Introduction

Although aesthetic concerns are central to many issues in architecture and environmental planning, there is little scientific evidence concerning the manner in which beautiful and ugly interior environments influence human behavior. Reviews of this work (Locasso, 1976) have indicated in general that few studies have been reported and that problems in experimental design, measurement, and methodology are common. There appears to be little solid empirical evidence demonstrating that attractive interior spaces exert some form of beneficial influence on human functioning and behavior.

Although not a cornerstone of the empirical literature, early work by Maslow and Mintz (1956) has received much exposure in environmental psychology and the environmental-design disciplines. They examined the effects of “beautiful” and “ugly” rooms on subjects' judgments of the amount of “energy” and “well-being” reflected in photographs of human faces. One of three experimentation rooms was decorated as a comfortable study and contained a mahogany desk and chair combination, a rug, drapes, paintings, sculptures, and other items. People who saw this room described it as “attractive,” “pretty,” “comfortable,” and “pleasant” (Maslow and Mintz, 1956, p. 247). The “ugly” room was described as “horrible,” “disgusting,” “ugly,” and “repulsive.” It contained “battleship gray walls, an overhead bulb with a dirty, torn, ill-fitting lampshade, and ‘furnishings’ to give the impression of a janitor's storeroom in disheveled condition” (Maslow and Mintz, 1956, p. 248). Two Es alternated between the two rooms and showed Ss a series of ten negatives of photographs. Subjects made judgments concerning the amount of “energy/fatigue” and “well-being/displeasure” that they saw in the faces pictured in the photos.