high-scoring and low-scoring offices; photos credit Saul Robbins
We manage our appearance with particular effects in mind, as Erving Goffman described in his 1959 book
The presentation of self in everyday life. This idea of presentation extends to the physical environment.
In the 1970s and 80s, a number of studies on therapists' offices appeared in the literature. Such variables as the display of credentials and the formality of room décor were examined, in general revealing that it was in the therapist's best interest to display his or her credentials and to avoid such decorations as wall rugs to promote perceptions of competence.
Recently, there has been a renewed interest in the role of the physical environment in well being, primarily in the healthcare arena where there is an emphasis on what is called evidence-based design (e.g., the use of single occupancy rooms to cut down on nosocomial infection - the kind of infection that you acquire at the hospital). But interest in the impact of the physical environment on judgments of care is a topic that has moved beyond the hospital and has been studied in the therapist's office.
While the physical environment of the therapist's office may be not be the pivotal variable determining how therapy progresses, it is nevertheless important. In the work of Frank and Frank (1991, 2004), the physical environment is considered a healing setting and constitutes one of the therapeutic elements common to all psychotherapies. For example, Frank and Frank argue that the physical setting may contribute to the prestige of the therapist and in so doing increase the patient's expectations of benefit.
So, does the "look" of your office influence what clients think of you? In a word: Yes. In a recent series of studies published in May on line in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, Nasar and Devlin used 30 photos of psychotherapists' offices, taken by the photographer Saul Robbins, to examine what students (over half of the undergraduates in the studies had been to a therapist) thought of the therapist whose office was photographed.
As judgments increased about how soft and personalized and how orderly the offices were, so did judgments about the quality of care expected, the comfort expected, the therapist's boldness, his/her qualifications, and the likelihood that the individual would choose the therapist based on the office. Judgments of friendliness, another quality that was assessed, rose with increases in softness/personalization, but not with changes in orderliness. Taken together, a number of important qualities of the therapist and his/her skills were related to these perceptions based only on photographs of the office.
With regard to these findings, such as the impact of a neat and orderly office, you may say to yourself, "that's obvious." Yet if these guidelines were so obvious, therapists would surely avoid arrangements that were cluttered, untidy, and devoid of decoration, wouldn't they? Apparently not.
What advice for therapists emerges out of this research? Nasar and Devlin point to the importance of an office that appears uncluttered and neat. Another recommendation is the creation of a soft and personalized space, one with seating that is (and looks) comfortable, and with decorative touches.
There are many aspects of the therapeutic process over which therapists have very little control, but the look of the office is not one of these!
