Perceivers’ assessments of dynamic and static displays of environmental scenes were compared to evaluate how readily responses to static displays can be extrapolated to experience in situ. The dynamic displays were videotaped segments taken along a route presenting transition events characterized by the property mystery. The static displays were freeze frames from each segment. Results indicated that assessments of static displays do not simply parallel those of dynamic displays. Preference ratings were higher for static displays, but preference ratings in the dynamic condition were more strongly correlated with a wider range of variables. Moreover, epistemic ratings were higher for dynamic than static displays. Turn segments of the route, where the greatest amount of new information is revealed, produced the highest ratings on epistemic and evaluative variables. Differences across display modes point to a greater need for understanding environmental perceiving in relation to the dynamic quality of everyday experiences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appleyard, D. , & Craik, K. H. (1974). The Berkeley Environmental Simulation Project: Its use in environmental impact assessment. In T. G. Dickert & K. R. Downey (Eds.), Environmental impact assessment: Guidelines and commentary (pp. 121-125). Berkeley, CA: University of California Extension.
2.
Appleyard, D. , Lynch, K., & Myer, J. R. (1964). The view from the road. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Benedikt, M. L. (1979). To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B, 6, 47-65.
4.
Benedikt, M. L. , & Burnham, C. A. (1985). Perceiving architectural space: From optic arrays to isovists. In W. H. Warren & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and change (pp. 103-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6.
Bosselmann, P. (1993). Dynamic simulation of urban environments. In R. W. Marans & D. Stokols (Eds.), Environmental simulation: Research and policy issues (pp. 279-302). New York: Plenum.
7.
Bosselmann, P. , & Craik, K. H. (1987). Perceptual simulations of environments. In R. Bechtel, R. Marans, & W. Michelson (Eds.), Methods in environmental and behavioral research (pp. 162-190). New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
8.
Cullen, G. (1961). The concise townscape. New York: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
9.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
10.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11.
Heft, H. (1981). An examination of constructivist and Gibsonian approaches to environmental psychology. Population and Environment, 4, 227-245.
12.
Heft, H. (1983). Way-finding as the perception of information over time. Population and Environment, 6, 133-150.
13.
Heft, H. (1988). The development of Gibson’s ecological approach to perception: A review essay. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 325-334.
14.
Heft, H. (1996). The ecological approach to navigation: A Gibsonian perspective. In J. Portugali (Ed.), The construction of cognitive maps (pp. 105-132). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15.
Heft, H. (1997). The relevance of Gibson’s ecological approach for environment-behavior studies. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (Vol. 4, pp. 71-108). New York: Plenum.
16.
Herzog, T. R. , & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429-449.
17.
Herzog, T. R. , & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20, 320-334.
18.
Kaplan, R. , & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT Press.
20.
Nasar, J. L. (1987). Effects of signscape complexity and coherence on the perceived visual quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53, 499-509.
21.
Nasar, J. L. (1988a). Dimensions of perception and preference in housing environments. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 275-290). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Nasar, J. L. (Ed.). (1988b). Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26, 377-401.
24.
Nasar, J. L. , & Jones, K. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29, 291-323.
25.
Peron, E. , Purcell, A. T., Staats, H. J., Falchero, S., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Models of preference for outdoor scenes: Some empirical evidence. Environment and Behavior, 30, 282-305.
26.
Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments. A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913.
27.
Thiel, P. (1970). Notes on the description, scaling, notation, and scoring of some perceptual and cognitive attributes of the physical environment. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Man in his physical setting (pp. 593-619). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
28.
Thiel, P. (1997). People, paths and purposes. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
29.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment. Human behavior and environment (Vol. 6, pp. 85-126). New York: Plenum.
30.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1975). Behavioral response and adaptation to environmental stimulation. In D. A. Damon (Ed.), Physiological anthropology (pp. 295-334). New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and the environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 37-86). New York: Plenum.
32.
Wohlwill, J. F. , & Harris, G. (1980). Responses to congruity or contrast for man-made features in natural-recreation settings. Leisure Science, 3, 349-365.
