Well-Being and the Effect of Age in Interiors

Introduction

When do designers deal with elderly? They do only when they are asked to design hospices, or retirement homes and when elderly become disabled and their health circumstances decrease. And when do designers deal with young people’s needs? They do only in designing schools (then referring to children and very young people), or when youngest have psychological sicknesses or physical injuries.

According to Hillman (1999), although aging is a given of the human condition, it is subject to several biases. He states that, while biology considers aging as a process leading to uselessness, the third age should be also considered as a structure, with specific features. Old people are in balance between lasting and leaving. Their desires and their perspectives aren’t the same as young or middle age people. Logically their idea of happiness, as well as their feeling of well-being and their concept of life should differ from other sectors of the population. Similarly, the needs of young people are also subject to preconceptions. It is taken for granted that they love to socialize and engage in physical activity, and that their well-being degree is naturally high when they do not have health problems. (Minucciani, Saglar Onay, 2019).

A considerable number of researches argue that all individuals in society have different but stable levels of well-being, which are not supposed to change across the lifespan. According to Ulloa, Moller and Sousa-Poza (2013), changes in the environment, although important for short-term well-being, lose salience over time through processes of adaptation, and have small effects on long-term subjective well-being. This process, called hedonic adaptation, is defined as “the process by which individuals return to baseline levels of happiness following a change in life circumstances” (Lucas, 2007). This view generally routes from the set point theory, which argues that individuals are born with a predisposition to a certain level of happiness, based on genetics and personality. On the other hand, according to Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, and Schkade (2005), other than the happiness set point, life circumstances and positive cognitive, behavioural, and goal-based activities play an important role on subjective well-being which might account for a significant portion, 50 percent of individual differences. Moreover, life circumstances and our activities are highly affected by living environments (Minucciani, Saglar Onay, 2019).

Ulloa, Moller and Sousa-Poza (2013), describe the mainstream theories on the relation between aging and well-being from the perspectives of economics, psychology and gerontology. Among these, insights from psychology and gerontology are important in terms of space and aging. According to Ulloa and others, even life-changing events, such as marriage or the death of a loved one, only have temporary effects on the individual’s life satisfaction, which after a while will return to the original, biologically determined level. According to this perspective, even after major life events like winning the lottery or becoming paraplegic, individuals return to a ‘baseline’ level of well-being (Brickman et. al., 1978; Kahneman, 1999). This theoretical framework was then complemented by Costa and McCrae’s (1980) personality theory of well-being, which specified that individuals are born with certain personality traits that do not change significantly across the lifespan. Lucas (2007), however, found some contradictory evidence; namely, that well-being levels do in fact change over time and these changes appear to be permanent. The major events that precipitate such changes include marriage, unemployment and disability (Lucas, 2007).