Lighting Preferences of Interior Users with Different Personality Traits: Pilot Study

Abstract

In the era of recognising the adverse effects of our activities on the climate, more and more attention is being paid to designing sustainable solutions. The assumptions during such sustainable designs often do not fulfil the user’s needs and comfort. Therefore, we frequently encounter the discrepancies concerning higher energy consumption and user’s modifications in the building systems compared to the design and building use stages. To mitigate these problems in the context of interior lighting design, the authors innovatively researched the lighting preferences of a selected group of respondents based on their personality traits. The Gallup CliftonStrengths assessment tool was used for this research. The research was conducted using an online survey of 101 women from Poland with an average age of 42. The received lighting preferences were analysed using the descriptive statistics and the Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test by Ranks. Some individuals exhibited preferences for electric lighting parameters that deviate from those recommended by the standards and current technical knowledge. Such preferences can sometimes lead to lower illuminances, maintaining comfort and reducing energy consumption. The knowledge of user’s preferences can reduce the discrepancies between the sustainable design and use stages as users’ interference in device operation will be minimised by meeting their needs, thus achieving sustainable goals.

1. Introduction

Buildings and their energy management systems account for a substantial share of global energy consumption. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development states that buildings are responsible for at least 40% of energy use in many countries [1] with lighting accounting for 40–70% of a building’s total electricity consumption [2]. Worldwide building energy consumption is expected to grow by 45% over the next 20 years [3]. To mitigate this trend, various systems that encourage the design and verification of solutions to meet the sustainable design requirements have been created [4]. Sustainable buildings are important in achieving Sustainable Development Goals as they reduce environmental impact, increase economic benefits, improve health and comfort, and implement current policy and compliance [5]. Despite the fact that commercial and residential buildings differ significantly in terms of different goals, design, and performance, this article focuses on every interior of the building where people stay for a long time. The key aspect of the analysis conducted in the article is the interaction of the user with the systems in the buildings, which occurs in both commercial and residential buildings.

In 2002, the Energy Performance Building Directive (EPBD) introduced new regulatory requirements for all EU countries to reduce the energy required for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting in buildings. The similar regulations are included in the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certificate [6].

The requirements, such as [7], defined by the standards and other international and national legal acts, are used during the sustainable design process. However, meeting those requirements does not always guarantee the fulfilment of user’s comfort and satisfaction [8,9]. As people spend most of their time in buildings and deal with building systems to achieve a desired comfort, these activities lead to different energy usage patterns than those assessed [10,11,12,13]. When the user is dissatisfied with the solution and the environmental conditions, the changes to the system will be made. Reinhart and Voss reported [14] that in 88% of attempts to close the blinds automatically, users override the control algorithm. Nicol and Humphreys noted that [15]: “If a change occurs, such as to produce discomfort, people react in ways to restore their comfort”. People and their problems are not as repetitive and predictive as designers believe, and technology might not be used as designers intended [16]. Marcolino et al. [17] claimed that the early stage of design decision-making has a significant impact on the energy consumption of buildings. Hirst and Goeltz found [18] that less energy was saved than was predicted by an audit. The effect of users’ actions on various systems, including cooling and heating, has been tested multiple times [19,20,21]; for example, energy-efficiency behaviours accounted for 37% of the variance in electricity consumption between dwellings [4]. Those discrepancies were more significant for low-energy buildings with more passive design features, where users’ behaviour differed from that in traditional buildings [22,23,24,25]. Users’ activities were the source of these discrepancies. In the literature, such behaviour is known as occupant behaviour (OB) [10,13,26,27,28,29,30,31].

There is also evidence that tailoring the design of building elements and systems to occupants’ needs may reduce building energy consumption and increase occupant satisfaction [32,33,34,35,36,37]. User-centred design (UCD), participatory design (PD), usability engineering (UE), and user experience design (UX) are practical approaches to improve designs based on end users’ needs [38,39,40]. Despite the emphasis on the importance of UCD, the construction industry has not yet widely adopted this technique due to the lack of sufficient and accurate information about end users’ actual behaviour and needs. Therefore, buildings are usually designed according to the codes and standards, which are often based on generalisations with a large margin of error rather than according to the actual needs and behaviours of end users. That is why eliminating these errors requires the understanding of the needs of end users in buildings [17,34,41,42].

Lighting is already known to significantly influence occupants’ performance and other aspects in indoor environments [43]. As people spend about 90% of their time indoors, the built environment is one of the most critical factors influencing users’ health, well-being, satisfaction and behaviour [44,45,46]. The air quality [47], as well as thermal [48], acoustic [49], and visual comfort [50] are the main factors determining the quality of the indoor environment. The visual comfort in indoor spaces depends mainly on lighting conditions [51]. The quality of the indoor environment, including thermal, acoustic, air, and visual components [52,53], has been extensively studied for its impact on people’s satisfaction, well-being, and productivity in workplaces, schools, and various public spaces [54,55]. Lighting, as a crucial factor determining the quality of the interior environment, is this article’s central issue.

The users of the buildings, which are designed according to their needs and preferences, feel comfortable and satisfied. They do not have to deal with the systems due to the comfort and satisfaction provided by the building’s interiors.

The literature shows that when lighting is designed according to users’ preferences, the users are less likely to change the lighting system and blinds. It allows for predicted operation of the devices during the design phase, and thus, energy savings [56,57,58]. To achieve this effect, it is necessary to know users’ needs. Some research was conducted on users’ preferences related to the various aspects such as daylighting [59], electric lighting [42,60,61], types of windows [34,62,63], blinds [64], and lighting control [65]. However, these studies mainly focused on analysing external, physical factors, such as incident solar radiation that affect users’ actions [66,67]. The influence of internal factors was considered to affect the decisions and actions taken by users, either directly or indirectly [68].

It is necessary to indicate human personality traits among the internal factors. It has been observed that individuals with similar personality traits tend to share similar preferences [69]. The work in [70] demonstrated the influence of personality traits on music and the work in [71] on film preferences. A personality defines the way one thinks, feels, and acts in different situations [72]. Therefore, knowing the user’s personality enables us to match selected solutions more effectively during the design process [30,73].

The work in [74] investigated the influence of personality traits on users’ lighting preferences using immersive virtual environments (IVEs) as an experimental tool. Personalities were determined by five traits (Big Five Model) [69], such as extraversion (seeking the company of others), agreeableness (likability and other prosocial behaviours), conscientiousness (rule abidance, discipline and integrity), openness (interest in new experiences, ideas and so forth), and neuroticism (tendency to experience unpleasant emotions). Among these traits, it was found that people with many extraversion traits preferred high illuminances (either electric light and/or simulated daylight). No relationship was found for the remaining characteristics. Therefore, extroverts may use more energy by turning on more electric lights if daylight does not illuminate the interior adequately to meet their needs. Extraverted features are attributed to the professions such as salesmen, marketing teams, finance groups and project managers. Therefore, knowing the purpose of a given building, especially a given room, and knowing that extroverts will work there, it is possible to design the interiors in such a way as to maximise daylighting, and thus, reduce the intensive use of electric lighting, achieving savings in electricity consumption [74].

There is a lack of other research in the scientific literature that explore the relationship between personality traits and preferences for basic lighting parameters such as illuminance, illuminance uniformity, light colour, and glare.

As the literature indicates, there is also evidence that adapting lighting to users’ needs enables the use of lower illuminances, which consequently leads to a reduction in energy consumption [35,57,74,75,76].

The results of the previous studies suggest that adapting lighting in building interiors to the needs of occupants can lead to the improved visual comfort, user’s satisfaction and reduction in energy consumption. At the same time, there are no conclusive studies regarding whether personality traits influence lighting preferences in interior spaces.

This research aims to determine employees’ preferences for electric lighting in the workplace based on their personality traits. The online Gallup CliftonStrengths [77] assessment tool was used to determine the personality traits of the individuals participating in the pilot survey. This represents an innovative and unprecedented use of this tool.

The three goals of this study were

• Survey personality traits and lighting preferences in terms of illuminance, illuminance uniformity, light colour, and glare.
• Grouping respondents according to the same personality traits.
• Study the differences in lighting preferences between people with different personality traits.

2. Method

2.1. The CliftonStrengths Method

The CliftonStrengths personality trait assessment tool [77] developed and commercially used by Gallup is applied to investigate the influence of internal factors on lighting preference.

Donald O. Clifton was the psychologist who was one of the main developers of this tool. When he first designed the interviews that became the basis for CliftonStrengths, he asked, “What would happen if we studied what was right with people versus what was wrong with people?” [78]. He came up with the strengths philosophy of using talents as the basis for consistently achieving excellence. This philosophy asserts that individuals can gain far more when they expend effort to build on their most extraordinary talents than when they spend a comparable amount of effort to remediate their weaknesses [79]. Clifton hypothesised that these talents were “naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling or behaviour that can be productively applied” [80]. Strengths are the result of maximised talents. Strength is mastery, which is created when one’s most powerful talents are refined with practice and combined with acquired relevant skills and knowledge.

However, this article will not analyse the development of talents to build strengths. It will examine the knowledge of one’s talents, which describes a person’s “thought, feeling or behaviour” related to lighting preferences. The reports [81,82] summarise the reliability, validity, and utility evidence gathered up to now associated with this method. The studies have produced evidence of some correspondence to the Big Five personality traits [81,82].

The CliftonStrengths web tool is designed to measure raw talent. In the 1990s, under the leadership of Donald O. Clifton, Gallup developed the CliftonStrengths assessment as an objective measure of personal talent that could be administered online in less than an hour. Today, CliftonStrengths is available in more than 25 languages and more than 31 million people from nearly every country have taken the CliftonStrengths assessment. It is a valuable and diverse database for research purposes.

CliftonStrengths measures and categorises the presence of talent across 34 distinct themes. A theme is a category of talents defined as recurring and consistent patterns of thought, feeling, or behaviour.

Table 1. A brief description of the exemplary themes [81]. A detailed description of all 34 talent themes can be found in [83]. Colours for each theme are connected with the domains from Table 2.

Theme Name	Theme Description
Achiever®	People who work hard and possess a great deal of stamina. They take immense satisfaction in being busy and productive.
Activator®	People who can make things happen by turning thoughts into action. They want to take action now, rather than discuss it.
Adaptability®	People who go with the flow. They tend to be “now” people who take things as they come and discover the future one day at a time.
Analytical®	People who search for reasons and causes. They have the ability to consider all the factors that might affect a situation.

presents a brief description of the exemplary themes that collectively contribute to talent development. The order of themes (dependent on their intensity) is a unique feature that distinguishes each person, i.e., their individual talent and personality. Colours for each theme are connected with the domains from

Table 2. The four strengths domains [81]. Domain colours have been used to better distinguish them, in accordance with those in [77].

	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking
Constituent themes	Achiever	Activator	Adaptability	Analytical
	Arranger	Command	Connectedness	Context
	Belief	Communication	Developer	Futuristic
	Consistency	Competition	Empathy	Ideation
	Deliberative	Maximizer	Harmony	Input
	Discipline	Self-Assurance	Includer	Intellection
	Focus	Significance	Individualization	Learner
	Responsibility	Woo	Positivity	Strategic
	Restorative		Relator

, which will be explained later.

In addition to describing talent by providing 34 themes (Table 1), a talent is represented by defining domains. There are four domains to which themes are assigned, each belonging to only one domain. The division into domains is based on Gallup’s 2007 research which involved a random sample of 50,000 respondents [81]. It employed various exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis methods, as well as clinical reviews by experienced strengths consultants [81]. They aimed to examine how much 34 themes combine into larger groups. The domains are the tendencies that can help summarise the generalised preferences for accomplishing tasks, taking charge of situations, emphasising relationships, or absorbing and analysing information. The domains and their assigned themes are presented in Table 2. Each domain correlates with the feature of the Big Five model that is most conceptually related to its component topics [81].

The results should be obtained for a particular group of people to study the influence of personality traits on preferences related to electric lighting in interiors using the results of the CliftonStrengths, and then statistically analysed them (Figure 1).

CliftonStrengths assessment tool results are obtained by purchasing access and completing it through the Gallup website [77]. Various companies offer also the paid access to the survey through the Gallup website by providing a special code. People from different age groups and professions take the CliftonStrengths assessment. A good way to reach such a diverse group may be to access the places where these people meet virtually, such as social media groups. The authors used the groups of people who had taken the CliftonStrengths assessment and communicated with each other in the group to discuss talents (Figure 1). The authors used a properly prepared online survey to obtain the information from this group (Figure 1). Therefore, conducting the CliftonStrengths assessment among the participants was not part of the research. The authors surveyed respondents about their lighting preferences and asked them to enter their previously identified talent themes (Figure 1).

A comparison of the CliftonStrengths assessment and the Big Five model demonstrates two distinct approaches to understanding personality and human potential. A summary of key differences and similarities is presented in

Table 3. Comparison of the CliftonStrengths assessment and the Big Five Model.

Criterion	CliftonStrengths Assessment	Big Five
Purpose and Application	Identifying individual strengths to support personal and professional development. Coaching, team development, leadership, HR.	Description of personality structure scientifically and neutrally. Clinical psychology, academic psychology, research, recruitment, and education.
Theoretical foundations	Based on positive psychology and Gallup research. A development model focused on potential.	Empirical model based on language analysis and statistics (factor analysis). A descriptive model focused on personality traits.
Model structure	A total of 34 talent themes (e.g., Achiever, Activator, Adaptability, Analytical). Ranking from strongest to weakest.	Five main dimensions: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism. The level of intensity of each of the five traits on the continuum.
Scientific validation	Commercial, less available for independent research.	Firmly established in psychological literature.
Approach to development	Focus on developing strengths, not on improving weaknesses.	Neutral—does not suggest a direction of development, only describes personality.

.

The Big Five is a well-established tool for determining personality traits in scientific research. However, in business and personal development settings, as the CliftonStrengths assessment is frequently used, this study aims to assess employee preferences for electric lighting in the workplace. It was assumed that the CliftonStrengths assessment has the potential to be used in examining lighting preferences based on personality traits. This is an innovative approach.

2.2. Survey Method

Energy-related occupant behaviour can be studied using different techniques. The article [84] reviews the research methods across various publications, indicating that 67% of the selected studies employed occupant surveys. A survey is a good way to obtain information about users’ behaviour, as this parameter is very subjective. Surveys are a popular quantitative research tool, often referred to as CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing) in the social sciences. When implemented on the Internet, they have great potential to be taken by many people. Using statistical methods, the survey enables the generalisation of the obtained results from the studied and randomly selected sample (representative) to the entire population, providing a quantitative description of the sample’s trends, attitudes, or opinions [85]. This is the fastest and cheapest technique because it does not require the participation of a pollster during the collection of responses. The fact that the respondent fills out the survey independently has a positive impact on the quality of the data received, as respondents tend to be honest when they are aware of their anonymity, which is easier to ensure in an online survey. Another advantage of the absence of an interviewer is the reduction of social pressure and distortion of results that can occur because of the interview’s presence.

However, the survey also generates several problems. The survey is based solely on the answers provided by the respondents, which may introduce a risk of errors. There are general doubts about the credibility of surveys, specifically whether the answers given by respondents are accurate and reliable, given the discrepancies between the answers and the observed behaviour. It happens that a low return of fully completed surveys [86] can be expected due to the lack of an interviewer who controls the survey in some way. In addition, self-administered questionnaires (conducted without the researcher’s presence, allowing respondents to complete them independently) pose a risk of misunderstanding some questions and therefore providing incorrect answers. To minimise these risks, the researchers employ various techniques, such as offering incentives to people who complete the survey, conducting live survey collection, replacing surveys with interviews and using multiple-choice closed-ended questions [84]. The authors followed the principles of preparing survey questions as presented in the paper [85] when creating their survey.

In the survey, the correct formulation of questions and the logic are crucial because each error affects the number and quality of the received answers. The questionnaire in the study consisted of 31 closed questions (Figure 1). However, only 20 questions were used [Appendix A] for the purpose of this article and the problem of preferences in electric lighting preferences. The remaining questions will be included in the authors’ following publication on the factors influencing the stability of preferences over time.

This article explores five drop-down questions that concern the ranking of one’s talent themes, and seven questions using the Likert scale with three or five answer options. In these types of questions, the neutral answers were not taken into considerations. That is why a non-content-based answer of the type “hard to say” was added at the end of the scale. It was done for people who, for some reason, find it challenging to make a clear choice from the remaining options. The remaining eight questions were multiple-choice questions and concerned the registry (Figure 1).

At the beginning of the survey, the participants were asked to identify their five highest-intensity talent themes (TOP5). This is the number of talent themes considered the most important and influential in our thinking, feeling and reactions. The talent theme reflects the differences between people, which can, in turn, influence the differences in other aspects considered in the survey (Figure 1). The central part of the survey included the questions related to user’s behaviour about electric lighting. However, at the beginning, the respondents were asked to indicate their level of knowledge in the field of lighting technology, which allowed us to determine whether they were amateurs or experts in electric lighting. The level of lighting knowledge impacts the perception and awareness of lighting. People educated in lighting are able to, among other things, evaluate lighting differently, notice its various aspects, provide causes and effects of specific lighting phenomena, and formulate their own lighting needs. Next, the respondents were asked about the need to deepen their knowledge of lighting technology when purchasing lighting or introducing lighting control options. When the respondents have some knowledge, they first use it when faced with a new lighting issue. Then, later, if necessary, they develop this knowledge. Such knowledge in this area demonstrates an interest in the subject and the potential to expand one’s understanding if required, thereby enabling better decision-making. The following questions considered lighting preferences in the place where work was most frequently performed after the sun set (i.e., with electric lighting). The division into the task area and its surroundings was considered in this context. The questions were asked about the aspects such as illuminance, illuminance uniformity, light colour and glare. The registry section asked about gender, age, education, domicile, workplace, workspace size, number of co-workers, and work mode (Figure 1).

The survey was administered and distributed through the Microsoft’s Forms tool. The ready-made survey in Polish was posted as a link in a post encouraging participation in several Facebook groups in Poland. The groups consisted of 13,800, 10,000, and 3800 people (Figure 1). In this way, the survey was completed voluntarily and anonymously. The choice of specific groups resulted from their accessibility to the authors, without requiring the purchase of expensive advertisements to encourage them to complete the survey. The post with the link was published in September 2024 and the responses were received until the end of November 2024. The survey was accessible on computers, smartphones, and tablets, and it took approximately 10 min to complete.

3. Results

One hundred eight individuals completed the survey. Despite the large databases of the individuals for this research, the small sample size limits the extent to which the results can be generalised and the scope for detailed analysis capable of revealing the significant factors that define connection of talent themes and behaviours related to electric lighting in interiors. However, the authors believe that this approach is suitable for studying people’s preferences depending on personality traits (in this case, talent themes) because it is cost-effective and does not violate people’s privacy. However, the current results are from a pilot study that may be developed further. Choosing the most appropriate method to conduct the survey and considering incentives for respondents would help achieve more accurate and reliable survey results.

3.1. Respondents

The study participants were randomly selected individuals from three groups on the Facebook social networking site, who read the posted content and clicked on the link. The study included 108 participants, comprising 101 women (94%), 6 men (6%), and one person (1%) who did not wish to disclose their gender. Since 94% of the responses were from individuals identifying as female, the results will be prepared specifically for women. It is important to highlight that, in general, women account for 60% of Gallup CliftonStrengths assessment responders.

The survey included 101 women from Poland. The average age of the surveyed women was 42 years (standard deviation, 7.15); the minimum age was 25 years, the maximum age was 60 years, and the median age was 41 years (lower quartile, 37; upper quartile, 47). Therefore, they are adults, and their age indicates that they work and are not students. Most people had higher education (86.1%), followed by secondary education (12.9%). People with primary education did not participate in the survey. Most respondents (44.6%) came from cities with the population of over 500,000. The second-largest city population (18.8%) was between 100,000 and 500,000. A total of 37.6% of the respondents work in companies employing fewer than 10 people, and 34.7% work in companies employing more than 250 people. In this case, the responders work with both small and large companies.

When asked about the size of the room where these people work and compared it to the living room in their apartment, 63.4% of people indicated that it is the same as the area of their living room, while 13.9% indicated that it is twice the area of their living room. So, the respondents work in small rooms that are the size of their living rooms or have similar dimensions. In terms of the number of people in the room where a given respondent works, the median was 2. The minimum values indicated independent work; the maximum values were 70 and corresponded to large open-space areas. Referring to the past period of the COVID-19 pandemic and the emerging need to maximise work from home (home office), a question was asked about the number of days spent working from home [87]. The results showed that 31.7% of people work fully in home office mode (5 days a week), while 20.8% work from the office (outside the home) daily. The remaining people work in a hybrid mode, spending a few days at home and the rest in the office.

3.2. Data Analysis

3.2.1. Grouping Respondents

To analyse the influence of talent themes on lighting preferences, it is necessary to group surveyed women according to their characteristics. However, it is impossible to group the respondents according to all their talent themes (names and order of appearance) because building a representative group in such a case will be impossible. For example, finding another person with the same arrangement (order) of only the first five talent themes out of all 34 is approximately 1 in 33 million. In addition, the difficulty of reaching such people (respondents) will make the situation even more difficult. Therefore, for the sake of research feasibility, a method to reduce this variability is needed. Thus, all 101 women respondents were divided into four groups, considering which of the four domains the talent theme appearing in the first position belongs to. Of course, this division can be made differently, for example, by assigning the respondent to the domain that contains the most of their top five talent themes. However, this approach will sometimes lead to ambiguity in defining the domain when the same number of talent themes is found in several domains. A failure to consider a larger number of talent themes when assigning domains affects the degree to which a given respondent belongs to a given domain. However, the inclusion of the first talent trait contributes to this the most. Therefore, the following groups were created, as shown in Figure 2. Initially, most respondents had the talent theme from the Relationship Building domain (43 people, 42.6%). Next came the Strategic Thinking domain, with 24 participants (23.8%). The domains of Influencing and Executing had similar prevalence, amounting to 19 people (18.8%) and 15 people (14.9%), respectively. This indicates that emphasising relationships with the surrounding people is a dominant characteristic for the respondents.

The analysis of the results will first involve providing the descriptive statistics to familiarise the reader with the study results. First, it will refer to the entire study group and then to the individual domains. Then, mathematical statistics in the form of the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test by Ranks will be applied to verify whether the domain affiliation of the talent theme influences lighting preferences to a statistically significant extent. It is important to emphasise that the results do not apply to the entire population, but to the observed changes in the surveyed respondents.

3.2.2. The Responders’ Level of Lighting Knowledge

The surveyed women’s knowledge of electric lighting is not high (

Table 4. The percentage of people regarding their knowledge of lighting and willingness to expand it.

Lighting Knowledge Level	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking	All
very high	0	0	0	4.2	1
high	6.7	10.5	0	0	3
intermediate	40	5.3	25.6	45.8	28.7
low	20	31.6	46.5	37.5	37.6
very low	33.3	47.4	25.6	12.5	27.7
hard to say	0	5.3	2.3	0	2
total	100	100	100	100	100
Learning New Lighting	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking	All
yes	6.7	15.8	18.6	29.2	18.8
rather yes	46.7	42.1	41.9	29.2	39.6
rather no	20	36.8	23.3	20.8	24.8
no	13.3	0	7	16.7	8.9
have already	0	5.3	0	0	1
hard to say	13.3	0	9.3	4.2	6.9
total	100	100	100	100	100
Learning Lighting Control	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking	All
yes	20	10.5	23.3	37.5	23.8
rather yes	46.7	42.1	53.5	33.3	45.5
rather no	13.3	26.3	18.6	8.3	16.8
no	6.7	0	4.7	8.3	5
have already	6.7	5.3	0	4.2	3
hard to say	6.7	15.8	0	8.3	5.9
total	100	100	100	100	100

). The respondents most often (38 answers) assessed their level of knowledge as low (29 answers), intermediate (28 answers), or very low (28 answers). Almost 66% of respondents considered their knowledge to be low or very low. Only one person rated their knowledge as very high, and three rated it as high. People with talent themes from the Influencing domain were the most critical of their knowledge, with as many as 47.4% considering their knowledge to be very low, and 31.6% considering it to be low. The highest ratings were given to individuals in the Strategic Thinking and Executing domains—45.8% and 40%, respectively—who possessed intermediate knowledge.

The respondents have a positive attitude towards learning more about lighting when there is a particular need such as purchasing new lighting or learning the lighting control function due to, for example, the modernisation of the installation. There were more answers rather yes than yes. Regarding better selection of new lighting, 58.4% of the respondents were willing to learn more (answered yes and rather yes). However, as many as 24.8% said rather no, and 8.9% said no to learning more. This indicates a difference in the position of these people. The respondents showed a more positive attitude towards further education to control lighting better. As many as 69.3% of the respondents were willing to expand their knowledge (answered yes and rather yes). 16.8% of the respondents said rather no, and 5% said no to expanding their knowledge in this field. People from the Strategic Thinking domain show the most positive attitude towards expanding their knowledge (the highest percentage of yes and rather yes answers) in each of the analysed aspects. However, this group also has a large share of sceptical people (answered rather no and no). Therefore, it does not provide a clear position on this aspect, showing a high degree of variance or polarisation within this group, rather than a clear positive trend.

3.2.3. Lighting Preferences of Respondents

The preference questions addressed the needs related to lighting conditions in the place where surveyed women most often perform their work. It was emphasised that this is the time after the sun set, i.e., with the use of only electric lighting. Features such as illuminance, illuminance uniformity, colour, and glare were examined. A division was made between the desk surface (task area) and the rest of the room, i.e., the surrounding area of the workplace for questions about the illuminance and the illuminance uniformity.

The research aimed to determine whether people’s personality traits influence their lighting preferences. The hypothesis that people with different personality traits exhibit distinct lighting preferences was verified. The descriptive statistics analysis and statistical tests were carried out as part of the research.

Illuminance

The most common need related to the illuminance was the statement quite light (49.5%), referring to the task area (

Table 5. The percentage of people regarding their preferred illuminances in the task area and the surrounding area for each domain.

Task Area Illuminance	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking	All
quite light	66.7	52.6	51.2	33.3	49.5
rather light	26.7	47.4	46.5	58.3	46.5
rather dark	6.7	0.0	0.0	8.3	3.0
quite dark	0.0	0.0	2.3	0.0	1.0
hard to say	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
total	100	100	100	100	100
Surrounding Area Illuminance	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking	All
quite light	33.3	42.1	23.3	20.8	27.7
rather light	46.7	47.4	62.8	50.0	54.5
rather dark	13.3	10.5	14.0	25.0	15.8
quite dark	0.0	0.0	0.0	4.2	1.0
hard to say	6.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0
total	100	100	100	100	100

). In the surrounding area, the most common response was less illuminance than in the task area—the option rather light (54.5%). We can see a different trend here, considering the second-most frequently chosen option for these two areas. Interestingly, 15.8% of people preferred rather dark lighting in the surrounding area of their workplace.

Only people with talent themes from the Strategic Thinking domain do not expect the highest illuminance in the task area. A total of 58.3% of these people expect rather light lighting, rather than quite light lighting. Approximately half of the respondents in each domain selected rather light for the surrounding area, which is the second-highest illuminance. However, a significantly larger group of people with talent themes from the Relationship Building domain are included in this selection (62.8%). Low illuminances—the rather dark option was indicated for the task area only in the Strategic Thinking and Executing domains and accounted for approximately 7.5%. About the surrounding area, this option was chosen by each domain at a level of several per cent. The highest percentage was for the Strategic Thinking domain and amounted to 25%.

Illuminance Uniformity

In terms of illuminance uniformity, respondents’ preferences indicate a preference for quite uniform lighting in both the task area (61.4%) and the surrounding area (52.5%) (

Table 6. The percentage of people regarding their preferred illuminance uniformity in the task and surrounding areas for each domain.

Task Area Illuminance Uniformity	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking	All
very uniform	13.3	36.8	25.6	16.7	23.8
quite uniform	80.0	52.6	58.1	62.5	61.4
quite ununiform	6.7	10.5	16.3	20.8	14.9
very ununiform	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
hard to say	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
total	100	100	100	100	100
Surrounding Area Illuminance Uniformity	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking	All
very uniform	6.7	26.3	16.3	16.7	16.8
quite uniform	60.0	42.1	58.1	45.8	52.5
quite ununiform	33.3	21.1	20.9	29.2	24.8
very ununiform	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
hard to say	0.0	10.5	4.7	8.3	5.9
total	100	100	100	100	100

). Very uniform (23.8%) and quite ununiform (14.9%) were the most popular task area options while the reverse order occurs for surrounding area illuminance uniformity—quite ununiform (24.8%) and very uniform (16.8%).

People with talent themes belonging to each domain have similar needs related to the illuminance uniformity. A high repeatability of the quite uniform response can be observed concerning the task area and its surroundings (Table 6). People with talent themes from the Executing domain show the highest percentage of quite uniform responses, especially in the case of the task area. The smallest share of this response is attributed to people with talent themes from the Influencing domain.

Light Colour

Most respondents (57.4%) preferred light colour (correlated colour temperature) as warm. The neutral colour options were chosen less frequently–33.7%. Only 5% of respondents chose the cool colour (

Table 7. The percentage of people regarding their preferred light colour for each domain.

Light Colour	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking	All
cool	0.0	10.5	7.0	0.0	5.0
neutral	33.3	36.8	30.2	37.5	33.7
warm	53.3	47.4	60.5	62.5	57.4
hard to say	13.3	5.3	2.3	0.0	4
total	100	100	100	100	100

).

People with talent themes in the Strategic Thinking domain have the highest percentage of warm responses at 62.5% and neutral at 37.5%. The highest number of undecided people was in the Executing domain, amounting to 13.3%.

Glare

Regarding glare, respondents’ most frequently chosen option was no glare (46.5%). The low glare option was indicated to be preferred by 26.7% of people (

Table 8. The percentage of people regarding their preferred glare for each domain.

Glare	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking	All
high glare	13.3	26.3	11.6	12.5	14.9
low glare	26.7	36.8	27.9	16.7	26.7
no glare	46.7	31.6	46.5	58.3	46.5
hard to say	13.3	5.3	14.0	12.5	11.9
total	100	100	100	100	100

). As many as 14.9% of people showed the preference for high glare. Among all the questions about lighting preferences, the most people, 11.9%, chose the answer hard to say in the case of glare.

Among people with talent themes belonging to the Influencing domain, the low glare preference is most frequently chosen by 36.8%. People with the Strategic Thinking domain have the highest percentage of no glare responses at 58.3%. In the remaining domains, this option is indicated at approximately 46.6%.

The nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test by Ranks was performed to determine the significance of differences in lighting preferences between people with different personality traits.

The null hypothesis was as follows: The presence of the first talent theme in a specific domain does not determine lighting preferences in terms of task area illuminance/surrounding area illuminance/task area illuminance uniformity/surrounding area illuminance uniformity/light colour/glare (each domain has the same lighting preferences in this respect).

The alternative hypothesis was as follows: The presence of the first talent theme in a specific domain determines lighting preferences in terms of ask area illuminance/surrounding area illuminance/task area illuminance uniformity/surrounding area illuminance uniformity/light colour/glare (at least one domain has different lighting preferences in this respect).

The results of the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test by Ranks are presented in

Table 9. The nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test by Ranks results for lighting preferences.

	Dependent Variable
Independent (Grouping) Variable	Executing	Influencing	Relationship Building	Strategic Thinking
Valid N	15	19	43	24
task area illuminance	H (3, N = 101) = 4.4493, p = 0.2169
sum of ranks	650	921	2142	1438
mean rank	43.3333	48.4737	49.8140	59.9167
surrounding area illuminance	H (3, N = 101) = 2.7372, p = 0.4339
sum of ranks	850.5	1063.0	1992.0	1245.5
mean rank	56.7000	55.9474	46.3256	51.8958
task area illuminance uniformity	H (3, N = 101) = 2.5965, p = 0.4581
sum of ranks	621.0	1024.5	2265.0	1240.5
mean rank	41.4000	53.9211	52.6744	51.6875
surrounding area illuminance uniformity	H (3, N = 101) = 1.9359, p = 0.5858
sum of ranks	720	1055	2053	1323
mean rank	48.0000	55.5263	47.7442	55.1250
light colour	H (3, N = 101) = 1.0927, p = 0.7788
sum of ranks	794.5	983.5	2263.0	1110.0
mean rank	52.9667	51.7632	52.6279	46.2500
glare	H (3, N = 101) = 1.4993, p = 0.6824
sum of ranks	767.0	1076.5	2195.0	1112.5
mean rank	51.1333	56.6579	51.0465	46.3542

.

Kruskal–Wallis test results:

• Task area illuminance: H = 4.4493. For 3 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 5%, χ² (3) = 7.815. This means that H < χ² (3), p = 0.2169 (p > 0.05).
• Surrounding area illuminance: H = 2.7372. For 3 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 5%, χ² (3) = 7.815. This means that H < χ² (3), p = 0.4339 (p > 0.05).
• Task area illuminance uniformity: H = 2.5965. For 3 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 5%, χ² (3) = 7.815. This means that H < χ² (3), p = 0.4581 (p > 0.05).
• Surrounding area illuminance uniformity: H = 1.9359. For 3 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 5%, χ² (3) = 7.815. This means that H < χ² (3), p = 0.5858 (p > 0.05).
• Light colour: H = 1.0927. For 3 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 5%, χ² (3) = 7.815. This means that H < χ² (3), p = 0.7788 (p > 0.05).
• Glare: H = 1.4993. For 3 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 5%, χ² (3) = 7.815. This means that H < χ² (3), p = 0.6824 (p > 0.05).

Considering the above results, there is no basis to reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis stated that the presence of the first talent theme in a specific domain does not determine lighting preferences in terms of task area illuminance/surrounding area illuminance/task area illuminance uniformity/surrounding area illuminance uniformity/light colour/glare. Therefore, none of the domains differ significantly in terms of the lighting preferences within the analysed range. Thus, the affiliation of the first talent theme to a specific domain does not provide statistically significant information about lighting preference in the case investigated in the article. When categorised in this way, personality may not be the primary driver of lighting preferences. This is a significant conclusion for designers.

4. Discussion

Knowing people’s lighting preferences will facilitate the design process to achieve users’ satisfaction with the installed lighting, thereby eliminating the need for manual adjustments to the lighting system, which often leads to increased electricity consumption.

Due to the lack of statistical significance in differences in lighting preferences between individuals with different personality traits, the discussion of the obtained results refers to the surveyed women participating in the survey, without generalising the entire population.

4.1. Level of Lighting Knowledge

The part of the survey related to the questions about electric lighting began by determining respondents’ knowledge level in this area. The results showed that the surveyed women had limited knowledge about electric lighting, indicating that most respondents did not have the background/profession related to this area. The low level of the expertise may be surprising because lighting is essential to our existence in the interiors where we spend most of the day [88]. The information about the respondents’ level of knowledge can also be used in the further research on this group of people as it will be possible to tailor the questions and vocabulary used more effectively. This justifies the need to prepare understandable questions when surveying their preferences, given the respondents’ limited knowledge of electric lighting. Nevertheless, there is always a particular risk that respondents may misunderstand the questions [84].

The results in Table 4 indicate different levels of respondents’ knowledge about lighting in domains. People with talent themes from the Strategic Thinking and Executing domains are among those who rate their level of knowledge about lighting the highest. On the other hand, people with talent themes from the Influencing domain describe their level of knowledge as the lowest. Therefore, when designing lighting for individuals with talent themes from the Strategic Thinking and Executing domains, these individuals should be particularly considered in the design process, as they are likely to be aware of the impact of lighting [34,38,39,42] on people. Their knowledge enables them to actively participate in the design process and effectively utilise the implemented solutions. Therefore, it can be expected that the gap between the design and use phases will be reduced.

The identified low knowledge of electric lighting among respondents suggests potential for further education, as indicated by the frequently occurring answer rather yes in Table 4. After additional education, the respondents can make conscious, rather than random, purchasing decisions or decisions related to lighting operation (lighting control). A specific stimulus or situation may trigger the need for further education. Specific knowledge can be used when necessary. However, it can lead to an embarrassing situation if we lack this specific knowledge. The decisions related to purchasing new lighting are rare and they result from renovations, modernisation, and finishing works. However, the decisions related to controlling lighting are encountered every day. Technological progress in the lighting field has led to a shift from operating lighting only at the on/off level to the emergence of control systems where many lighting parameters can be set. The results show that the surveyed people want to learn about lighting regardless of the domains. We, as designers, need to make it easier for them and provide them with information. The users will then take more reasonable and predictable actions. They will not experiment, introduce modifications to the lighting system or change the operation of devices in the project. The installation’s users can find the knowledge they need independently. However, the users should be helped and they can be provided with clear instructions, training, and joint implementation of lighting systems with the user [89,90,91]. However, the research questions the sole contribution of users’ information on energy savings [92]. The results obtained for the individuals with talent themes from the Strategic Thinking domain indicate a greater willingness to acquire new knowledge in the field of electric lighting, although this is not a clear trend.

Due to their limited knowledge about lighting, the surveyed individuals are likely to pay less attention to lighting systems. Like many systems found in buildings, the designed lighting solutions will be accepted without questioning them. People’s level of knowledge about lighting influences the decisions and actions they take regarding electric lighting, and therefore, their preferences. It can be expected that, for example, a person who is aware of the influence of colour temperature (spectral distribution of radiation) on alertness will require appropriate lighting [93,94]. In the context of using lighting solutions created without the user’s participation at the design stage, it can be expected that such people will interfere with the lighting systems due to their need to use specific lighting solutions. This interference will occur when the needs of such a person are not met, resulting in a lack of satisfaction or comfort. It may lead to higher energy consumption by activating manual control or introducing additional lamps with a preferred colour temperature.

4.2. Lighting Preferences

4.2.1. Illuminance

Taking into account all surveyed women, the most common need related to the illuminance on the task area was quite light, and in the surrounding area, rather light. This guideline is based on the normative recommendations regarding interior lighting [7]. There is a gradation of the illuminance in individual interior regions, from the highest in the task area, to lower in the immediate surrounding area, and weakest in the background area. In addition, 15.8% of people preferred rather dark lighting in the surrounding area. This need offers the potential for significant energy savings but is only feasible in a single-person room, such as a home or office.

The results do not show any variation in the illuminance of the surrounding area across people with different personality traits. However, regarding the task area, there is a tendency towards a lower illuminance for people with talent themes from the Strategic Thinking domain. The gradation of the interior illuminances follows the standard in [7], thus characterising the most frequently selected responses in the remaining domains. Preferring less intense task area illuminance for the Strategic Thinking domain can lead to lower electricity costs. This finding is consistent with the results of the various studies which indicate that people prefer lower illuminances than those required by the standard [35,57,74,75,76]. However, this only applies to some of the people surveyed. Analysing these preferences in more detail, the choice can be made concerning, for example, darker colours in the interior, diffused or upward light distribution of luminaires, and lower power of luminaires. There is no risk of additional task area lighting that could increase energy consumption compared to the design.

The obtained results did not show that people with talent themes from the Influencing domain preferred higher illuminances than the others. The Influencing domain is most correlated with the Big Five trait of Extraversion (correlation 0.58) (Table 7 in [81]). In [74], it was found that people with many extraversion traits are significantly more likely to prefer maximum illuminances than the others. These results do not confirm this. The discrepancy in the obtained results may be related to differences in test conditions, such as virtual versus real environments, new versus known spaces, and median age values of 24 versus 41. However, it was observed that people with talent themes from the Strategic Thinking domain, which correlates with the Openness trait (interest in new experiences, ideas and so forth) from the Big Five model (correlation 0.73) (Table 7 in [81]), show a preference for lower illuminance of the task area. Such a correlation was not detected in the study [74]. In addition, 25% of people in the Strategic Thinking domain preferred a rather dark surrounding area illuminance (Table 5), highlighting the potential for energy savings in this group.

4.2.2. Illuminance Uniformity

Regarding illuminance uniformity, all respondents prefer quite uniform lighting in the task and the surrounding areas. There is no noticeable gradation of illuminance uniformity required by the standard [7], which recommends increasing uniformity for the task area. This provides the potential to save energy. However, considering the second-most frequently given answers, the preference (although less pronounced than for the most commonly chosen answers regarding illuminance) for the gradation of illuminance uniformity can be observed.

For people with talent themes from each domain, there is a need to provide quite uniform lighting both on the task area and the surrounding area. This means that they require moderate illuminance uniformity throughout the room, i.e., they do not expect higher uniformity in the task area (desk), as specified by the standard [7]. This indicates potential savings, regardless of individual personality traits. During the design process, there is a possibility of utilising, among other strategies, directional light distribution or a reduced number of luminaires, which leads to a decrease in energy consumption and investment costs.

4.2.3. Light Colour

The results regarding the preferred light colour (correlated colour temperature) were surprising. There is a high preference for warm light across all the respondents and domains. The highest percentage of such choices is for people with the talent themes from the Strategic Thinking domain. In design practice, the often-chosen warm light colour is associated with a place of rest, not work. Some respondents’ neutral light colour is consistent with the workplace lighting practices. This colour temperature was also most frequently chosen by the people from the Strategic Thinking domain (Table 7). Respondents chose the cool light colour the least often. The influence of high colour temperature has been studied many times, and its positive impact on alertness [93,94], cognitive performance [95], and well-being and productivity in corporate settings [96] has been discovered.

Currently, EEG test results show the increased power in all of the leading bands associated with the “bluer” colour of light at the same level of illumination [97]. The colour of light influences the luminous efficacy of LED lamps and is related to the used phosphor. The luminaires with a high colour temperature (cool light) have higher luminous efficacy, i.e., they consume less energy [98]. It is recommended that the light colour be linked to the illuminance, preferred mood, and interior colours [7]. The warm colour of light preferred by the respondents leads to lower energy savings. However, it is less frequently used in workplaces and does not improve activity or attentiveness [93,94,95,96,97]. Perhaps the reason for these preferences is the association of warm colours with home and places of relaxation, pleasure, and rest.

4.2.4. Glare

The phenomenon of glare is a significant factor affecting work efficiency and comfort. It describes the situations in which excessively bright lighting equipment elements or their reflections on surfaces cause discomfort or make it difficult to see. Among all respondents, the most frequently chosen option was no glare. This suggests that respondents are aware of the dangers associated with glare and want to avoid it. The occurrence of glare is acceptable only for people with talent themes from the Influencing domain, with 36.8% choosing low glare and 26.3% choosing high glare. Therefore, these people have fewer restrictive requirements than in other domains. The Influencing domain is most strongly correlated with the Big Five trait of extraversion (correlation 0.58) (Table 7 in [81]), for which the individuals are significantly more likely to prefer maximum lighting compared to the others [74]. The high illuminances preferred by these individuals may also lead to high glare, due to the higher illuminance at the observer’s eye plane, which is consistent across both studies.

Limiting glare requires using the appropriate lighting equipment with limited luminance in the directions of potential observation by the user, which is expensive. Additionally, the surfaces of monitors and furniture should be matte (non-glossy) to prevent high luminance levels and contrasts from appearing on them. And it is precisely the glossy surfaces in the interior that architects eagerly choose to create a sense of space [99]. The excessive glare can lead to various actions by users such as turning off or covering luminaires causing the glare. When switched off, this will positively affect energy consumption but will reduce the illuminance. Surprisingly, as many as 14.9% of people preferred high glare. This is not easy to explain, so it should be verified in the further research.

A total of 11.9% respondents chose the answer hard to say in the case of glare, which was the highest number in the survey. This may indicate difficulty in expressing a clear opinion or a misunderstanding of the question, which is rather technical in nature. To clarify, in everyday Polish, ‘glare’ is often associated with a flow of ideas, rather than excessively bright lighting.

The Strategic Thinking domain yields results that stand out from those of other domains. People in this domain have talent themes related to acquiring, assimilating and analysing information, i.e., with high intellectual activity. This is, therefore, consistent with the highest level of knowledge these individuals claim to possess and their willingness to develop it further. These people’s preference for not having the highest illuminance in their task area can be interpreted as intellectual work not requiring as high illuminance as physical work. However, this needs to be confirmed in further research.

5. Conclusions

This work investigates and expands the knowledge on the influence of internal factors on lighting preferences. The innovative approach was to use the Gallup CliftonStrengths assessment tool to determine the personality traits. The first objective was to survey personality traits and lighting preferences in terms of illuminance, illuminance uniformity, light colour, and glare. Due to the high level of detail in the obtained results using this CliftonStrengths tool, the survey was limited to the first 5 out of 34 features. During the analysis of the survey results, only the first feature and its correspondence to one of the four domains were examined. This is the realisation of the second goal, which is to group respondents according to the same personality traits. The results obtained from the study of 101 women did not indicate statistically significant differences in lighting preferences between the individual domains. Therefore, they cannot be generalised to the entire population. It is only possible to determine how the preferences regarding electric lighting are formed in the surveyed group of women, depending on the occurrence of the first talent theme in a specific domain. This is the realisation of the third goal, which is to examine the differences in lighting preferences among individuals with varying personality traits.

It has been observed that people with the first talent theme belonging to the domain:

• Strategic Thinking and Executing are among the people who rate their level of lighting knowledge the highest, while Influencing rates their level of knowledge as the lowest.
  People’s knowledge enables them to actively participate in the design process and effectively utilise the implemented solutions. Therefore, it can be expected that the gap between the design and use phases of buildings will be reduced.
• Strategic Thinking indicates a greater willingness to acquire new knowledge of electric lighting, although this is not a clear trend.
• Supporting them in the process of gaining this knowledge will allow them to take more conscious and predictable actions.
• Strategic Thinking prefers lower task area illuminance than other domains.
  A tendency towards lower illuminance can be observed only for the Strategic Thinking domain (correlated with the Openness trait from the Big Five model). This can lead to the lower electricity costs. The results did not show that people with talent themes from the Influencing domain (correlated with the Extraversion trait from the Big Five model) prefer a higher illuminance than those with other themes as the literature suggests.
• All domains do not expect a higher illuminance uniformity in the task area than in the surrounding area.
  There is no obvious preference for the gradation of its level required by the standard regarding the illuminance uniformity. This gives the potential to save energy by not striving for higher uniformity in the task area.
• All domains prefer warm colour of light.
  The high preference for warm light in the task area is contrary to design practice, recommendations and standards. This choice does not offer the benefits of high colour temperatures in terms of alertness, cognitive performance, well-being, and productivity in corporate settings. Warm light is also less energy efficient.
• Influencing allows for the occurrence of glare unlike other domains.
  Only for the Influencing domain, a certain level of glare is allowed, which provides the potential for savings associated with less restrictive light distribution.

The research has identified the several issues that require verification, improvement, or development. According to the authors, the most important aspects include

• surveying a larger group of the respondents to obtain the statistical significance of the observed preferences. It would be valuable to consider differences in gender, age, profession, and other relevant factors. Quantifying the distribution of preferences across a population is crucial for designing spaces adequately.
• women with the first talent theme from the Strategic Thinking domain were particularly likely to prefer less task area illuminance than recommended by standards. This observation holds significant potential for energy savings but requires further and more detailed research.
• examining the effect of having more than one talent theme from the same domain on preferences. This requires the access to a large group of people.
• relating subjective assessments (e.g., quite light, quite uniform) to numerical values—quantification of evaluations. Expressing the preferred illuminance as numerical values is essential, as it allows for its unambiguous implementation in the lighting design process. Without such information, we are forced to assume that the respondent’s lighting conditions comply with the requirements of the standard, and their preferences, e.g., lower illuminance, translates into lowering the standard requirements.
• taking into account the influence of other people staying in the same room on the lighting preferences of the respondents. The literature indicates that social factors influence occupants’ lighting choices in an office. In this paper, the authors focused on the situations where the participants have limited consideration of other people’s lighting preferences due to the small number of people in the same space (median value = 2).

Applying the results of the Gallup CliftonStrengths assessment tool to the study of electric lighting preferences has excellent potential and theoretical value. However, the connection between the first talent theme and specific domains, as well as lighting preferences, requires deeper research. The further research is needed to thoroughly explore this topic, considering the conclusions drawn from this pilot study. If the results of this study indicated statistically significant differences in lighting preferences, it would be possible to assign the preferences to each of the four domains and use such knowledge in practice. Until then, the results can be used to configure lighting control systems in installations designed based on current requirements, for example, by creating lighting scenes tailored to occupants, taking into account their personality traits. This can be applied to new buildings, those undergoing renovation, or existing structures. In the case of adaptive lighting systems, information about occupant personality can be used to support the system’s settings.

By expanding knowledge about lighting preferences, it will be possible to include it in future design recommendations, including standards, and apply it in the design practice. It is likely that in the standard [7] concerning interior lighting for offices, a separation of the requirements in connection with users’ personality traits will occur. Thanks to this, it would not be necessary to examine user’s preferences for each project individually, but based on specific tips, they could be read from the guidelines. As presented in the article, with such information, design teams can optimise the lighting settings available in a building so that they not only meet occupants’ preferences but also potentially reduce the energy consumption of the building. For this purpose, it is necessary to know the talent themes of the room users the lighting is being designed for.

Nowadays, more and more people have the results of the Gallup CliftonStrengths assessment. If certain people do not have such a result, then undergoing such an assessment should not be an obstacle. The obtained information will not only apply to lighting but will also be helpful in the personal development of the individual, pointing out to their potential areas of strength.