The main objective of this article is to contribute to theory development and methodology with respect to perceptual schemes and their influence on judgment and evaluation of the urban environment. Three groups-comprising adults, adolescents, and architects-were formed to answer the main problem: To what degree and in what way do perceptual schemes of these groups differ? We constructed an instrument for content analysis on information gathered by means of in-depth interviews and tested it on reliability. A statistical analysis resulted in highly significant differences between the three groups. Within the perceptual schemes of adolescents immediate sensation of stimuli appears to be relatively important. Significance of specified spatial qualities appears to be characteristic of the perceptual schemes of architects. The position of adults is an intermediate one, but interpretation and meaning are relatively important in their perception of the environment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berger, P. L. , & Luckmann, T. (1973). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.
2.
Bernaldez, F. G. , Gallardo, D., & Abello, R P. (1987). Children's landscape preferences: From rejection to attraction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2,169-176.
3.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 37-46.
5.
Dovey, K. (1988). Place, ideology and postmodernism. In H. van Hoogdalem, N. L. Prak, T.J.M. van der Voordt, & H.B.R. van Wegen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th biennial conference of the IAPS, (pp. 275-285). Detft: Detft University Press.
6.
Franke, J., & Bortz, J. (1972). Beitrage zur Anwendung der Psychologie auf den Stadtebau. Zeitschrift fur experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 19, 76-108.
7.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory, strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
9.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.
10.
Gottdiener, M. , & Lagopoulos, A. P. (Eds.). (1986). The city and the sign:An introduction to urban semiotics. New York: Columbia University Press.
11.
Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: an examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 53-66.
12.
Habermas, J. (1987). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Bd. 1, 2). 4th ed. Frankfurt Am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
13.
Harries, P. , Lipman, A., & Purden, S. (1982). The marketing of meaning: Aesthetics incorporated. Environment and Planning B, 9, 457-466.
14.
Harrison, J. D. , & Howard, W. A., (1972). The role of meaning in the urban image. Environment and Behavior, 4, 398-411.
15.
Hershberger, R. G. (1970). A study of meaning and architecture. EDRA, 1, 86-101.
16.
Herzog, T. R. , Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1976). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 4, 627-645.
17.
Herzog, T. R. , & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 3, 320-344.
18.
Homel, R. , & Burns, A. (1987). Is this a good place to grow up in? Neighbourhood quality and children's evaluations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 101-116.
19.
Janssens, J. (1984). Looking at buildings: Individual variations in the perception of building exteriors. Lund: Lund School of Architecture, The Lund Institute of Technology.
20.
Kaplan, R. (1973). Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and "clients."EDRA, 1, 265-275.
21.
Kaplan, R. , & Talbot, J. F. (1988). Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A review of recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 107-117.
22.
Krampen, M. (1980). The correlations of "objective" facade measurements with subjective ratings. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt, & C. Jencks (Eds.), Meaning and behavior in the built environment (pp. 61-78). Chichester, England: Wiley.
23.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.
24.
Leff, H. S. , & Deutsch, P. S. (1973). Construing the physical environment: Differences between environmental professionals and lay persons. EDRA, 1, 284-297.
25.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. London: M. I. T. Press.
26.
Manning, P. K. (1987). Semiotics and fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Markham, R. (1970). Sensation-seeking and environment preference. EDRA2, 311-316.
28.
Miles, M. B. , & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis, a sourcebookof new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
Nasar, J. L. (1987). Environmental correlates of evaluative appraisals of business district scenes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 117-130.
30.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.
31.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32.
Patterson, A. H. (1974). Unobtrusive measures: Their nature and utility for architects. In J. Lang, C. Brunette, W. Moleski, & D. Vachon (Eds.), Designing for human behavior:Architectureandthe behavioral sciences, (pp. 261-273). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc.,
33.
Pennartz, P.J.J. (1986). Atmosphere at home: A qualitative approach. Joumal of Environmental Psychology, 6,135-153.
34.
Pennartz, P.J.J. (1989). Semiotic theory and environmental evaluation: A proposal for a new approach and a new method. Symbolic Interaction, 12(2), 231-249.
35.
Sanoff, H. (1973). Youth's perception and categorizations of residental cues. EDRA, 1, 84-98.
36.
Schroeder, H. W. (1987). Dimensions of variation in urban park preference: A psycho-physical analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2,123-141.
37.
Silbereisen, R. , &Noack, P. (1977). Adolescenceand environment. In D. Canter,M. Krampen, & D. Stea (Eds.), Environmental policy, assesment and communication (pp. 19-34). Avebury, England: Aldershot.
38.
Warf, B. (1986). Ideology, everyday life and emancipatory phenomenology. Antipode, 18, 268-283.
39.
Webb, E. J. , Campbell, D. T., & Schwartz, R. D. (1966). Unobtrsive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
