SOUND

In 1983 Anderson, Mulligan, Goodman and Regan found that there is ‘an interaction of both a setting’s visual and acoustic characteristics that significantly influence the evaluations of that setting.’ (Ge and Hokao, 2005, p. 456). Therefore, it is apparent that light and sound are not independent of each other. The sonic environment itself is perceived by individuals or predetermined by society (Schafer, 1999). To use acoustic manipulation within an architectural environment these factors have to be considered.

 

The issue with implementing persuasive elements via sound into design revolves around the variables that are effecting that method. Even looking at only architecture itself, Tokunaga (2013) results portrayed relationships between ‘reverberance’ and ‘ceiling height’ (Galiana, Llinares, and Page, 2016), therefore anything implemented causes their qualities to change as a result.

 

Considering this complication, design in the leisure sector is the main architecture to consider acoustics as an impacting design element. Many leisure facilities such as theatres or auditoriums purposely use acoustic solutions as an addition to architecture (in the form of wall/ceiling panels) or within cavity walls to control sound heard. The manipulation of sound within a space, therefore manipulates the space itself. This in turn effects the users experience.

 

An extreme example of this is the use of anechoic chambers such as the one at Orfield Labatories, Minneapolis (Figure 15) (Guinness World Records Ltd., 2004) that create an environment 99.9% sound absorbent (Foy, 2016), the closest to complete silence possible. This is an extreme example of how the absence of an element can dramatically affect the user. After experiencing this space George Foy commented 'The presence of sound means things are working; it's business as usual – when sound is absent, that signals malfunction.' (Foy, 2016). This extreme technology of manipulation can be compared to the industry standard for acoustic panels (See Figure 16) creating environments humans are susceptible to every day. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Therefore, other than verbal communication, noise set within context is a ‘relatively permanent feature’ (Jones, Chapman, and Auburn, 1981). In terms of shopping centers, music is often played into the building. This uses the basic concept of humans’ mimic sound through their behavior such as ‘happy’ music causes consumers to purchase more according to Broekemier, Marquardt and Gentry (2008) (Santos and Otávio Bandeira De Lamônica Freire, 2013). Not only this but Anderson, Kristensson, Wästrlund and Gustafsson (2012) proved that different genders react ‘better’ to different music. They found in retail environments females responded more positively to quiet, slow music whereas males preferred loud fast-paced music, both when exposed to the best environment, spent more time and money in store. (Santos and Otávio Bandeira De Lamônica Freire, 2013). 

 

A combination of sound alongside other manipulative elements seems to be the best approach, especially as genders react differently to this element. As a method, this appears to be one of less importance and prominence in regards to manipulation, therefore is used primarily to create a certain atmosphere of a space overall, setting a subtle but effective tone throughout the space.