People carefully scan the environments in which they find themselves, and the silent messages they absorb during those “situational reviews” have significant effects on their thoughts and behaviors. A recent study by Master, Cheryan and Meltzoff indicates just how much.
The Master-led team showed high school student classrooms which the researchers described in this way: “We decorated a small university classroom (i.e., 12 desks) using objects either identified as stereotypical or nonstereotypical of computer science in previous research. The stereotypical objects were Star Wars/Star Trek items, electronics, software, tech magazines, computer parts, video games, computer books and science fiction books. The nonstereotypical objects were nature pictures, art pictures, water bottles, pens, a coffee maker, lamps, general magazines and plants. Both classrooms also contained a table and chair at the front of the room, desks for students, a side table and a storage unit in the corner.”
The group found that “a computer science classroom that did not project current computer science stereotypes caused girls, but not boys, to express more interest in taking computer science than a classroom that made these stereotypes salient.”
The people visiting workplaces, to interview for jobs or establish other business relationships, are doing the same sorts of environmental reviews as the high school students studied by Master, Cheryan and Meltzoff. They’re trying to understand how things get done and if they’ll fit in. When what they read in a space isn’t encouraging, they’re motivated to move on.
The people who might, and should, use a space are the individuals to talk with about the messages communicated by current and potential designs. Only these potential users completely understand all the nuances of what a place is silently communicating to them. Without a grasp of all relevant messages, subtle and more direct, a welcoming space isn’t in the cards. In most cases, the information conveyed by design is much more low-key than in the classrooms studied by Master and her colleagues, so potential users themselves are likely to be the only group who will see or hear or smell them all. Colors can be linked to political parties or religions or ethnic groups, for example, and those ties can make comfort or concern more likely.
Programs, initiatives, business plans, you name it, are successful when all the people who can contribute to that success are comfortable in work areas. It’s unlikely they will be if their frank opinions of – and fundamental responses to – design options aren’t recognized.
Allison Master, Sapna Cheryan and Andrew Meltzoff. “Computing Whether She Belongs: Stereotypes Undermine Girls’ Interest and Sense of Belonging in Computer Science.” Journal of Educational Psychology, in press.
Sally Augustin, PhD, a cognitive scientist, is the editor of Research Design Connections (www.researchdesignconnections.com), a monthly subscription newsletter and free daily blog, where recent and classic research in the social, design, and physical sciences that can inform designers’ work are presented in straightforward language. Readers learn about the latest research findings immediately, before they’re available elsewhere. Sally, who is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, is also the author of Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture (Wiley, 2009) and, with Cindy Coleman, The Designer’s Guide to Doing Research: Applying Knowledge to Inform Design (Wiley, 2012). She is a principal at Design With Science (www.designwithscience.com) and can be reached at sallyaugustin@designwithscience.com.