149-151.nBourassa SC (1991) The aesthetic of landscape. Belhaven Press, London, UK. Page 168.nBowe SA, Bumgardner MS (2004) Species selection in secondary wood products: Perspectives from different consumers. Wood Fiber Sci 36(3):319-328.nBrandt JP, Shook SR (2005) Attribute elicitation: Implications in the research context. Wood Fiber Sci 37(1): 127-146.nBringslimark T, Hartig T, Patil GG (2007) Psychological benefits of indoor plants in workplaces: Putting experimental results into context. HortScience 42(3):581-587.nBringslimark T, Hartig T, Patil GG (2009) The psychological benefits of indoor plants: A critical review of the experimental literature. J Environ Psychol 29(4): 422-433.nBroman NO (1995a) Visual impressions of features in Scots pine wood surfaces: A qualitative study. Forest Prod J 45 (3):61-66.nBroman NO (1995b) Attitudes toward Scots pine wood surfaces: A multivariate approach. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 41(11):994-1005.nBroman NO (1996) Two methods for measuring people's preferences for Scots pine wood surfaces: A comparative multivariate analysis. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 42(2): 130-139.nBroman NO (2001) Aesthetic properties in knotty wood surfaces and their connection with people's preferences. J Wood Sci 47(3):192-198.nBumgardner MS, Bowe SA (2002) Species selection in secondary wood products: Implications for product design and promotion. Wood Fiber Sci 34(3):408-418.nCDC and HUD (2006) Healthy housing reference manual. US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA.nDodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2009) Carbon implications of end-of-life management of building materials. Resour Conserv Recycling 53(5):276-286.nFjeld T, Veiersted B, Sandvik L, Riise G, Levy F (1998) The effect of indoor foliage plants on health and discomfort symptoms among office workers. Indoor Built Environ 7(4):204-209.nGasser M (2001) Gesundes Wohnen im Holzhaus. Report Holzindustrie Schweiz., Bern, Switzerland. In German.nGifford R (2007) Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. 4th ed. Optimal Books, Colville, WA. 599 pp.nGoldstein EB (2007) Sensation and perception. 7th ed. Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Page 438.nGuo H, Murray F, Lee SC (2002) Emissions of total volatile organic compounds from pressed wood products in an environmental chamber. Build Environ 37(11): 1117-1126.nHartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, Davis DS, Gärling T (2003) Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J Environ Psychol 23(2):109-123.nHartig T, Korpela K, Evans GW, Gärling T (1997) A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scand Hous Plan Res 14(4):175-194.nHartig T, Staats H (2003) Guest Editors' introduction: Restorative environments. J Environ Psychol 23(2): 103-107.nHealth Council of the Netherlands (2004) Nature and health. The influence of nature on social, psychological and physical well-being (Publication no. 2004/09). Health Council of The Netherlands and Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, The Hague, The Netherlands.nHerzog TR, Herbert EJ, Kaplan R, Crooks CL (2000) Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environ Behav 32(3): 323-346.nJensen LK, Larsen A, Molhave L, Hansen MK, Knudsen B (2001) Health evaluation of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from wood and wood-based materials. Arch Environ Health 56(5):419-432.nJonsson O, Lindberg S, Roos A, Hugosson M, Lindström M (2008) Consumer perceptions and preferences on solid wood, wood-based panels, and composites: A repertory grid study. Wood Fiber Sci 40(4):663-678.nJonsson R (2005) The end consumer's choice of floorcovering in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom: A comparative pilot study of substitute competition. J Wood Sci 51(2):154-160.nJonsson R (2006) Increasing the competitiveness of wood in material substitution: A method for assessing and prioritizing customer needs. J Wood Sci 52(2):154-162.nJoye Y (2007) Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Rev Gen Psychol 11(4):305-328.nKaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 340 pp.nKaplan S, Kaplan R, Wendt JS (1972) Rated preferences and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Percept Psychophys 12(4):354-356.nKellert SR (2005) Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Island Press, Washington, DC. 250 pp.nKellert SR, Heerwagen JH, Mador ML, eds (2008) Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. 385 pp.nKnopf RC (1987) Human behavior, cognition and affect in the natural environment. Pages 783-825 in D Stokols and I Altman, eds. Handbook of environmental psychology. Vol. 1. Wiley, New York, NY.nLaumann K, Gärling T, Stormark KM (2003) Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol 23(2):125-134.nLazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, appraisal and coping. Springer, New York, NY. 445 pp.nLohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH (2000) Physical discomfort may be reduced in the presence of interior plants. Horttechnology 10(1):53-58.nLovallo WR (2005) Stress and health: Biological and psychological interactions. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 279 pp.nMarchal R, Mothe F (1994) Appreciation of oak wood for the French consumer and wood professionals. Ann Sci For 51(3):213-231. In French with summary in English.nMasuda M (2004) Why wood is excellent for interior design? From vision physical point of view. Pages 101-106 in Proc 8th World Conference on Timber Engineering Lahti, Finland, 2004.nMcEwen BS (1998) Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. N Engl J Med 338(3):171-179.nMinke K (2009) Building with earth: Design and technology of a sustainable architecture. 2nd ed. Birkhäuser, Basel, Switzerland. 207 pp.nMoore EO (1981) A prison environment's effect on health care service demands. J Environ Syst 11(1):17-34.nMorikawa T, Miyazaki Y, Kobayashi S (1998) Time-series variations of blood pressure due to contact with wood. J Wood Sci 44(6):495-497.nNakamura M, Kondo T (2007) Characterization of distribution pattern of eye fixation pauses in observation of knotty wood panel images. J Physiol Anthropol 26(2):129-133.nNakamura M, Kondo T (2008) Quantification of visual inducement of knots by eye-tracking. J Wood Sci 54 (1):22-27.nNakamura M, Masuda M (1990) Influence of grooves in wall panels on psychological images. 1. Influence of groove intervals. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 36(11):930-935. In Japanese with summary in English.nNakamura M, Masuda M, Imamichi K (1996) Description of visual characteristics of wood influencing some psychological images. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 42(12):1177-1187. In Japanese with summary in English.nNordvik E, Broman NO (2009) Looking at computervisualized interior wood: A qualitative assessment using focus groups. J Wood Sci 55(2):113-120.nNyrud AQ, Roos A, Rodbotten M (2008) Product attributes affecting consumer preference for residential deck materials. Can J For Res 38(6):1385-1396.nOrians GH (1986) An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetic. Pages 3-25 in EC Penning-Roswell and D Lowenthal, eds. Meaning and values in landscape. Allen & Unwin, London, UK.nPakarinen T (1999) Success factors of wood as a furniture material. Forest Prod J 49(9):79-85.nPark S-H, Mattson RH, Kim E (2004) Pain tolerance effects of ornamental plants in a simulated hospital patient room. Acta Hortic 639:241-247.nParsons R, Tassinary LG, Ulrich RS, Hebl MR, Grossman-Alexander M (1998) The view from the road: Implications for stress recovery and immunization. J Environ Psychol 18(2):113-140.nPasser MW (2009). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour. McGraw-Hill, London, UK. Page 1036.nPearson D (2001) New organic architecture: The breaking wave. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 223 pp.nPurcell T, Peron E, Berto R (2001) Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environ Behav 33(1):93-106.nRametsteiner E, Oberwimmer R, Gschwandtl I (2007) Europeans and wood: What do Europeans think about wood and its uses? A review of consumer and business surveys in Europe. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit Warsaw, Poland.nRice J, Kozak RA, Meitner MJ, Cohen DH (2006) Appearance wood products and psychological well-being. Wood Fiber Sci 38(4):644-659.nRidoutt BG, Ball RD, Killerby SK (2002) First impressions of organizations and the qualities connoted by wood in interior design. Forest Prod J 52(10):30-36.nRitchie A, Thomas R (2009) Sustainable urban design: An environmental approach. 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis, London, UK. 241 pp.nRoos JA, Donovan G, Nicholls D (2005) How does species name affect consumer choice? An analysis and implications for cabinet door marketers. Forest Prod J 55 (5):21-26.nSakuragawa S (2006) Change in the impression of rooms with interior wood finishes arranged differently: Questionnaire survey with the use of photographs for the analysis of impressions of rooms concerning living activities. J Wood Sci 52(4):290-294.nSakuragawa S, Kaneko T, Miyazaki Y (2008) Effects of contact with wood on blood pressure and subjective evaluation. J Wood Sci 54(2):107-113.nSakuragawa S, Miyazaki Y, Kaneko T, Makita T (2005) Influence of wood wall panels on physiological and psychological responses. J Wood Sci 51(2):136-140.nScholz SW, Decker R (2007) Measuring the impact of wood species on consumer preferences for wooden furniture by means of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Forest Prod J 57(3):23-28.nSpetic W, Kozak R, Cohen D (2007) Perceptions of wood flooring by Canadian householders. Forest Prod J 57 (6):34-38.nTsunetsugu Y, Miyazaki Y, Sato H (2005) Visual effects of interior design in actual-size living rooms on physiological responses. Build Environ 40:1341-1346.nTsunetsugu Y, Miyazaki Y, Sato H (2007) Physiological effects in humans induced by the visual stimulation of room interiors with different wood quantities. J Wood Sci 53(1):11-16.nTuan Y-F. (1990) Topophilia: A study of environmental perceptions, attitudes and values. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. 260 pp.nTveit M, Ode Å, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Res 31:229-255.nUlrich RS (1983) Aesthetic and affective response to natural environments. Pages 85-126 in I Altman and JF Wohlwill, eds. Behavior and the natural environment. Plenum, New York, NY.nUlrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224(4647):420-421.nUlrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol 11(3):201-230.nUNECE (2009) Forest products annual market review. http://timber.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/publications/Final_FPAMR2009.pdf'>http://timber.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/publications/Final_FPAMR2009.pdfnUpton B, Miner R, Spinney M, Heath LS (2008) The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States. Biomass Bioenerg 32:1-10.]nUS Department of Labor (2009) American Time Use Survey (ATUS). http://www.bls.gov/tus/'>http://www.bls.gov/tus/nvan den Berg AE, Hartig T, Staats H (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and pursuit of sustainability. J Soc Issues 63(1):79-96.nWilson EO (1984) Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 157 pp.nWohlwill JF (1974) Human responses to levels of environmental stimulation. Hum Ecol 2:127-147.nYang BE, Brown TJ (1992) A cross-cultural-comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environ Behav 24(4):471-507.nZube EH, Anderson TW (1975). Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. Pages 151-167 in EH Zube, RO Brush, and JG Fabos, eds. Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.n
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.