Visual stimuli have a profound impact on the inhabitants of architectural spaces, although individuals’ susceptibility to these stimuli varies. Thought patterns in receiving and interpreting information manifest as aspects of personality. This study evaluates the relationship between personality types and the perception of visual architectural stimuli. The aim of this research is to investigate the relationship between thought patterns and architectural preferences. In the initial phase, eleven environmental factors were selected. Participants (N = 58) completed the MBTI personality type index test. Subsequently, images of architectural spaces were presented to them, and eye-tracking (ET) indicators were recorded while they viewed the images. Raw data were collected using MATLAB software. Both ANOVA and correlation analyses were conducted in SPSS 27.0. Significant correlations and effect sizes were found between ET indicators and personality types (r = 0.64–0.91; η² = 0.45–0.68), revealing distinct perceptual patterns among the bipolar personality types. The findings highlight how personality-based information-processing tendencies shape architectural preferences and provide useful guidance for designing psychologically responsive spaces.
AaltoP.SteinertM. (2024). Emergence of eye-tracking in architectural research: A review of studies 1976–2021. Architectural Science Review, 68(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2024.2382796
2.
AydinY. C.MirzaeiP. A. (2022). A novel mathematical model to measure Individuals’ perception of the symmetry level of building facades.Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 18(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2020.1862042
3.
AzematiH.JamF.GhorbaniM.DehmerM.EbrahimpourR.GhanbaranA.Emmert-StreibF. (2020). The role of symmetry in the aesthetics of residential building façades using cognitive science methods.Symmetry, 12(9), 1438. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091438
4.
BanaeiM.AhmadiA.GramannK.HatamiJ. (2020). Emotional evaluation of architectural Interior forms based on personality differences using virtual reality.Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(1), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.07.005
5.
BardachL.SchumacherA.TrautweinU.KasneciE.TibusM.WorthaF.GerjetsP.AppelT. (2024). Taking another Look at intelligence and personality using an eye-tracking approach.Npj Science of Learning, 9(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00252-8
6.
BouchardT. J. (2016). Experience producing drive theory: Personality ‘writ large’. Personality and Individual Differences, 90(1), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.007
CoburnA.VartanianO.ChatterjeeA. (2017). Buildings, beauty, and the brain: A neuroscience of architectural experience.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(9), 1521–1531. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01146
9.
CookR.FurnhamA. (2012). Aesthetic preferences for architectural styles vary as a function of personality.Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.2190/IC.32.2.b
10.
Dehghani TaftiM.Ahmadzad-AslM.MemarianG.Fallah TaftiM.RajimehrR.SoltaniS.Sadat MirfazeliF.VahabieA.-H.MoeinS. T.MozaffarF. (2024). Personality traits can predict architectural preferences: A machine learning approach.Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 18(5), 750–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000519
11.
de la Fuente SuárezL. A. (2020). “Subjective experience and visual attention to a historic building: A real-world eye-tracking study.” Frontiers of Architectural Research9(4):774–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2020.07.006
12.
DupontL.OomsK.AntropM.Van EetveldeV. (2016). Comparing saliency maps and eye-tracking focus maps: The potential use in visual impact assessment based on landscape photographs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.007
13.
EldredgeJ. H. (2016). Imagined interaction frequency and the five-factor model of personality.Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 35(4), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236616636215
14.
FehringerB. C. O. F.MünzerS.DedetasH. (2025). Perspective taking ability is important in map Reading for navigation – unless you follow the instruction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 103(1), 102584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102584
15.
FeistG. J.BradyT. R. (2004). Openness to experience, non-conformity, and the preference for abstract art.Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.2190/Y7CA-TBY6-V7LR-76GK
16.
FurnhamA. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the myers-briggs type indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality.Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00033-5
17.
FurnhamA. (2021). Demographic, personality trait and personality disorder correlates of aesthetic motivation.Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 40(4), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236620942917
18.
HaoS.HouR.ZhangJ.ShiY.ZhangY.WangC. (2025). Visual behavior characteristics of historical landscapes based on eye-tracking technology.Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 24(2), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2024.2306361
19.
HoffmannA.StorkP.MadysaM.BorgianniY. (2025). How attractive is sustainability in products: A systematic review about eye-tracking studies on sustainability labels. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 101(1), 102519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102519
20.
HoneycuttJ. M.KeatonS. A. (2012). Imagined interactions and personality preferences as predictors of relationship quality.Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.2190/IC.32.1.b
21.
HorsleyM.EliotM.KnightB. A.ReillyR. (2014). Current trends in eye tracking research. In HorsleyM.EliotM.KnightB. A.ReillyR. (Eds.) (pp. 1–345). Springer International Publishing.
22.
HuangZ. (2024). Adaptive Interior design method for different MBTI personality types based on generative artificial intelligence.Architectural Intelligence, 3(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44223-024-00066-z
23.
IbrahimA. F.Abu-ObeidN.Al-SimadiF. (2002). No TitleThe effect of personality traits on architectural Aesthetics’ evaluation: Familiar and non-familiar environments as evaluated by architectural and non-architectural students. Architectural Science Review, 45(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2002.9697511
24.
JueJ.HaJ. H. (2022). Exploring the relationships between personality and color preferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1065372
25.
KalantariS.Cruz-GarzaJ.XuT. B.MostafaviA.GaoE. (2023). Store layout design and consumer response: A behavioural and EEG study.Building Research & Information, 51(8), 897–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2023.2201415
26.
KhaleghimoghaddamN. (2024). A neurological examination of gender differences in architectural perception.Architectural Science Review, 67(4), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2023.2264822
27.
KimH.HongT. (2023). Emotional experience in uncomfortable indoor environments: A combined examination of personal factors. Building and Environment, 244(1), 110742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110742
LederH.TinioP. P. L.BarM. (2011). Emotional valence modulates the preference for curved objects.Perception, 40(6), 649–655. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6845
30.
LeeH.ShinY. (2024). A study on MBTI perceptions in South Korea: Big data analysis from the perspective of applying MBTI to contribute to the sustainable growth of communities.Sustainability, 16(10), 4152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104152
31.
LeeS.-Y.YoonS.-Y. (2022). Effects of gender and personality on experience of small living spaces: Ceiling height and floor plan shape in virtual environment. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.958829
32.
LimJ. Z.MountstephensJ.TeoJ. (2020). Emotion recognition using eye-tracking: Taxonomy, review and current challenges.Sensors, 20(8), 2384. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20082384
33.
Lisińska-KuśnierzM.KrupaM. (2020). Suitability of eye tracking in assessing the visual perception of architecture—A case study concerning selected projects located in Cologne.Buildings, 10(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10020020
MahadasS.SemkewycC.SureshS.HungG. K. (2021). Scan path during change-detection visual search. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 131(1), 104233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104233
36.
MollajafariH.ZarghamiE. (2024). Association between DRD4 gene and perception of architectural spaces by using EEG.. Architectural Science Review, 68(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2024.2367981
37.
MollajafariH.ZarghamiE. (2025). Windcatcher (badgir) as a sustainable heritage for passive cooling: Comparing the performance of traditional windcatchers and simulating a commercial windcatcher. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 19(11), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2025.2476148
PluessM.LionettiF.AronE. N.AronA. (2023). People differ in their sensitivity to the environment: An integrated theory, measurement and empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Personality, 104(1), 104377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104377
40.
RahbariF.MahmoudiNejadH.NaseriG.HosseiniS. M. (2022). Explaining the conceptual model of the effects of architecture on epigenetic changes in healthy buildings: A meta-analysis approach.International Journal of Urban Management and Energy Sustainability, 4(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.22034/jumes.2023.1998980.1126
41.
RobertsonJ. S.ForteJ. D.NichollsM. E. R. (2015). Deviating to the right: Using eyetracking to study the role of attention in navigation asymmetries.Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(3), 830–843. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0813-1
42.
RosasH. J.SussmanA.SekelyA. C.LavdasA. A. (2023). Using eye tracking to reveal responses to the built environment and its constituents.Applied Sciences, 13(21), 12071. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132112071
43.
RusnakM.SzmigielM.GeniuszM.KoszewiczZ.Magdziak-TokłowiczM. (2024). Exploring the impact of cultural context on eye-tracking studies of architectural monuments in selected European cities: Sustainable heritage management. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 66(1), 326–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2023.12.002
44.
SagginoA.CooperC.KlineP. (2001). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Myers–Briggs type indicator.Personality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00004-0
45.
SaghafiM. J.Tahery sayyahF. (2017). Architecture and MBTI; investigation of how the use of the characterology and personality type of the space user in housing design.Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning, 22(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2017.62267
46.
SarrafzadehA.GharehbaglouM. (2025). Environmental preferences in architecture based on personality types.Facilities, 43(1/2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-05-2024-0070
47.
ShynuR. V.SuseelanA. (2023). Human cognition and emotional response towards visual environmental features in an urban built context: A systematic review on perception-based studies.Architectural Science Review, 66(6), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2023.2232339
48.
SparkmanD. J. (2020). Openness. In The wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 293–297). Wiley.
49.
St-JeanP.ClarkO. G.JemtrudM. (2022). A review of the effects of architectural stimuli on human psychology and physiology. Building and Environment, 219(1), 109182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109182
50.
SwamiV.FurnhamA. (2012). The effects of symmetry and personality on aesthetic preferences.Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.2190/IC.32.1.d
51.
SwamiV.FurnhamA. (2020). The influence of personality on aesthetic preferences. In The Oxford handbook of empirical aesthetics (pp. 820–833). Oxford University Press.
52.
ThampanichwatC.MeksrisawatP.JinjantarawongN.SinnugoolS.PhaibulputhipongP.ChunhajindaP.BhutdhakomutB. (2024). A systematic review of architecture stimulating attention through the six senses of humans.Sustainability, 16(15), 6371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156371
53.
WachsT. D. (2013). Relation of maternal personality to perceptions of environmental chaos in the home. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.11.003
54.
WangY.LiangG.LuR. (2025). Following my heart: Natural sounds reduce the ‘intention-behavior gap’ in pro-environmental purchasing decisions and enhance top-down physiological attention mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 103(1), 102581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102581
55.
WedelM.PietersR.van der LansR. (2023). Modeling eye movements during decision making: A review.Psychometrika, 88(2), 697–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-022-09876-4
56.
WeynS.Van LeeuwenK.PluessM.GoossensL.ClaesS.BosmansG.Van Den NoortgateW.LutinE.Sophie BröhlA.ChubarV.GeukensF.BijttebierP. (2022). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity at physiological and phenotypic level: Two sides of the same coin?International Journal of Psychophysiology, 176(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.02.010
57.
XingY.LengJ.ZhouH. (2025). Cognitive preferences for architectural renovation strategies in traditional villages combining subjective evaluation and eye tracking. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 14(4), 1017–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2024.10.003
58.
YadegariZ.AlinaghiB. (2020). The effect of introversion and extroverts of individuals in the socialization of public space.Technium Social Sciences Journal, 3(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v3i1.80
59.
YuY.LuQ.WuX.WangZ.ZhangC.WuX.YanC. (2024). Detecting five-pattern personality traits using eye movement features for observing emotional faces. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1397340
60.
YuanS.BrowningM. H. E. M.LiF.DuchowskiA.HalloJ.NicoletteM. (2025). Can visual attention help uncover the effects of visitor density on urban park experience? An eye-tracking and virtual reality study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 106(1), 102631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102631
61.
ZhaoM.CrossleyT.ShinoharaH. (2025). The implications of EEG neurophysiological data in human-centered architectural design: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 103(1), 102550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102550
