Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-09
Dynamic experience of spaciousness,surprise and preference through indoor spaces ( Experiencia dinámica de espaciosidad,sorpresa y preferencia en espacios interiores )
In theory, preference should increase with spaciousness and moderate surprise, levelling off or decreasing for high surprise. To test this we created three simulated indoor spaces — SMALL (smallest size, dimmest light, smallest window), MEDIUM (medium size, light and window size) and LARGE (largest size, brightest light, largest windows) — and virtual reality walks through each possible pair of spaces. Three groups of 30 students (46 men, 44 women) rated either spaciousness, surprise or preference. Manipulation checks confirmed postulated effects of SMALL, MEDIUM and LARGE on judged spaciousness and of the size of the discrepancy between each pair of spaces on judged surprise. For preference, participants rated a space as more preferred if preceded by a smaller space and less preferred if preceded by a larger one. Preference also increased from low to moderate surprise but decreased slightly for high surprise. Research could consider adult responses to real spaces. Designers would do well to consider dynamic experience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsgarzadehM.KogaT.HirateK.FarvidM.LuskA. (2014). Investigating oppressiveness and spaciousness in relation to building, trees, sky and ground surface: A study in Tokyo. Landscape and Urban Planning, 131, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.011
2.
BerlyneD. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century.
3.
BokharaeiS.NasarJ. L. (2016). Perceived spaciousness and preference in sequential experience. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(7), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816650068
4.
BosselmanP.CraikK. H. (1987). Perceptual simulations of environments. In BechtelR. B.MaransR. W.MichelsonW. (Eds.), Methods in environmental and behavioral research (pp. 162–190). Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
5.
CassidyT. (2013). Environmental psychology: Behaviour and experience in context. Psychology Press.
CubukcuE.NasarJ. L. (2005). Influence of physical characteristics of routes on distance cognition in virtual environments. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(5), 777–785.
8.
DeckersL. (2018). Motivation: Biological, psychological, and environmental. Routledge.
9.
DemakisJ. M. (2012). The ultimate book of quotation. Amazon Inc.
10.
DienerE.LucasR. E.ScollonC. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.305
11.
EvansG. W.LeporeS. J.AllenK. M. (2000). Cross-cultural differences in tolerance for crowding: Fact or fiction?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.204
12.
FranzG.von der HeydeM.BülthoffH. (2003). An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space in VR: Exploring relations between features and affective appraisals of rectangular interiors, Digital Design – 22nd eCAADe Conference, Graz.
13.
GärlingT. (1970a). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms III: A relation between judged depth and size of space. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1970.tb00726.x
14.
GärlingT. (1970b). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms IV: The relation of judged depth to judged size of space under different viewing conditions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1970.tb00727.x
15.
GaverW. W.MandlerG. (1987). Play it again, Sam: On liking music. Cognition & Emotion, 1(3), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699938708408051
16.
GibsonJ. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. Psychology Press.
17.
GrazianoM. S. A.CookeD. F. (2006). Parieto–frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia, 44(6), 845–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.09.009
18.
HallE. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Doubleday.
19.
HaywardS. S.FranklinS. S. (1974). Perceived openness-enclosure of architectural space. Environment and Behavior, 6(1), 37–52.
20.
HeftH.NasarJ. L. (2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916500323001
HerzogT. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(85)80024-4
23.
HerzogT. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80138-0
24.
HurM.NasarJ. L.ChunB. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.005
25.
HuronD. B. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. MIT Press.
26.
International City Management Association. (2003). Getting to smart growth II: 100 more policies for implementation.
27.
InuiM.MiyataT. (1973). Spaciousness in interiors. Lighting Research & Technology, 5(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/096032717300500205
28.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. CUP Archive.
29.
KaplanR.KaplanS.BrownT. (1989). Environmental preference a comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21(5), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215001
30.
KasmarJ. V. (1970). The development of a usable lexicon of environmental descriptors. Environment and Behavior, 2(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657000200202
31.
KwallekN. (1996). Office wall color: An assessment of spaciousness and preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83(1), 49–50. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1996.83.1.49
32.
MaransR. W.StokolsD. (Eds.). (2013). Environmental simulation: Research and policy issues. Springer Science & Business Media.
33.
MarksL. E.AlgomD. (1998). Psychophysical scaling. In BirnbaumM. H. (Ed.), Measurement, judgment, and decision making (pp. 81–178). Academic Press.
34.
MartyniukO.FlynnJ. E.SpencerT. J.HendrickC. (1973). Effect of environmental lighting on impression and behavior. In KüllerR. (Ed.), Architectural psychology (pp. 51–63). Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
35.
NasarJ. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659402600305
36.
NasarJ. L.CubukcuE. (2011). Evaluative appraisals of mystery and Surprise. Environment and Behavior, 43(43), 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510364500
37.
OzdemirA. (2010). The effect of window views openness and naturalness on the perception of room’s spaciousness and brightness: A visual preference study. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(16), 2275–2287. https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE.9000903
38.
RestleF. (1978). Assimilation predicted by adaptation-level theory with variable weights. In N. J. Castellan, Jr., & F. Restle (Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 3, pp. 75–91). Erlbaum.
39.
RossanoM. J.WestS. O.RobertsonT. J.WayneM. C.ChaseR. B. (1999). The acquisition of route and survey knowledge from computer models. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0115
40.
RussellJ. A.LaniusU. F. (1984). Adaptation level and the affective appraisal of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(84)80029-8
41.
SadallaE. K.OxleyD. (1984). The perception of room size: The rectangularity illusion. Environment and Behavior, 16(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916584163005
42.
SarrisV. (2004). Frame of reference models in psychophysics: A perceptual-cognitive approach. In KaernbachC.SchrE.MullerH.SchrogerE. (Eds.), Psychophysics beyond sensation: Laws and invariants of human cognition (pp. 69–88). Psychology Press.
43.
ScottS. C. (1993). Visual attributes related to preference in interior environments. Journal of Interior Design, 18(1–2), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.1993.tb00067.x
44.
SommerR. (1959). Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 22(3), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785668
45.
StampsA. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71(3), 907–913. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1990.71.3.907
46.
StampsA. E. (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1993.1033
47.
StampsA. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854129922092630
48.
StampsA. E. (2007). Evaluating spaciousness in static and dynamic media. Design Studies, 28(5), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.01.001
49.
StampsA. E. (2009). On shape and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior, 41(4), 526–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508317931
50.
StampsA. E. (2010). Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509337287
51.
StampsA. E. (2011). Effects of area, height, elongation, and color on perceived spaciousness. Environment and Behavior, 43(2), 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509354696
52.
StampsA. E.IIIKrishnanV. V. (2006). Spaciousness and boundary roughness. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 841–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506288052
53.
ThielP. (1997). People, paths, and purposes: Notations for a participatory envirotecture. University of Washington Press.
54.
Von CastellC.OberfeldD.HechtH. (2014). The effect of furnishing on perceived spatial dimensions and spaciousness of interior space. PloS One, 9(11), e113267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113267
55.
WilliamsK.BurtonE.JenksM. (2000). Achieving urban form. E & F Spon.
56.
WilsonA.BoehlandJ. (2005). Small is beautiful US house size, resource use, and the environment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1‐2), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1162/1088198054084680
57.
WohlwillJ. F. (1974). Human adaptation to levels of environmental stimulation. Human Ecology, 2(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01558117
58.
WohlwillJ. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In AltmanI.WohlwillJ. (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 37–86). Springer.
59.
WohlwillJ. F. (1973). The environment is not in the head. In PreiserW. F. E. (Ed.) Environmental design research: Selected papers 4th 1972 conference proceedings, 2, 166–181. Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, Inc.
60.
YildirimK.CagatayK.AyalpN. (2015). Effect of wall colour on the perception of classrooms. Indoor and Built Environment, 24(5), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X14526214
