Prospect-refuge theorywas used to study children's aesthetic responses to landscape paintings. Sixty-seven children between the ages of 8 and 15 years reported their liking for 28 landscape paintings and their perceptions of the degree of prospect, refuge, and hazard in those paintings. Consistent with expectations, children were able to express systematic preferences and judgments of degrees of prospect, refuge, and hazard. Liking was significantly related to perceptions of prospect, to interactions between prospect and refuge, and to interactions between prospect and hazard. Contrary to expectations, age did not moderate the effects of prospect, refuge, and hazard perceptions on liking and boys, but not girls, actually preferred pictures that they perceived to be more hazardous than other pictures. Results are discussed in terms of consistency with previous results and with Darwinian explanations for aesthetic feelings.
Appleton, J. (1996). The experience of landscape(Rev. ed.). London: Wiley.
2.
Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(5), 5-28.
3.
Bernaldez, F. G., Abello, R. P., & Gallardo, D. (1989). Environmental challenge and environmental preference: Age and sex effects. Journal of Environmental Management, 28, 53-70.
4.
Bernaldez, F. G., Gallardo, D., & Abello, R. P. (1987). Children's landscape preferences: From rejection to attraction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7, 169-176.
5.
Burke, E. (1958). A philosophical inquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful (J. T. Boulton, Ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1759)
6.
Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H.,& Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: John Wiley.
7.
Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 267-281.
8.
Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features. Environment and Behavior, 24(1), 35-65.
9.
Gobster, P. H. (1992). Forest vegetation in urban parks: Perceptions of inner city children. In G. A. Vander Stoep (Ed.), Proceedings, 1991 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium(pp. 209-214). Radnor, PA: USDAForest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
10.
Gobster, P. H. (1994). The urban savanna: Reuniting ecological preference and function. Restoration and Management Notes, 12(1), 64-71.
11.
Hagerhall, C. M. (2000). Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age, and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 83-90.
12.
Hammitt, W. E.,& Ruddell, E. J. (1987). Prospect refuge theory: Apsychological orientation for edge effect in recreation environments. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 249-260.
13.
Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis(pp. 138-172). Washington, DC: Island.
14.
Herzog, T. R., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20, 320-344.
15.
Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
16.
Kaplan, R.,& Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Kaplan, S. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides,& J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture(pp. 581-600). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
Lindauer, M. S. (1990). Reactions to cheap art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 8(2), 95-110.
19.
Lindauer, M. S. (1991). Comparisons between museum and mass-produced art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 9(1), 11-22.
20.
Lovric, M. (Ed.). (1996). The forests: A celebration of nature, in word and image. Philadelphia: Courage.
21.
Nasar, J. L., Julian, D., Buchman, S., Humphreys, D., & Mrohaly, M. (1983). The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: Alook at prospect and refuge. Landscape Planning, 10, 355-361.
22.
Raudenbush, S. W.,& Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Ribe, R. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference taught us?Environmental Management, 13(1), 55-74.
24.
SAS Institute. (2001). SAS (Version 8.01) [Computer software]. Cary, NC: Author.
25.
Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
27.
Thornhill, R. (1998). Darwinian aesthetics. In C. Crawford& D. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications(pp. 543-572). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman& J. F. Wohwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment(pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum.
29.
Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis(pp. 73-137). Washington, DC: Island.
30.
Wood, J. N.,& Lee, K. C. (1988). Master paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago. Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago.
31.
Woodcock, D. M. (1984). A functionalist approach to landscape preference. Landscape Research, 9(2), 24-27.
32.
Zuckerman, M., Ulrich, R. S., & McLaughlin, J. (1993). Sensation seeking and reactions to nature paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 563-576.
