Why a lab result may not survive the move to a real office
A laboratory study can hold almost everything constant: the same task, the same people, the same short time window. A real office cannot. One comparison of laboratory and field studies of indoor plants found that performance measures were difficult to standardize in the field even with people in the same rooms, and that rooms were temperature-controlled specifically to keep temperature consistent between conditions [2]. That detail matters here: when researchers must actively hold temperature steady to test something else, the office is being made more lab-like, not less.
The temperature-performance question also runs into a subtler problem. A recent examination of indoor temperature and office work performance notes that the relationship remains contested and points to factors in real office settings—such as the consequences attached to the work—that shape how much effort people put in [1]. In a lab, a volunteer doing a short task has little riding on the outcome. In an office, effort is tangled with deadlines, reputation, and pay. If temperature changes performance partly by changing motivation, a lab and a field can diverge even when the underlying physiology is identical.
What field studies actually measure, and what that changes
Field evidence on temperature and office performance does exist. One study examined how indoor air temperature and humidity in an office affected perceived air quality, sick-building symptoms, and the performance of office work, testing three temperature levels in a real office space [3]. Notably, that work explicitly contrasts itself with earlier laboratory results obtained over relatively short exposures [3]. The move from short lab exposures to longer real-office exposure is exactly the kind of difference that could change the answer.
A broader review of temperature and task performance in office environments used objective performance indicators and drew on field studies conducted mostly in offices and some in schools, alongside data collected in controlled laboratory settings [4]. The mix is the point: the field literature is not a clean replication of lab work but a separate body of evidence gathered under messier conditions. Objective indicators help, but they do not make a school or a working office equivalent to a controlled chamber.
So is the lab effect real, or an artifact?
Neither conclusion is warranted. The field record is described as contested [1], and the studies that do find temperature effects in real offices are not direct replications of specific lab experiments—they are separate investigations with their own designs and exposure lengths [3][4]. That is consistent with the lab effect being real but conditional, and equally consistent with it being partly an artifact of short, low-stakes lab tasks. The evidence available does not settle which.
One thing the field work does clarify is that temperature is not the only lever in a real office. Research on office temperature control has developed predictive models of occupants' thermal sensation from laboratory data and then evaluated a sensing-based control system in the field [5]. That work is about comfort and control rather than performance, but it illustrates the general pattern: laboratory-derived models get carried into offices and tested there, and the field test is where their limits show up.
What to conclude if you are deciding something practical
If you are weighing whether to adjust office temperature to improve output, the honest reading is that laboratory findings should be treated as a hypothesis about real offices, not a guarantee. Real-office studies have examined temperature alongside performance [3][4], but the overall relationship is contested and complicated by effort and by how performance is measured [1][2]. A temperature change that clearly affects a short lab task may produce a smaller or different effect once people are doing their actual jobs.
The most defensible position is conditional: expect temperature to matter more when tasks are demanding and exposure is sustained, and expect the size of any effect in a real office to be uncertain until it is measured there. The field literature supports taking the question seriously; it does not yet support a confident number.
Sources used in this answer
Indoor temperature and office work performance in a temperate climate
The relationship between indoor temperature and office work performance remains contested, and real-office factors such as the consequences attached to work shape effort in ways laboratory settings do not.
Do indoor plants improve performance and well-being in offices? Divergent results from laboratory and field studies
Comparing laboratory and field studies of indoor plants, performance measures were difficult to standardize in the field, and rooms were temperature-controlled to keep temperature consistent between conditions.
Impact of indoor air temperature and humidity in an office on perceived air quality, SBS symptoms and performance
In a real office space at three air-temperature levels, temperature and humidity were studied for effects on perceived air quality, sick-building symptoms, and office work performance, in contrast to earlier short-exposure laboratory results.
Effect of temperature on task performance in office environment
A review of temperature effects on task performance used objective performance indicators and drew on field studies mostly in offices and some schools alongside data from controlled laboratory environments.
Field study of thermal infrared sensing for office temperature control
A field study evaluated a thermal infrared sensing system for office temperature control, building a model to predict occupants' thermal sensation from laboratory data; it did not address performance.