Complexity and Mystery as Predictors of Interior Preferences

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine the validity of complexity and mystery as predictors of interior preferences and to identify design attributes related to their perception in interiors.

RESEARCH DESIGN: Preference ratings for 80 diverse interiors presented as black and white slides were provided by 321 college students. These were compared to ratings of two independent groups of students (n = 31 each) who sorted photographs of the scenes according to assessments of either complexity or mystery.

ANALYSIS: Quantitative relationships among complexity, mystery, and preference were described by Pearson's correlation coefficients. Design attributes related to perceptions of complexity and mystery were identified via visual content analyses of the environmental sample sequenced according to mean complexity and mystery ratings.

KEY FINDINGS: Complexity and mystery were positively related to preference (r= .8164 and r= .5832, p < .001, 1–tailed, respectively), and also to each other (r= .4195, p < .001, 1–tailed). Design characteristics underlying perceptions of complexity included the number and variety of elements present, the composition of scene elements, and the scene's spatial geometry. Perceptions of mystery were associated with scene accessibility, distance to the nearest point of interest, screening of view, degree of enclosure, and presence of dramatic brightness contrasts.

CONCLUSION: This study points to the utility of information models for explaining interior preferences and provides specific design direction for manipulating complexity and mystery within interior environments.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acking

C. A.

, & Kuller

(1972). The perception of an interior as a function of its colour. Ergonomics 15(6), 645–654.

Appleton

(1975). The experience of landscape London : Wiley.

Balling

J. D.

, & Falk

J. H.

(1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior 14(1), 5–28.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity New York : McGraw–Hill.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1963). Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 17, 274–290.

Berlyne

D. E.

(1971). Aesthetics and pscyhobiology New York : Appleton–Century–Crofts.

Cullen

(1961). Townscape New York : Reinhold Book Corporation.

Dale

F. D.

(1982). Patterns of preference in the indoor environment. Unpublished honors thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Devlin

, & Nasar

(1987). Beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of “popular” vs. “high” architecture and public vs. architect judgments of same (Department of City and Regional Planning working paper). Columbus : Ohio State University.

10.

Elliovson

(1978). The Japanese garden. In Kaplan

& Kaplan

(Eds.), Humanscape: Environments for people (pp. 170–174). Ann Arbor : Ulrich's Books.

11.

Findlay

R. A.

, & Field

K. F.

(1982). Functional roles of visual complexity in user perceptions of architecture. Environmental Design Research Association, 13, 145–153.

12.

Gimblett

H. R.

(1990). Environmental cognition: The prediction of preference in rural Indiana. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 7(3), 222–234.

13.

Gimblett

H. R.

, Itami

R. M.

, & Fitzgibbon

J. E.

(1985). Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal 4(2), 87–95.

14.

Hershberger

R. G.

, & Cass

R. C.

(1974). Predicting user responses to buildings. In Daniel

H. Carson

(Ed.), Man–Environment interactions: Evaluations and applications, Part II (pp. 117–134). Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

15.

Herzog

T. R.

(1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field–and–forest environments. Landscape Research, 9, 10–16.

16.

Herzog

T. R.

(1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: Mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landscape Journal 6(2), 140–152.

17.

Hesselgren

(1976). Man's perception of man–made environment Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

18.

Kaplan

(1973). Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and “clients” In Preiser

W. F. E.

(Ed.), Environmental design research (pp. 265–274). Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

19.

Kaplan

(1975). Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In Zube

E. H.

, Brush

R. O.

, & Fabos

J. G.

(Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources (pp. 118–129). Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

20.

Kaplan

(1975). An informal model for the prediction of preference. In Zube

E. H.

, Brush

R. O.

, & Fabos

J. G.

(Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources (pp. 92–101). Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

21.

Kaplan

(1979a). Perceptions and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In Proceedings of our national landscape conference. USDA Forest Service.

22.

Kaplan

(1979b). Concerning the power of content–identifying methodologies. In Daniel

T. C.

, Zube

E. H.

& Driver

B. L.

(Technical Coordinators), Assessing amenity resource values (General Technical Report RM 68).

23.

Kaplan

, & Kaplan

(1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world New York : Praeger.

24.

Kaplan

, Kaplan

, & Wendt

J. S.

(1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354–356.

25.

Keller

E. F.

(1983). A feeling for the organism New York : W. H. Freeman and Company.

26.

Kent

R. L.

(1989). The role of mystery in preferences for shopping malls. Landscape Journal 8(1), 28–35.

27.

Lyons

(1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior 15(4), 487–511.

28.

Mehrabian

(1976). Public places and private spaces New York : Basic Books.

29.

Mehrabian

, & Russell

J. A.

(1974). An approach to environmental psychology Cambridge : MIT Press.

30.

Nasar

J. L.

(1983). Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior 15(5), 589–614.

31.

Nasar

J. L.

(1988a). Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. In Nasar

J. L.

(Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications (pp. 275–289). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

32.

Nasar

J. L.

(1988b). The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. In Nasar

J. L.

(Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications (pp. 300–320). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

33.

Nasar

J. L.

(1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior 21(3), 235–257.

34.

Prak

N. L.

(1977). The visual perception of the built environment Delft, The Netherlands : Delft University Press.

35.

Rapoport

, & Kantor

R. E.

(1967). Complexity and ambiguity in environmental design. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 33(4), 210–221.

36.

Russell

J. A.

, & Mehrabian

(1978). Approach–avoidance and affiliation as functions of the emotion–eliciting quality of an environment. Environment and Behavior 10(3), 355–387.

37.

Scott

S. C.

(1992). Visual attributes related to preference in interior environments. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research 18(12), 7–16.

38.

Ulrich

R. S.

(1977). Visual landscape preference: A model and application. Man-Environment Systems, 7, 279–293.

39.

Vitz

P. C.

(1966). Preferences for different amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science, 11, 105–114.

40.

Wohlwill

J. F.

(1968). Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 4, 307–312.

41.

Wohlwill

J. F.

(1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In Altman

& Wohlwill

J. F.

(Eds.), Human behavior and environment (pp. 37–85). New York : Plenum.

42.

Yin

R. K.

(1984). Case study research: Design and methods Beverly Hills : Sage Publications.