This article reports how strongly boundary roughness predicts impressions of spaciousness. In one experiment, 16 rooms with fractal walls were created in CAD simulations and 49 respondents rated the rooms in terms of spaciousness. In a second experiment, 16 respondents rated spaciousness for an additional 12 rooms with different wall systems. Fractal rooms with rough walls were judged as being more spacious than rooms with smooth walls, and opening bookshelves also made rooms seem more spacious. Thus, results from both studies indicate that boundary roughness makes rooms seem more spacious. Quantitative guidance is provided to assist future research.
Appleton, J. (1996). The experience of landscape. New York: Wiley.
2.
Appleton, J. (1990). The symbolism of habitat. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
3.
Bacon, F. (1952). Advancement of learning. New York: Collier. (Original work published in 1605)
4.
Bacon, F. (1980). The great instauration and new Atlantis. Arlington Heights, Illinois: AHM.
5.
Barnhard, C. L. (1966). The American college dictionary. New York: Random House.
6.
Barnsley, M. F. (1993). Fractals everywhere. San Diego, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
7.
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.
8.
The compact edition of the Oxford English dictionary. (1971). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
Coeterier, J. F. (1994). Cues for the perception of the size of space in landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 42, 333-347.
10.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1993). Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Cutting, J. E., & Garvin, J. J. (1987). Fractal curves and complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 365-370.
13.
Davis, L. S., & Benedikt, M. L. (1979). Computational models of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 11, 49-72.
14.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
Deming, W. E. (1994). The new economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced Engineering Study, MIT.
16.
Feimer, N. R. (1984). Environmental perception: The effects of media, evaluative context, and observer sample. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 61-80.
17.
Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24(1), 35-65.
18.
Franz, G., von der Heyde, M., & Bülthoff, H. (2003). An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space in VR. Retrieved on December 23, 2004 from http://www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/publications/pdfs/pdf2232.pdf
19.
Gärling, T. (1969a). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms I: Judgment scales of open and closed space. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 10, 250-256.
20.
Gärling, T. (1969b). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms II: Judgments of open and closed space by category rating and magnitude estimation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 10, 257-268.
21.
Gärling, T. (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, 124-131.
22.
Gärling, T. (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, 133-145.
23.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Gilden, D. L., Schmuckler, M. A., & Clayton, K. (1993). The perception of natural contour. Psychological Review, 100(3), 460-478.
25.
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.
26.
Hastings, H. M., & Sugihara, G. (1995). Fractals: A user’s guide for the natural sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic.
28.
Hediger, H. (1964). Wild animals in captivity: An outline of the biology of zoological gardens (G. Sircom, Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published in1950)
29.
Hediger, H. (1968). The psychology and behaviour of animals in zoos and circuses (G. Sircom, Trans.). New York: Dover. (Original work published 1955)
30.
Imamoglu, V. (1973). The effect of furniture on the subjective evaluation of spaciousness and estimation of size of rooms. In R. Küller (Ed.), Architectural psychology (pp. 314-352). Stroudsburg, PE: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
31.
Jacobsen, T. (2002). Kandinsky’s questionnaire revisited: Fundamental correspondence of basic colors and forms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 903-913.
32.
Juran, J. M. (1992). Juran on quality by design: The new steps for planning quality into goods and services. New York: Free Press.
33.
Juran, J. M. (1995). A history of managing for quality in the United States of America. In J. M. Juran (Ed.), A history of managing for quality: The evolution, trends, and future directions of managing for quality (pp. 553-601). Milwaukee, WI: American Society of Quality Control.
34.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger.
36.
Kenny, A., & Pinborg, J. (1982). Medieval philosophical literature. In N. Kretzmann & A. Kenny & J. Pinborg (Eds.), The Cambridge history of later Medieval philosophy (pp. 9-42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Kirschbaum, C. F., & Tonello, G. (1997). Visual appearance of office lighting. Right Light, 1, 143-148.
38.
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1983). The fractal geometry of nature. New York: W. H. Freeman. (Original work published 1977)
39.
Marchak, F. M. (1987). Fractal models in the visual perception of textures and surfaces in nature. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth.
40.
Martyniuk, O., Flynn, J. E., Spencer, T. J., & Hendrick, C. (1973). Effect of environmental lighting on impression and behavior. In R. Küller (Ed.), Architectural psychology (pp. 51-63). Stroudsburg, PE: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
41.
Montgomery, D. C. (1997). Design and analysis of experiments. New York: Wiley.
42.
Nasar, J. L. (1981). Responses to different spatial configurations. Human Factors, 23, 439-446.
43.
Nasar, J. L., Stamps, A. E., & Hanyu, K. (in press). Form and function in public buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
44.
Palmer, J. F., & Hoffman, R. E. (2001). Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 149-161.
45.
Peitgen, H.-O., Jurens, H., & Saupe, D. (1992). Fractals for the classroom. New York: Springer-Verlag.
46.
Pentland, A. P. (1984). Fractal-based description of natural scenes. Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-6 (6), 661-674.
47.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
48.
Russ, J. C. (1995). The image processing handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
49.
Shewhart, W. A. (1986). Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1939)
50.
Stamps, A. E. (1992). Bootstrap investigation of respondent sample size for environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 220-222.
51.
Stamps, A. E. (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38, 115-132.
52.
Stamps, A. E. (1997). Managing a scientific career: An autobiography. Institute of Environmental Quality. Retrieved on December 10, 2005, from http://ieq.att.home.net
53.
Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental preferences: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 155-175.
54.
Stamps, A. E. (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
55.
Stamps, A. E. (2002a). Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 163-184.
56.
Stamps, A. E. (2002b). Meta analysis. In R. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), The handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 222-232). New York: Wiley.
57.
Stamps, A. E. (2003). Summa contra Pisces: How to fully utilize contemporary statistical methods. Institute of Environmental Quality. Retrieved on December 10, 2005, from http://ieq.home.att.net
58.
Stamps, A. E. (2004a). Environmental preference, coherence, legibility, complexity, and mystery: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16.
59.
Stamps, A. E. (2004b). Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16.
60.
Stamps, A. E. (2005a). Enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. Environment & Behavior, 37(1), 102-133.
61.
Stamps, A. E. (2005b). Isovists, enclosure, and permeability theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, 735-762.
62.
Stamps, A. E., & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 11-32.
63.
Wise, J. A. (1988). The quantitative modeling of human spatial habitability (NASA-CR-177501 NAS1.26:177501). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Science & Technology Information. Moffitt Field, CA: Ames Research Center.
64.
Zimmerman, D. W., & Zumbo, B. D. (1993). The relative power of parametric and nonparametric statistical methods. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 481-517). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
