Indoor climate interventions are often motivated from a worker comfort and productivity perspective. However, the relationship between indoor climate and human performance remains unclear. We assess the effect of indoor climate factors on human performance, focusing on the impact of indoor temperature on decision processes. Specifically, we expect heat to negatively influence higher cognitive rational processes, forcing people to rely more on intuitive shortcuts. In a laboratory setting, participants (N=257) were exposed to a controlled physical environment with either a hot temperature (28° C) or a neutral temperature (22° C) over a two-hour period, in which a battery of validated tests were conducted. We find that heat exposure did not lead to a difference in decision quality. We did find evidence for a strong gender difference in self-report, such that only men expect that high temperature leads to a significant decline in performance, which does in fact not materialize. These results cast doubt on the validity of self-report as a proxy for performance under different indoor climate conditions.

We take the first steps towards a shot selection quality model in basketball that incorporates decisional cues that might be predictive, not only of proximal results (e.g., scoring), but also of distal results (e.g., winning/losing the match). 2976 jump-shots from 50 Euroleague matches were sampled, following systematic observation guidelines. The decisional cues under scrutiny were shooting opposition, distance and lateral angle, disposition to offensive rebound and disposition to defensive balance at the moment of shooting. A first set of regressions between decisional cues and proximal results showed higher opposition and distance to decrease the probability of scoring (OR = .81; p < .001 and OR = .89; p = .013); a better disposition towards rebound to increase the chances of catching rebound (OR = 1.57; p < .001); and better defensive balance disposition to decrease the probability of a fast break (OR = 1.27; p < .036). A second set of regressions between proximal and distal results showed shooting and offensive rebound effectiveness to predict total points scored (β = .62; p < .001 and β = .32; p < .001) and game result (winning/losing the game; OR = 1.12; p < .001 and OR = 1.05; p = .021). Finally, an analysis of the impact of decisional cues on distal results showed a positive relationship between likelihood of winning and average team’s disposition to offensive rebound (OR = 1.18; p = .018). These results cast light on the actual weights (validities) of the different cues involved in predicting outcomes of shooting decisions. This evidence could help coaches provide objective feedback about players’ shooting performance beyond hit percentages.