Illuminating Diversity: A Virtual Reality Study on Cultural and Gender-Based Hotel Lighting Preferences

Abstract

This study explores the impact of culture and gender on hotel guestroom lighting preferences and emotional responses using virtual reality (VR) technology. As VR plays an increasingly important role in hospitality and interior design research, this study examines whether Millennials and Generation Z travelers exhibit significant variations in lighting preferences based on nationality and gender. Researchers implemented a within-group experimental design, allowing participants to experience and compare four distinct lighting conditions in a virtual hotel guestroom. The study recruited 126 participants from three cultural backgrounds—South Korea, the United States, and Iran—and analyzed their preferences and emotional responses using the Pleasure–Arousal–Dominance (PAD) model. Findings reveal a strong preference for warm/dim lighting, which participants described as comfortable and relaxing, whereas they least preferred cool/bright lighting, often perceiving it as harsh and uninviting. While cultural differences did not significantly affect preferred lighting, participants from different backgrounds showed significant variations in their least preferred lighting choices; Iranian males demonstrated the strongest aversion to warm/bright lighting. Gender differences also emerged as female participants expressed a significantly greater dislike for cool/bright lighting. Emotional responses further supported these trends, with participants reporting greater pleasure and relaxation in their preferred lighting conditions. By offering empirical insights into how lighting influences guest experiences, this study highlights the role of cultural and gender variations in hospitality design. The findings provide hotel designers, architects, and hospitality professionals with practical guidance for creating personalized and culturally adaptive lighting environments in hotel guestrooms.

Hotel guestroom design plays a critical role in shaping guests’ experiences and satisfaction. Among the many design elements, lighting significantly affects ambiance, emotional responses, and overall comfort. Prior research highlights that lighting impacts aesthetic appeal, relaxation, and guestroom functionality, making it a key consideration in hospitality design (Mattila, 1999; Penner et al., 2013). However, individual preferences for lighting can vary based on cultural background and gender, affecting how guests perceive comfort and usability in hotel environments. While many hotel guestrooms share similar spatial characteristics worldwide, cross-cultural studies suggest that lighting preferences are not universal. Especially, cultural background significantly influences perceptions of color temperature, brightness levels, and lighting ambiance (E. Lee & Park, 2011). Park et al. (2010) found that North American hotel guests found dim lighting more arousing, while Korean guests responded more strongly to bright lighting. These studies highlight how cultural norms and lived experiences shape lighting expectations, raising the question of whether globalized hotel interiors truly cater to diverse guest preferences.

Gender also influences how people perceive lighting, particularly in terms of color sensitivity and comfort. Research suggests that women are more sensitive to brightness and color variations than men, often preferring warmer, softer lighting for relaxation (Z. Huang et al., 2019). In contrast, men generally tolerate brighter, cooler lighting better due to differences in biological and psychological responses (Chellappa et al., 2017).

Generational differences further complicate lighting preferences. Millennials (born 1981–1996) and Generation Z (born 1997–2012) have shaped the hospitality industry with their demand for technology-driven, customizable experiences (Heo et al., 2023; Prensky, 2001). Unlike previous generations, they prefer lighting that is functional, adaptable, and visually engaging. Social media has significantly influenced their expectations, increasing the demand for aesthetic and mood-enhancing lighting that contributes to a hotel’s brand identity (Meyer, 2007). While these generations readily embrace smart lighting technologies and customizable ambiance, cultural and gender differences still influence their preferences. These evolving expectations underscore the need for research on lighting solutions that are personalized and culturally responsive.

Architects and interior designers increasingly use virtual reality (VR) to simulate lighting environments, spatial experiences, and ambiance in controlled settings (Kalantari & Neo, 2020). Unlike traditional two-dimensional (2D) renderings, VR creates realistic, immersive experiences that allow researchers to assess how individuals react to different lighting conditions in real time (Bellazzi et al., 2022). Studies suggest that VR simulations closely resemble real-world lighting experiences, making them an effective tool for evaluating design preferences (Kuliga et al., 2015). However, despite the growing use of VR in hospitality research, few studies have examined how cultural and gender differences influence lighting preferences in immersive hotel environments. Most existing research relies on static images or laboratory-controlled lighting conditions, which fail to capture how guests interact with lighting in a real-world hotel setting. This study addresses this gap by using VR to examine how Millennials and Generation Z from different cultural backgrounds and genders experience lighting in virtual hotel guestrooms.

Specifically, this study (a) identifies preferred lighting characteristics based on cultural background and gender and (b) analyzes the emotional responses to different lighting variations using the Pleasure–Arousal–Dominance (PAD) model. Unlike previous research, which has primarily focused on static environments or non-immersive simulations, this study uses VR technology to create realistic guestroom lighting experiences. The findings offer practical insights for hospitality professionals, hotel designers, and architects, helping them develop culturally adaptive lighting designs that enhance guest comfort. By understanding how different groups perceive and respond to lighting, hotels can improve guest satisfaction, personalization, and brand loyalty, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive design approach in the hospitality industry.

Literature Review

Lighting and Cultural Differences

Lighting plays a crucial role in shaping how people experience interior spaces, yet preferences for brightness, color temperature, and ambiance vary significantly across cultures. Factors such as historical traditions, environmental conditions, and aesthetic values influence these differences, affecting how individuals perceive comfort, functionality, and mood in hotel guestrooms. As global travel increases, understanding these cultural variations is essential for creating hospitality environments that cater to diverse guests (Park et al., 2010).

…preferences for brightness, color temperature, and ambiance vary significantly across cultures.

Several studies have explored cultural differences in lighting preferences across various settings. E. Lee and Park (2011) studied residential environments and found that Koreans living in the United States often felt dissatisfied with their apartment lighting. As a result, they adjusted it by adding extra fixtures or modifying the light temperature. Similarly, Park and Farr (2007) investigated lighting preferences in retail settings and found that American participants preferred 3,000 Kelvin (K) warm lighting and rated all lighting conditions more favorably in terms of arousal, visual clarity, and attractiveness compared to their Korean counterparts. Moreover, research on hotel guestroom lighting also highlights cross-cultural variations. For instance, Park et al. (2010) projected 2D digital images of different lighting conditions to participants in the United States and South Korea. Their findings revealed that North American participants perceived dim lighting as more arousing, whereas Korean participants found bright lighting more stimulating.

While cultural differences in lighting preferences are well-documented, some studies suggest that exposure to different environments may influence these preferences. Liu et al. (2013) found that Chinese and American university students shared similar lighting preferences for familiar objects like fruits but differed in their preferences for unfamiliar objects like paintings. This finding suggests that cultural familiarity affects how individuals perceive lighting. Schielke (2010) explored lighting’s impact on retail brand image across cultures and found significant correlations in perceptions among participants from the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. These findings suggest that while cultural preferences exist, certain lighting perceptions transcend regional differences. Similarly, Dugar and Agarwal (2019) found that individuals with extensive travel or cross-cultural exposure tend to favor warmer lighting, reinforcing the role of global experiences in shaping individual lighting preferences.

Lighting and Gender Differences

Research suggests that men and women respond differently to brightness levels and color temperature, although findings remain inconsistent. For instance, studies suggest that women are more sensitive to lighting conditions, particularly in color perception and brightness variation. Z. Huang et al. (2022) found that women prefer warmer lighting (3,500K during the day, 3,000K at night), whereas men favor cooler tones (5,000K and above). Similarly, Wang et al. (2020) found that excessive white light negatively impacted women’s color preferences, reinforcing the importance of color-adjustable lighting for visual comfort. Lighting temperature and intensity can also influence cognitive performance and physiological responses differently across genders. For example, Chellappa et al. (2017) found that men respond more strongly to blue-enriched light (6,500K) compared to non-blue-enriched light (2,500K), experiencing higher brightness perception, improved reaction times, and increased non-rapid eye movement sleep slow-wave activity. In addition, R. H. Huang et al. (2015) showed that correlated color temperature affects women’s focus and sustained attention.

However, some research challenges the idea of universal gender-based lighting preferences. Schielke (2015) found no significant differences between men and women in their evaluation of brightness and color temperature in retail settings. Similarly, Kakitsuba (2020) reported that LED lighting produced similar psychological and physiological responses across genders. Additionally, Kim et al. (2022) and Rao et al. (2017) found that environmental factors, such as time of day and eyesight, had a greater impact on productivity and task accuracy than gender. These findings suggest that lighting preferences depend more on context and individual differences rather than gender alone, highlighting the need for further research.

Virtual Reality in Lighting Research

Virtual reality (VR) has become a valuable tool for studying human perception and emotional responses in simulated environments, particularly in lighting research. By creating highly accurate lighting simulations, researchers can control variables such as intensity, color temperature, direction, and distribution to assess user experiences in different settings. Studies have shown that VR-based lighting simulations closely replicate real-world conditions, making them a reliable method for analyzing lighting preferences and behavioral responses. Consequently, research indicates that people’s perceptual responses in VR often align with how they perceive lighting in real-world environments (Bellazzi et al., 2022).

Several studies highlight VR’s effectiveness in assessing user comfort and perception across different lighting conditions. Researchers have used VR simulations to explore how subjective impressions of a space influence brightness satisfaction, finding that satisfaction depends on illumination levels and other factors like scene complexity, material colors, and spatial ambiance (Omidfar Sawyer & Chamilothori, 2019). Similarly, studies on workplace lighting and energy consumption demonstrate how immersive simulations provide insights into user behavior (Heydarian et al., 2016, 2017). Research comparing real and VR-simulated environments also suggests that visual stimuli affect thermal comfort perception, reinforcing VR’s potential as a tool for multi-sensory design studies (Salamone et al., 2020).

VR has also been instrumental in daylight design research. For example, researchers compared different lighting conditions in office environments using VR, helping to refine design strategies for occupant comfort. The study found no significant differences between VR simulations and real-world environments in terms of perceived brightness, glare, and spaciousness (Amirkhani et al., 2018). Expanding on this, Jin et al. (2022) examined brightness, glare, spaciousness, and visual acuity in VR and real-world environments, confirming that VR can reliably replicate real-world lighting conditions for interior design research. Also, Bellazzi et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review and confirmed that VR-based lighting simulations can accurately represent photometric and colorimetric properties, including color temperature, for perceptual studies.

Beyond research, VR is also transforming the decision-making process in lighting design. Architects and designers use simulations to visualize and adjust lighting conditions before implementation to help optimize aesthetic and functional outcomes. VR also enhances user engagement, allowing customers to experience different lighting scenarios before making final design choices, leading to more informed decisions. By demonstrating VR’s ability to replicate real-world lighting while offering precise control over experimental conditions, this study contributes to ongoing research on VR-based lighting applications.

Measuring Emotional State

The physical environment profoundly influences human behavior and perception, often shaping emotional responses. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) developed the PAD model, a widely used psychological framework for understanding how environmental stimuli affect emotions. This model defines three emotional dimensions: (a) pleasure, which refers to the extent to which an individual experiences positive emotions such as joy and comfort in a given setting; for instance, a well-designed hotel guestroom with warm, inviting lighting can enhance a guest’s sense of pleasure, (b) arousal, which measures mental alertness, ranging from excitement and stimulation to calmness and relaxation; bright, cool lighting may feel energizing, while dim, warm lighting may create a more soothing atmosphere, and (c) dominance represents a person’s sense of control or submission within an environment.

Lighting research has widely applied the PAD model to study how variations in lighting conditions influence emotions and behaviors. Flynn et al. (1973) and Flynn and Spencer (1977) discovered that specific lighting compositions consistently trigger psychological reactions, shaping perceptions of interior spaces and emotional responses. Their findings suggest that lighting plays a critical role in setting mood and influencing behavioral tendencies, reinforcing the need to explore how lighting impacts guest experiences in hospitality settings. However, some studies suggest that the dominance dimension has minimal influence on behavior in interior environments (H. Lee & Lee, 2022). Given this, the present study focuses on pleasure and arousal as the primary emotional responses to hotel lighting.

Summary of Literature Review

Although research has explored cultural and gender-based lighting preferences and the role of VR in lighting simulations, key gaps remain in hospitality-specific contexts. Most studies on cultural differences in brightness and color temperature focus on residential and commercial spaces overlooking hotel guestrooms—where lighting plays a direct role in guest comfort and experience. Similarly, research on gender-based differences in lighting perception remains inconsistent and underexplored in hospitality environments. While VR effectively replicates real-world lighting conditions, few studies have examined how cultural and gender factors influence lighting preferences in immersive hotel settings. Thus, further research should bridge these gaps by leveraging VR technology to assess lighting satisfaction among diverse travelers. By doing so, studies can offer valuable insights for designing culturally inclusive and gender-responsive hospitality lighting solutions, ultimately enhancing guest experiences across the hospitality industry.

Research Methods

This study used a within-group experimental design to explore hotel guestroom lighting preferences, considering cultural and gender differences. By allowing each participant to experience multiple lighting conditions, this approach enabled direct comparisons among individuals, reducing variability and enhancing the reliability of the findings.

Participants

The study recruited participants through university-wide emails and announcements posted on campus bulletin boards at a large public university in the U.S. Midwest. The inclusion criteria required participants to be born in 1981 or later, making them part of the Millennial or Generation Z cohorts, and be at least 18 years old. Additional eligibility criteria included being comfortable using a VR headset, not being pregnant, and having no history of motion sickness or nausea, as these factors could interfere with the virtual reality (VR) experience. We analyzed the impact of cultural background on lighting references by including only American, Korean, and Iranian students who had lived in the United States for <3 years. This approach ensured that their home cultures still shaped their preferences rather than extended exposure to American lighting norms.

Eligible participants scheduled a session at the university’s VR experiment lab, where they provided informed consent before taking part in the study. The university’s Institutional Review Board approved the research to ensure ethical compliance. Data collection took place between October 2022 and March 2023.

The final sample consisted of 126 participants, with 52 (41.3%) identifying as male and 74 (58.7%) as female (see Table 1). Participants represented 3 nationalities: 45 (35.7%) were from South Korea, 44 (34.9%) from the United States, and 37 (29.4%) from Iran. Among the South Korean and Iranian participants, 75% had arrived in the United States within the past year, ensuring that their native cultural backgrounds continued to influence their lighting preferences. The participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 40 years (M = 26.44, standard deviation [SD] = 5.05). As participants self-identified their cultural background and gender, we treated these variables as pre-existing rather than manipulating them experimentally.

Table 1.

Demographic Information.

Variable		Frequency	%
Gender	Male	52	41.3
	Female	74	58.7
Cultural background	South Korea	45	35.7
	United States	44	34.9
	Iran	37	29.4
Age	Mean = 26.44
	Standard deviation = 5.049

Note. N = 126.

Virtual Reality Experimental Settings

This study employed VR technology to create a realistic hotel guestroom experience, allowing participants to evaluate different lighting conditions. The virtual guestroom, designed specifically for this research, measured 355 ft² (33 m²) and represented a typical urban hotel (Figure 1). The layout included a queen-sized bed, a two-seater sofa, a desk and chair set, a flat-screen TV, an open closet, and a bathroom, ensuring a familiar and functional hotel environment. To maintain consistency across experimental conditions, all interior elements, materials, and furnishings remained unchanged, with lighting as the only variable. The room featured a neutral color scheme to minimize potential biases related to color perception.

Figure 1.

The reflected ceiling plan with lighting information for the test hotel guestroom.

To create and visualize the virtual guestroom, researchers used SketchUp Pro, Twinmotion, and Oculus Quest 2. They used SketchUp Pro to develop a detailed three-dimensional (3D) model of the room, including furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Twinmotion software enhanced textures, defined lighting sources, and generated high-resolution panorama images for VR visualization. Finally, Oculus Quest 2 provided an immersive experience, allowing participants to explore the space as if they were in a real hotel room.

The study ensured control over lighting conditions by excluding daylighting, as natural light variations could interfere with the perception of artificial lighting scenarios. Instead, the VR simulation depicted an evening setting, ensuring that all lighting was entirely artificial and standardized. As shown in Figure 1, the room featured cove lighting for ambient illumination, recessed ceiling fixtures for task areas, and a floor lamp for additional nighttime lighting, creating a realistic and well-balanced guestroom experience.

The study focused on two key lighting factors: (a) color temperature, tested using two different sources, neutral-warm (3,500 Kelvin (K)) and neutral-cool (5,500 K) and (b) lighting intensity, tested at two levels—bright and dim. We combined these two variables to test four lighting conditions: neutral warm/bright, neutral warm/dim, cool white/bright, and cool white/dim (Figure 2). Researchers used Twinmotion 2022.2 software (Epic Games, Cary, NC, USA) to adjust the lighting conditions in the virtual environment.

Figure 2.

Four light settings and a panorama view of hotel guestrooms on a sofa in Twinmotion.

Instruments

This research created a questionnaire to assess participants’ responses to different lighting conditions, focusing on three dependent measures: preference, pleasure, and arousal. Participants experienced four distinct lighting conditions using a VR headset, and we asked them to select their most and least preferred lighting setups and explain the reasons behind their choices. To measure emotional responses, participants rated eight descriptive words from Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) pleasure-arousal scales for their most and least preferred lighting conditions on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The pleasure scale included relaxed, pleasant, comfortable, and happy, while the arousal scale included sleepy, excited, wide awake, and calm.

The study assessed the construct reliability of these measures using Cronbach’s α to evaluate the internal consistency. When participants rated their most preferred lighting condition, Cronbach’s α was .594 for the pleasure scale and 0.693 for the arousal scale. For their least preferred lighting condition, reliability was 0.733 for the pleasure scale and 0.652 for the arousal scale. While some scholars caution against interpreting values in this range, Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) suggest that Cronbach’s α values above .5 are acceptable for further analysis.

Procedure

The study took place in a dedicated virtual reality lab at a university in the United States. The lab measured 140 ft² (13 m²), with dimensions of 10 by 14 ft (3 by 4.25 m²) and a ceiling height of 9 ft(2.7 m²). Research assistants ensured that no other students had access to the lab during the experiment to maintain a controlled environment. At the beginning of the experiment, participants provided their demographic information and received a briefing on the study’s purpose, experimental process, and use of the VR headset and software.

The researchers instructed the participants to remain still while wearing the VR headset to minimize discomfort. Instructions included imagining checking into a hotel at 7:00 PM and viewing four guest rooms, each with different lighting conditions. Researchers randomized the order or presentation for each participant. Participants could explore three designated spots in each room—the sofa, bed, and entrance—and were free to take as much time as they needed. After identifying their most and least preferred lighting conditions, they spent an additional 60 to 120 s in each room to focus on their emotional response before completing the questionnaire. The entire experiment, including the survey, took approximately 30 min to complete.

Findings

Lighting Preferences

Table 2 presents participants’ most and least preferred lighting conditions, categorized by cultural background. The results indicate that warm/dim lighting was the most preferred option, selected by 76 participants (60.3%), followed by warm/bright lighting (31.7%). In contrast, cool/bright and cool/dim lighting were the least preferred options, with only five participants (4.0%) selecting either as their most preferred choice.

Table 2.

Lighting Preferences Across Cultural Groups.

Lighting condition		South Korea (n = 45) (%)	United States (n = 44) (%)	Iran (n = 37) (%)	Total	χ2	p
Most preferred	Warm/dim	26 (57.8)	23 (52.3)	27 (73.0)	76 (60.3)	9.501	.147
	Warm/bright	15 (33.3)	19 (43.2)	6 (16.2)	40 (31.7)
	Cool/dim	3 (6.7)	0 (0.0)	2 (5.4)	5 (4.0)
	Cool/bright	1 (2.2)	2 (4.5)	2 (5.4)	5 (4.0)
Least preferred	Warm/dim	2 (4.4)	1 (2.3)	1 (2.7)	4 (3.2)	16.245	.012
	Warm/bright	2 (4.4)	1 (2.3)	9 (24.3)	12 (9.5)
	Cool/dim	19 (42.2)	13 (29.5)	9 (24.3)	41 (32.5)
	Cool/bright	22 (48.9)	29 (65.9)	18 (48.6)	69 (54.8)

Note. N = 126.

When explaining their choices, participants who preferred warm/dim lighting often described it as comfortable, relaxing, and cozy. Many found it visually soothing and ideal for unwinding, with some noting that it created a welcoming and intimate atmosphere. Similarly, those who preferred warm/bright lighting valued its balance between brightness and ambiance, saying it was functional for various activities while maintaining a home-like feel. Comments such as “can see everything clearly” and “not too dark” suggest that this lighting condition provided good visibility without being too harsh. On the other hand, cool/bright lighting was the most disliked condition, with 54.8% of participants selecting it as their least favorite, followed by cool/dim lighting (32.5%). A smaller portion of participants (9.5%) disliked warm/bright lighting, while warm/dim lighting was the least disliked condition (3.2%).

Participants frequently described cool/bright lighting as harsh, overwhelming, and not relaxing, with comments such as “too bright, not relaxing” and “white light is harsh on the eyes.” Many associated it with clinical or institutional settings like hospitals, offices, or classrooms, environments they felt were not conducive to rest or comfort. Similarly, participants often perceived cool/dim lighting as too dark and unwelcoming, stating that it made the space feel cold and less inviting. Some also found it difficult to see clearly, describing dim lighting as straining the eyes and making the space appear smaller.

Lighting Preferences Across Cultural Groups

While lighting preferences varied among participants from South Korea (n = 45), the United States (n = 44), and Iran (n = 37), a chi-square test of independence found no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups (χ²(45) = 9.501, p = .147). First, among South Korean participants, 57.8% preferred warm/dim lighting, while 33.3% chose warm/bright lighting. Few participants favored cool/bright (2.2%) and cool/dim (6.7%) lighting. Second, among U.S. participants, 52.3% favored warm/dim lighting, while 43.2% preferred warm/bright lighting. Only 4.5% chose cool/bright lighting. Third, Iranian participants showed the strongest preference for warm/dim lighting (73.0%), followed by warm/bright (16.2%), while very few opted for cool lighting conditions.

Cultural background had a significant influence on participants’ least preferred lighting conditions, as confirmed by a chi-square test (χ²(45) = 16.245, p = .012). First, South Korean participants most disliked cool/bright lighting (48.9%), followed by cool/dim lighting (42.2%), whereas few rejected warm/dim (4.4%) or warm/bright (4.4%) lighting. Second, U.S. participants expressed the strongest dislike for cool/bright lighting (65.9%), with only 2.3% disliking warm/dim or warm/bright lighting. Third, Iranian participants were significantly more likely to dislike warm/bright lighting (24.3%), and 48.6% disliked cool/bright lighting. Further statistical analysis revealed that Iranian participants were significantly more likely to reject warm/bright lighting (standardized residual = 2.9) compared to the other groups. They typically described it as too bright and disruptive, making it harder to relax and feel at ease.

Lighting Preferences by Gender

Most males (65.4%) and females (56.8%) preferred warm/dim lighting, followed by warm/bright lighting (males = 23.1%, females = 37.8%; see Table 3).

Table 3.

Lighting Preferences by Gender.

Lighting condition		Male (n = 52) (%)	Female (n = 74) (%)	Total (%)	χ2	p
Most preferred	Warm/dim	34 (65.4)	42 (56.8)	76 (60.3)	3.92	.270
	Warm/bright	12 (23.1)	28 (37.8)	40 (31.7)
	Cool/dim	3 (5.8)	2 (2.7)	5 (4.0)
	Cool/bright	3 (5.8)	2 (2.7)	5 (4.0)
Least Preferred	Warm/dim	4 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	4 (3.2)	9.044	.029
	Warm/bright	7 (13.5)	5 (6.8)	12 (9.5)
	Cool/dim	18 (34.6)	23 (31.1)	41 (32.5)
	Cool/bright	23 (44.2)	46 (62.2)	69 (54.8)

Note. N = 126.

For the least preferred lighting conditions, a significant proportion of participants chose cool/bright lighting, with 62.2% of females and 44.2% of males disliking this option. Additionally, 34.6% of males and 31.1% of females selected cool/dim lighting as their least preferred option. Notably, more males (13.5%) than females (6.8%) found warm/bright lighting least desirable. They rarely disliked the warm/dim condition, with 7.7% of males rejecting it, while no female participants chose it as their least favorite option.

A chi-square test found no significant association between gender and most preferred lighting conditions (χ² = 3.92, p = .270), indicating that males and females had similar overall lighting preferences. However, we found a significant association for the least preferred lighting conditions (χ² = 9.044, p = .029). Further analysis showed that females were significantly more likely than males to dislike cool/bright lighting (standardized residual = 2.0).

Interaction Effects of Cultural Background and Gender on Lighting Preferences

A two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined the effects of cultural background and gender on lighting preference (Appendix A). The results showed that neither cultural background nor gender statistically significantly influenced participants’ most preferred lighting. However, there was a statistically significant effect on their least preferred lighting. We found a significant interaction effect between cultural background and gender (F(2, 120) = 10.911, p < .001, η² = .154, power = 0.990).

As shown in Table 4, 6 out of 11 Iranian males were the most likely to dislike warm/bright lighting (54.5%), a much higher percentage than any other group. Only 3 Iranian males (27.3%) reported disliking cool/bright lighting, substantially lower than U.S. males (10 out of 16; 62.5%) and U.S. females (19 out of 28; 67.9%), as well as South Korean males (10 out of 25; 40.0%) and South Korean females (12 out of 20; 60.0%). This pattern suggests that Iranian males tolerate cool/bright lighting more than males and females from South Korea and the United States.

Table 4.

Least Preferred Lighting Conditions by Cultural Background and Gender.

Cultural background	Gender	Warm/bright (%)	Warm/dim (%)	Cool/bright (%)	Cool/dim (%)	Total (%)
South Korea	Male	1 (4.0)	2 (8.0)	10 (40.0)	12 (48.0)	25 (100)
	Female	1 (5.0)	0 (0.0)	12 (60.0)	7 (35.0)	20 (100)
United States	Male	0 (0.0)	1 (6.3)	10 (62.5)	5 (31.3)	16 (100)
	Female	1 (3.6)	0 (0.0)	19 (67.9)	8 (28.6)	28 (100)
Iran	Male	6 (54.5)	1 (9.1)	3 (27.3)	1 (9.1)	11 (100)
	Female	3 (11.5)	0 (0.0)	15 (57.7)	8 (30.8)	26 (100)

Note. N = 126.

Emotional State

This research also examined participants’ emotional states while experiencing VR simulations of their most and least preferred lighting (Table 5). In their preferred VR lighting environment, participants reported high levels of comfort (M = 4.71, SD = 0.581), relaxation (M = 4.48, SD = 0.756), pleasantness (M = 4.35, SD = 0.783), and happiness (M = 4.06, SD = 0.842). In contrast, ratings were significantly lower in their least preferred lighting condition—comfort (M = 2.47, SD = 0.993), relaxation (M = 2.35, SD = 1.155), pleasantness (M = 2.37, SD = 0.960), and happiness (M = 2.62, SD = 1.011).

Table 5.

Emotional Responses to Different Lighting Preferences.

Emotional state		Most preferred		Least preferred		t (125)	p
		M	SD	M	SD
Pleasure	Comfortable	4.71	0.581	2.47	0.993	20.019	<.001
	Relaxed	4.48	0.756	2.35	1.155	16.068	<.001
	Pleasant	4.35	0.783	2.37	0.960	17.435	<.001
	Happy	4.06	0.842	2.62	1.011	11.246	<.001
	Average	4.39	0.480	3.46	0.480	22.327	<.001
	Calm	4.43	0.763	2.63	1.157	13.097	<.001
Arousal	Sleepy	3.33	1.308	2.06	1.349	6.218	<.001
	Excited	3.17	1.164	2.40	1.067	5.665	<.001
	Wide awake	2.94	1.218	3.70	1.279	−4.342	<.001
	Average	2.45	0.766	2.69	0.512	−4.771	<.001

Note. N = 126; 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Somewhat disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Somewhat agree, 5 = Strongly agree. SD = Standard deviation.

Regarding arousal states, participants rated calmness the highest (M = 4.43, SD = 0.763) in their preferred lighting settings. Other arousal-related states, such as sleepy (M = 3.33, SD = 1.308), excited (M = 3.17, SD = 1.164), and wide awake (M = 2.94, SD = 1.218), received neutral ratings, indicating that participants neither agreed nor disagreed with these descriptors. However, in the least preferred lighting conditions, ratings for most arousal states dropped noticeably = sleepy (M = 2.06, SD = 1.349), excited (M = 2.40, SD = 1.067), and calm (M = 2.63, SD = 1.157). The exception was wide awake, which increased (M = 3.70, SD = 1.279), suggesting that participants felt more alert but not necessarily in a positive way.

A paired sample t-test revealed that participants rated all emotional states, except wide awake, significantly higher in their preferred lighting conditions than in their least preferred settings (p < .001). Intriguingly, wide awake received a higher rating in the least preferred lighting environment, reinforcing the idea that unfavorable lighting may heighten alertness but not in a way that promotes relaxation or comfort.

Emotional State Across Cultural Groups

We conducted a series of ANOVAs to examine how cultural background influenced emotional states under the most and least preferred lighting conditions (Table 6).

Table 6.

Emotional State in Different Ethnicities.

Emotional state			South Korea (n = 45)		United States (n = 44)		Iran (n = 37)		F (2, 123)	p
			M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Most preferred lighting	Pleasure	Comfortable	4.60	0.720	4.68	0.561	4.86	0.347	2.216	.113
		Relaxed	4.49	0.869	4.23	0.774	4.76	0.435	5.278	.006
		Pleasant	3.96	0.928	4.52	0.628	4.62	0.545	10.355	.000
		Happy	3.78	0.902	4.18	0.657	4.24	0.895	4.052	.020
		Average	4.21	0.627	4.40	0.346	4.62	0.315	8.316	<.001
		Calm	4.20	0.968	4.41	0.658	4.73	0.450	5.243	.007
	Arousal	Sleepy	3.31	1.240	3.23	1.395	3.49	1.304	0.401	.671
		Excited	2.73	1.095	3.16	1.160	3.70	1.051	7.803	.001
		Wide awake	2.89	1.247	3.11	1.333	2.78	1.031	0.788	.457
		Average	3.28	0.593	3.48	0.353	3.68	0.386	7.367	<.001
Least preferred lighting	Pleasure	Comfortable	2.49	0.843	2.39	0.945	2.54	1.216	0.254	.776
		Relaxed	2.49	1.058	2.27	1.149	2.27	1.283	0.508	.603
		Pleasant	2.47	0.815	2.39	1.061	2.22	1.004	0.704	.496
		Happy	2.67	0.826	2.59	0.948	2.59	1.279	0.077	.926
		Average	2.53	0.691	2.41	0.761	2.41	0.869	0.353	.703
		Calm	2.82	1.134	2.43	1.108	2.62	1.233	1.272	.284
	Arousal	Sleepy	2.16	1.242	2.05	1.311	1.97	1.536	0.190	.828
		Excited	2.31	1.019	2.30	1.025	2.65	1.160	1.379	.256
		Wide awake	3.29	1.199	3.68	1.410	4.22	1.031	5.747	.004
		Average	2.64	0.540	2.61	0.440	2.86	0.532	2.892	.059

Note. N = 126; 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Somewhat disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Somewhat agree, 5 = Strongly agree.

The results showed a significant effect of cultural background on pleasure (F(2, 123) = 8.316, p < .001) and arousal (F(2, 123) = 7.367, p < .001). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test revealed that Iranian participants reported significantly higher pleasure levels (M = 4.62, SD = 0.315) compared to South Korean participants (M = 4.21, SD = 0.627, p < .001). Similarly Iranians also scored higher on arousal (M = 3.68, SD = 0.386) than South Koreans (M = 3.28, SD = 0.593, p < .001).

When looking at the specific emotional states related to pleasure, the ANOVA results showed significant differences among the three cultural groups: relaxation (F(2, 123) = 5.28, p = .006), pleasantness (F(2, 123) = 10.36, p < .001), and happiness (F(2, 123) = 4.05, p = .020). Post hoc tests revealed that Iranian participants felt significantly more relaxed (M = 4.76, SD = 0.435) than U.S. participants (M = 4.23, SD = 0.774, p = .004). In addition, Iranian participants reported the highest levels of happiness (M = 4.24), while South Korean participants had the lowest scores (M = 3.78, p = .032).

For arousal, there were also statistically significant differences in the feelings of excitement (F(2, 123) = 7.80, p = .001) and calmness (F(2, 123) = 5.24, p = .007). Iranian participants reported feeling significantly calmer (M = 4.73, SD = 0.450) than South Koreans (M = 4.20, SD = 0.968, p = .004). Iranians also found the lighting conditions more exciting (M = 3.70, SD = 1.051) compared to South Koreans (M = 2.73, SD = 1.095), p < .001.

Additionally, when participants were in their least preferred lighting conditions, cultural backgrounds also had a significant effect (F(2, 123) = 5.747, p = .004). Post hoc comparisons showed that Iranian participants rated their wide awake levels significantly higher (M = 4.22, SD = 1.031) compared to South Korean participants (M = 3.29, SD = 1.199, p < .001). This result suggests that Iranian participants feel more alert in unfavorable lighting conditions than their South Korean counterparts.

Emotional States by Gender

This research conducted an independent samples t-test to compare emotional states between male and female participants under different lighting conditions (Table 7).

Table 7.

Emotional States by Gender.

Emotional state			Male (n = 52)		Female (n = 74)		t (124)	p
			M	SD	M	SD
Most preferred lighting	Pleasure	Comfortable	4.65	0.520	4.74	0.621	0.295	.714
		Relaxed	4.50	0.728	4.46	0.780	−2.147	.906
		Pleasant	4.17	0.785	4.47	0.763	−0.850	.416
		Happy	3.96	0.839	4.12	0.843	−1.051	.887
		Average	4.32	0.391	4.45	0.540	−1.453	.830
		Calm	4.42	0.801	4.43	0.742	−0.067	.313
	Arousal	Sleepy	3.35	1.266	3.32	1.346	0.092	.543
		Excited	2.94	1.110	3.32	1.183	−1.830	.330
		Wide awake	2.69	1.164	3.11	1.234	−1.906	.571
		Average	3.35	0.488	3.55	0.468	−2.279	.657
Least preferred lighting	Pleasure	Comfortable	2.29	1.160	2.39	1.156	−0.494	.989
		Relaxed	2.35	1.046	2.38	0.902	−0.185	.171
		Pleasant	2.48	1.075	2.46	0.939	0.118	.217
		Happy	2.60	0.891	2.64	1.093	−0.212	.161
		Average	2.43	0.786	2.47	0.758	−0.275	.310
		Calm	2.73	1.190	2.55	1.136	0.843	.920
	Arousal	Sleepy	1.96	1.188	2.14	1.455	−0.710	.014
		Excited	2.27	1.050	2.50	1.076	−1.197	.857
		Wide awake	3.62	1.255	3.76	1.301	−0.609	.859
		Average	2.64	0.488	2.74	0.528	−0.995	.744

Note. N = 126; 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Somewhat disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Somewhat agree, 5 = Strongly agree. SD = Standard deviation.

The results showed no significant differences between males and females in terms of pleasure or arousal in their most preferred lighting environment. While females reported slightly higher pleasure levels (M = 4.45, SD = 0.540) compared to males (M = 4.32, SD = 0.391), the difference was not statistically significant (t(124) = −1.453, p = .830). Similarly, in terms of arousal, males had a slightly lower average score (M = 3.35, SD = 0.488) compared to females (M = 3.55, SD = 0.468), but this difference was also not significant (t(124) = −2.279, p = .657).

Similarly, we found no significant gender differences in emotional responses to the least preferred lighting environment. Pleasure scores were nearly identical for males (M = 2.43, SD = 0.786) and females (M = 2.47, SD = 0.758) (t(124) = −0.275, p = .310). Arousal scores were also similar, with males (M = 2.64, SD = 0.488) and females (M = 2.74, SD = 0.528) showing no significant differences (t(124) = −0.995, p = .744). Overall, most emotional states did not differ significantly by gender, except for sleepiness in the least preferred lighting condition.

Interaction Effects of Cultural Background and Gender on Emotional States

We conducted a series of two-factor ANOVAs to examine how gender and cultural background, as well as their interaction, influenced pleasure and arousal states under the most preferred (Appendix B) and least preferred lighting conditions (Appendix C).

The results showed no significant main effects for gender (F(1, 120) = 0.44, p = .507) or cultural background (F(1, 120) = 0.44, p = .507) on pleasure levels. Additionally, the interaction between gender and cultural background was not statistically significant (F(2, 120) = 0.98, p = .380). Similarly, for arousal, neither gender (F(1, 120) = 2.29, p = .133) nor cultural background (F(1, 120) = 2.29, p = .133) had a significant main effect. The interaction between the 2 factors was also not significant (F(2, 120) = 0.28, p = .759).

In the least preferred lighting condition, we again found no significant main effects for gender (F(2, 120) = 0.74, p = .478) or cultural background (F(1, 120) = 0.10, p = .757) on pleasure levels. Similarly, the interaction between gender and cultural background was also not statistically significant (F(2, 120) = 0.44, p = .644). For arousal, gender (F(1, 120) = 0.36, p = .552) and cultural background (F(1, 120) = 0.36, p = .552) again showed no significant main effects, and their interaction remained non-significant (F(2, 120) = 0.50, p = .606).

Overall, neither gender nor cultural background significantly influenced pleasure or arousal states under the most preferred or least preferred lighting conditions. Additionally, the interaction between these factors did not yield significant results, indicating that neither gender nor cultural backgrounds meaningfully shaped preferences for lighting conditions.

Discussion and Conclusion

This research used virtual reality (VR) technology to examine how cultural background and gender influence lighting preferences in hotel guestrooms.

First, the results demonstrated a universal preference for warm lighting, with participants preferring warm-toned lighting—warm/dim or warm/bright—over cool-toned lighting. Those who favored warm/dim lighting did so for its tranquil, cozy atmosphere, which is ideal for relaxation, comfort, and intimacy. Those who chose warm/bright lighting focused more on functionality and clarity, valuing its ability to balance brightness and ambiance in an active environment. In contrast, participants widely disliked cool-toned lighting (dim and bright). They found cool/dim lighting to be too dark and uninviting, making spaces feel smaller and less welcoming. Likewise, they saw cool/bright lighting as harsh and overwhelming. They associated both lighting types with environments like hospitals, offices, or classrooms, negatively impacting mood and comfort.

However, the key difference lies in their brightness levels. Participants linked cool/bright lighting to stress and anxiety, likely due to its intensity, while they found cool/dim lighting too dark and linked it with sadness and lethargy, possibly due to its low light levels. These findings highlight the importance of lighting in shaping mood and emotional well-being in hotel guestrooms.

…the key difference lies in their brightness levels.

Second, previous research has established that cultural differences play a major role in lighting preferences, particularly between South Korea and the United States (E. Lee & Park, 2011; Park et al., 2010). However, our study did not find significant cultural differences in preferred lighting conditions. We could attribute this lack of variation to several factors: (a) the widespread use of common design elements across international hotel chains has likely created a sense of familiarity, reducing cultural differences in expectations, (b) exposure to diverse hospitality environments may have shaped similar preferences across cultures, (c) the rapid increase in social media usage in recent years has made it easier for people to access information about hotel guest rooms, regardless of their cultural background (Heo et al., 2023), and (d) Millennials and Generation Z, who grew up with global influences, may experience less impact from cultural background compared to previous generations.

That said, cultural differences still emerged in the least preferred lighting conditions. While participants from different backgrounds generally agreed on what they liked, their level of discomfort with disliked lighting varied. This difference might reflect deeper cultural associations or aversions activated when the lighting strays too far from what one considers acceptable or comfortable within their cultural context. For example, cultural sensitivity to brightness and color temperature may lead to different expectations of hospitality environments, which could explain why certain lighting conditions felt particularly unappealing to some groups.

Third, while males and females preferred warm/dim lighting the most and cool/dim lighting the least, our study found that gender influenced aversion to specific lighting conditions. For example, Iranian males were more likely to dislike warm/bright lighting and cool/bright lighting, indicating a lower tolerance for bright lighting in general. Their dislike of warm/bright lighting may relate to its association with heat, whereas their aversion to cool/bright lighting could stem from its harsh and impersonal feel. This finding suggests that cultural and environmental factors may play a role in how gender interacts with lighting preferences. Our results highlight the need for flexible, customizable lighting solutions in hotel design to accommodate different gender-based sensitivities.

Fourth, participants reported higher pleasure levels than arousal levels in their most preferred lighting environments. This finding suggests that for significantly elevated pleasure states, such as comfort, relaxation, pleasantness, and happiness, guests prioritize a sense of ease and tranquility in hotel guestrooms. In contrast, the arousal state, that is, excitement and alertness, was not as strongly elevated, indicating that most guests do not seek stimulation from hotel lighting but rather use it to create a relaxing atmosphere. This result suggests that pleasure is the primary emotional driver behind hotel guestroom lighting preferences, reinforcing the importance of warm, inviting lighting designs.

Fifth, a series of two-factor ANOVA revealed that cultural background significantly impacts emotional responses, particularly under the most preferred lighting condition, with Iranian participants consistently reporting higher levels of pleasure and arousal than South Korean participants. Specifically, Iranians felt more relaxed, pleasant, happy, calm, and excited than other groups, suggesting they respond more positively to lighting that enhances comfort and relaxation. However, under the least preferred lighting conditions, there were no significant differences in overall emotional responses among the three cultural groups, except for the “wide awake” state. In this instance, Iranians reported feeling more alert than South Koreans in their least preferred lighting environments. These findings indicate that certain lighting conditions trigger heightened alertness in specific cultural groups, possibly due to differences in environmental adaptation or lighting associations.

…certain lighting conditions trigger heightened alertness in specific cultural groups,…

These findings highlight the importance of considering universal and culture-specific factors when designing hotel guestroom lighting: (a) prioritize warm lighting to enhance comfort and relaxation while avoiding cool-toned lighting, which most people perceive as unwelcoming, (b) incorporate customizable lighting options that allow guests to adjust brightness and warmth based on their personal comfort levels, (c) recognize that cultural differences may be less pronounced in preferred lighting choices but still play a role in negative lighting perceptions, and (d) acknowledge gender-based preferences, especially regarding sensitivity to brightness in hotel environments. By integrating flexibility and personalization into lighting design, hotels can create more inclusive, comfortable, and emotionally satisfying environments for a diverse range of guests.

While previous studies emphasized strong cultural influences on lighting preferences, our findings suggest that global standardization, international travel, and digital exposure have led to more uniform expectations in hotel lighting. However, cultural and gender differences remain relevant in how people react to lighting they dislike, underscoring the need for adaptable lighting solutions in hospitality design. Notably, participants self-identified their cultural backgrounds and genders, which were pre-existing variables the study did not manipulate experimentally; thus, the conclusions about their effects are correlational rather than causal. By understanding these nuances, hotels can enhance guest satisfaction, improve brand loyalty, and create spaces that cater to the evolving needs of a globally connected world.

Methodological Implications

This research highlights the importance of using advanced technology to improve the accuracy of experimental studies on lighting design and emotional responses. Previous research, such as Park et al. (2010), examined cultural differences in lighting preferences by displaying images using liquid crystal display (LCD) projection. However, this method has methodological limitations, as LCD projection can slightly alter color perception, making it less reliable for accurately assessing participants’ responses to lighting in an experimental setting.

The current study addressed this issue by employing virtual reality (VR) technology, which provides a more immersive and realistic representation of lighting conditions. Unlike traditional image-based methods, VR allows participants to experience lighting in a simulated three-dimensional (3D) environment, replicating real-world settings more accurately. This approach improves the reliability of findings, ensuring that participants perceive color, brightness, and other lighting characteristics as they would in an actual hotel room.

By incorporating VR into lighting research, this study advances experimental methodology, offering a more precise and applicable approach to understanding how different genders and cultural backgrounds respond to hotel guestroom lighting. The use of VR in lighting design represents a major methodological improvement, enhancing the accuracy and real-world relevance of findings for hospitality and interior design applications.

Practical Implications

A well-designed lighting environment plays a critical role in guest comfort and relaxation. This study confirms that guests prefer lighting that fosters a sense of calm and well-being, while harsh or uninviting light is less desirable.

To enhance the guest experience, hospitality managers should prioritize warm, soothing lighting in key relaxation areas such as guestrooms and lounges. Using warm color temperatures, like soft yellows or ambers, can create a cozy and restful ambiance, promoting relaxation. Additionally, offering guests the ability to adjust lighting through dimming or changing color temperatures can further improve comfort by allowing them to tailor the lighting to their needs. A layered lighting approach is also beneficial, incorporating ambient lighting for overall illumination, task lighting for functionality, and accent lighting to enhance esthetics and create a welcoming atmosphere. By focusing on indirect lighting or using diffused sources, the lighting in guest rooms can soften the ambiance, reducing harshness and fostering relaxation.

Using indirect or diffused lighting sources can help soften the overall ambiance, reducing glare and preventing lighting from feeling harsh or overpowering. By carefully designing flexible and inviting schemes, hotels can significantly enhance guest satisfaction, reinforcing comfort, relaxation, and a memorable hospitality experience.

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

This study has several limitations that researchers should consider when interpreting the findings. First, the sample size was relatively small, and participants came from only a few cultural backgrounds. This limitation affects the generalizability of the findings to a broader, more diverse global population. Future research should include larger and more varied cultural samples to understand cross-cultural differences in lighting preferences and emotional responses.

Second, while this study focused on gender and cultural backgrounds, it did not consider other individual factors that could influence emotional responses to light, such as age, socioeconomic status, or personal lighting preferences. Future studies should explore these additional variables to gain a more nuanced understanding of how different demographic and personal factors shape lighting preferences.

Third, this research utilized a within-group design, where all participants experienced multiple lighting conditions. While this approach allows for direct comparisons, it also introduces potential order and carryover effects, meaning that participants’ experiences with one lighting condition could impact their perceptions of subsequent conditions. This situation may result in findings with limited generalizability since the same participants evaluated all conditions. Future research could address this issue by adopting a between-group design to minimize these effects and enhance generalizability. In addition, expanding the sample size and diversity would provide deeper insights into cultural and gender differences in lighting preferences. Also, incorporating qualitative methods like interviews could enrich our understanding of participants’ emotional responses to different lighting environments.

Fourth, the research focused solely on lighting in hotel guestrooms within a controlled scenario. However, lighting preferences might vary across different environments, such as workspaces, public areas, or residential settings. Therefore, future research should examine whether the same cultural and emotional patterns emerge in other contexts. Additionally, exploring how lighting interacts with other environmental factors, such as sound, texture, or spatial layout, could also provide more comprehensive design recommendations for creating spaces that enhance emotional well-being.

Lastly, this research did not measure potential covariates and confounding factors such as prior experience with virtual reality technology, baseline mood, and individual visual characteristics (e.g. light sensitivity). These factors could have influenced how participants perceived and responded to the lighting simulations. Without accounting for these variables, the emotional and perceptual responses observed may partly reflect individual differences unrelated to lighting preferences. Future studies should incorporate these covariates to enhance internal validity.

By addressing these limitations, future studies can offer more nuanced insights into how to optimize lighting design for different users and environments, ultimately improving real-world applications in hospitality, workplace, and residential settings.