Benfield, J.A., Nurse, G.A., Jakubowski, R., Gibson, A., Taff, D ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 Environment and BehaviorXX(X) Keywords noise, personality, environmental stressor, noise sensitivity, recreation Unwanted sound, or noise, is considered one of the most ubiquitous of ambient environmental stressors. Noise generated by transportation, workplace technology, and other humans has been shown to be detrimental in a number of ways. For example, the presence of unwanted sounds has been related to higher stress levels (e.g., Ising & Kruppa, 2004), increased cognitive errors (e.g., Benfield, Bell, Troup, & Soderstrom, 2010b; Stansfeld et al., 2005), reduced health and well-being (e.g., Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003), disturbances in sleep cycles (e.g., Muzet, 2007), negative changes in affect (e.g., Benfield, Bell, Troup, & Soderstrom, 2010a; Mace, Bell, & Loomis, 1999), and lower amounts of prosocial behaviors (e.g., Moser, 1988). Increasingly, scientists are recognizing the physical health consequences of noise (e.g., Babisch, 2006; Fritschi, Brown, Kim, Schwela, & Kephalopoulos, 2011) and consequently adding “harmful” to its definition (e.g., “unwanted or harmful sound”). In doing so, they embrace beliefs that noise can be measured not just as a subjective annoyance but as an objective harm quantifiable by its health consequences across populations or by a “reasonable person” standard of assessment. In short, exposure to noise is a problem physiologically and psychosocially, so understanding the components of noise and psychological perceptions of noise as they relate to these outcomes is important. Different theoretical perspectives have been used to explain the process underlying these negative effects, but most rely heavily on the interaction between the physical sound stimuli and the perceiver of the sound. For instance, arousal and stress perspectives posit that noxious sound increases negative affect, generalized anxiety, and frustration in the listener, which in turn causes stress and/or arousal with subsequent changes in blood pressure, sleep patterns, immune functioning, and hormone levels (Cohen, Evans, Stokols, & Krantz, 1986). In these models, the individual’s reaction to the sound (e.g., annoyed, frustrated) drives the negative consequence rather than the sound itself. Similarly, sounds that are perceived as unnecessary or detrimental to something the listener values are more annoying and psychologically damaging. The same is true of noises that are considered by the perceiver to be hazardous to his or her health (Green & Fidell, 1991). Noise generated by someone seemingly unconcerned with the listener’s well-being is also evaluated negatively (Miedema & Vos, 1999). In short, people are generally motivated to avoid noise, but individual differences in listeners
Benfield et al. 3 and their perceptions of the stimuli contribute heavily to noise-induced outcomes and experiential reports of noisy environments. Examples of these individual differences in sound and noise perception are numerous. For instance, individuals trained in music or singing respond differently when compared with novices (Williams, 2005). Similarly, military combat veterans can be hypersensitive to the holiday sights and sounds of New Year’s eve (e.g., flashing lights, loud explosions) because similar stimuli have become associated with mortal danger (Chemtob, Roitblat, Hamada, Carlson, & Twentyman, 1988). More generally, the rumbling of a thunderstorm can be an exciting and pleasant experience to some but terrifying or depressing to another. Likewise, a parent trying to lull a newborn to sleep or a night shift worker trying to rest during the day perceives bird chirps, garbage trucks, and telephone rings differently from those who are currently less motivated for quiet conditions. Given the definition of noise (i.e., unwanted or harmful sound), an emphasis on the perceiver and his or her individual perceptions or traits makes sense if researchers want to truly differentiate between effects caused by the sound, effects caused by the listener, and effects that depend on the interaction between the two. Consequently, individual differences are often tested and controlled for in sound-related research to partial out which effects are universal and which are more person dependent. Individual Differences in Noise Sensitivity For example, the Big Five personality characteristics of extraversion and neuroticism have been shown to affect participant perceptions of and performance during exposure to noise. Extraversion—the tendency to be gregarious, be assertive, and seek out social stimulation—has been shown to be related to preference for greater sound intensity (Geen, 1984) and reduced distraction by extraneous noise (Belojevic, Slepcevic, & Jakovljevic, 2001; Daoussis & McKelvie, 1986; Furnham, Gunter, & Peterson, 1994). Likewise, neuroticism—the tendency to be anxious, emotionally negative, and less emotionally stable—has also been shown to be positively correlated with annoyance during noise exposure (Öhrström, Bjorkman, & Rylander, 1988) and with noise-induced sleep disturbances (Jakovljevic, Belojevic, Paunovic, & Stojanov, 2006). Neurotics when compared with more emotionally stable individuals also perform worse on semantic retrieval tasks (von Wright & Vauras, 1980) and prose memorization tasks (Nurmi & von Wright, 1983) under noisy conditions.
Page 1: 454430EABXXX10.1177/00139165124544
Page 5 and 6: Benfield et al. 5 compliance rate f
Page 7 and 8: Benfield et al. 7 Table 2. Item Fac
Page 9 and 10: Benfield et al. 9 Method Participan
Page 11 and 12: Benfield et al. 11 problematic to t
Page 13 and 14: Benfield et al. 13 crowds (r = .26,
Page 15 and 16: Benfield et al. 15 In a research co
Page 17 and 18: Benfield et al. 17 Cohen, S., Evans
Page 19 and 20: Benfield et al. 19 Stansfeld, S. A.

Benfield, J.A., Nurse, G.A., Jakubowski, R., Gibson, A., Taff, D ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?