The visual attribute preferences of Chinese subjects in interior environments were compared to those of American subjects to identify the similarities and differences between two cultures. The comparison utilized a theoretical framework of environmental preference. Findings showed that preference for complexity, coherence, vertical scenes, scenes with darkness at the focal point, and functional settings vary between American and Chinese subjects. These findings are useful to practitioners designing for diverse cultures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckingC.A., & KullerR. (1969). The perception of an interior as a function of its color. Lund, Sweden : Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Theoretical and Applied Aesthetics.
2.
BerlyneD.E. (1960). Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York : McGraw Hill.
3.
BerlyneD.E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York : Appleton–Century–Crofts.
4.
BerryJ.W. (1976). Human ecology and Cognitive Style: Comparative Studies in Cultural and Psychological Adaptation. New York : John Wiley & Sons.
5.
BerryJ.W. (1980). Introduction to methodology. In TriardisH.C. & BerryJ.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Cross–Cultural Psychology: Vol. 2. methodology (pp. 1–28). Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
6.
BochnerS. (1979). Cultural diversity: Implications for modernization and international education. In KumarK. (Ed.), Bonds Without Bondage (pp. 231–256). Honolulu : The University Press of Hawaii.
7.
CasebierR.A. (1988). Design values of different resident groups. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 14(2), 9–14.
8.
CorryS. & ThompsonJ.A. (1993). Popular film median and viewers’ preference for interior design characteristics: Is there a relationship? Journa of InteriorDesign, 19(2), 27–33.
9.
DaleF.D. (1982). Patterns of preference in the indoor environment. Unpublished honors thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor .
10.
DespresC. (1989). Beyond theoretical purism: The search for an integrated paradigm in environmental meaning research. In HardieG., MooreR., & SanoffH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, (85–88). North Carolina State University, Black Mountain, NC .
11.
FlachsbartPG. & PetersonG.L. (1973). Dynamics of preference for visual attributes of housing environments. In PreiserW.F.E. (Ed.), Environmental design research (pp. 98–106). Stroudsberg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.
12.
GimblettH.R. (1990). Environmental cognition: The prediction of preference in rural Indiana. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7(3), 222–234.
13.
GimblettH. R., ItamiR. M., & FitzgibbonJ. E. (1985). Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal. 4(2), 87–95.
14.
GuerinD. & MasonB.C. (1993). An experiential framework for international interior design education. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research. 18(1 & 2), 51–58.
15.
HerzogT. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: Mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landscape Journal, 6(2), 140–152.
16.
HofstedeG. (1990). Empirical models of cultural differences. In BleichrodtN. & DrenthP. J. D. (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Cross–cultural Psychology. Berwyn, PA : Swets & Zeitlinger.
17.
KaplanR. (1975). Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In ZubeB.H., BrushR.O., & FabosJ.G. (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources (pp. 118–129). Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
18.
KaplanR. & HerbertB.J. (1987). Cultural and sub–cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning. 14, 281–293.
19.
KaplanS. (1975). An Informational model for the prediction of preference. In ZubeB. H., BrushR.O., & FabosJ.O. (Eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources (pp. 92–101). Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
20.
KaplanS. & KaplanR. (1982). Competition and Environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York : Praeger.
21.
KullerK. (1972). A semantic model for describing perceived environment. (National Swedish Building Research Document D12). Stockholm, Sweden : National Swedish Building Research.
22.
KentK. L. (1989). The role of mystery in preference for shopping malls. Landscape Journal, 8(1), 28–35.
23.
KumarK. (1979). General introduction. In KumarK. (Ed.), Bonds without bondage: Explorations in transcultural interactions, (pp. 1–28). Honolulu, HI : The University Press of Hawaii.
24.
KwokK. (1979). Semantic evaluation of perceived environment: A cross–cultural replication. Man-Environment System, 9, 243–249.
25.
LomaxA. (1968). Folk song style and culture. Washington, D. C : American Association for the Advancement of Science.
26.
LyonB. (1983). Demographic conelates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior. 15(4), 487–511.
27.
MaciaA. (1979). Visual perception of landscape: Sex and personality differences. In EisnerG.H. & SmardonR.C. (Eds.), Our National Landscape. Berkeley, CA : USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW–35.
28.
MartinC. (1993). Interior design for hospitals: Preferences of patients and staff for colors in the patient room. (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, DAI–B 53/10.
29.
NasarJ.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.
30.
NasarS. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house style. Environment and Behavior, 21(3), 235–257.
31.
NasarJ. L. & KangJ. (1989). Symbolic meanings of building style in small suburban offices. In HardieU., MooreR., & SanoffH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. (165–172). North Carolina State University, Black Mountain, NC .
32.
PetersonU. & NeumannE. (1969). Modeling and predicting human response to the visual recreation environment. Journal of Leisure Research, 1, 219–237.
33.
OrnsteinS. (1992). First impressions of the symbolic meanings connoted by reception area design. Environment and Behavior, (240), 85–110.
34.
ParkY. & GuerinD. (2002). Meaning and preference of interior color palettes among four cultures. Journal of Interior Design, (280), 27–39.
35.
RapoportA. (1990). History and Precedent in Environmental Design. New York :Plenum Press.
36.
RichardsK. (1994, September), Bringing things up–to–snuff. Interiors, p. 126.
37.
SancarF. H. & MacanH. (1988). A situational research for discovering the meaning of city image. In LawrenceD., HabeR., HackerA., & SherrodD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, (pp. 93–98). Pomona, CA .
38.
SchweitzerB., BellO., & DailyJ. (1973). A bi–racial comparison of density preferences in housing in two cities. In PreiserW. F. E. (Ed.), Environmental Design Research, (pp. 312–322 XStroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
39.
ScottS.C. (1989). Preference, mystery and visual attributes of interiors: a study of relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison .
40.
ScottS.C. (1992). Visual attributes related to preference in interior environments. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research. 180 (1&2), 1–16.
41.
ScottS.C. (1993). Complexity and mystery as predictors of interior preferences. Journal of Interior Design, 19(1), 25–33.
42.
SearsR.R. (1961). Transcultural variables and conceptual equivalence. In KaplanH. (Ed.), Studying Personality Cross–culturally (pp. 445–455). New York : Row Peterson.
43.
ShaferB.L. & ToobyM. (1973). Landscape preferences: An international replication. Journal of Leisure Research. 3, 60–65.
44.
VeitchJ.A., HineD.W., & GifffordI.C. (1993). End users’ knowledge, beliefs, and preference for lighting. Journal of Interior Design. 19(2), 15–26.
45.
YangB.B. & BrownT.B, (1992). A cross–cultural comparison of preference for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment and Behavior. 24(4), 471–507.
46.
ZhouF.Y, & YanB. (1996). Jinji gao shu fa zhan yi zhong kou jian zhu wen hua [Economic development and Chinese Architectural culture], Jian Zhu Shi, 72, 10–14.
