Analysis of variance was used to find out how much variance in preference for residential facades could be attributed to places or people. In accordance with previous findings based on other stimuli, places accounted for more preference variance than did people (16% vs 0%). More focused results were obtained for the subjective factor of sex and the objective design features of number of turns in a silhouette and the percentage of a facade covered by small visual elements. Preferences across sex correlated at .98, indicating that this demographic distinction had a very small effect. The objective factor of visual complexity had a multiple correlation of .90 with preference, indicating a strong effect. These results indicate that design features were much more effective than subjective factors in predicting preferences for environments. Moreover, this finding was reproducible over different samples of people and places.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmanI.ChurchmanA. (Eds.) (1994) Women and the environment. New York: Plenum.
2.
BerlyneD. E. (1960) Conflict, arousal and cariosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
BerlyneD. E. (Ed.) (1974) Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps towards an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York: Wiley.
4.
BerlyneD. E. (1980) Psychological aesthetics. In TriandisH. C.LonnerW. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Basic processes. Vol. 3. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 323–361.
5.
BerlyneD. E.MadsenK. B. (Eds.) (1973) Pleasure, reward, preference. New York: Academic Press.
6.
BernaldezF. G.AbelloR. P. (1989) Environmental challenge and environmental preference: Age and sex effects. Journal of Environmental Management, 28, 53–70.
7.
BirnbaumM. H. (1998) Measurement, judgment, and decision making. (2nd ed.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8.
BurdickR. K.GraybillF. A. (1992) Confidence intervals on variance components. New York: Marcel Dekker.
9.
CarpF.CarpA. (1982) Perceived environmental quality of neighborhoods: Development of assessment scales and their relation to age and gender. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 295–312.
10.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1993) Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
GuilfordJ. P. (1954) Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
ImamogluC. (1998) Evaluations of house facade drawings in relation to their level of complexity. St. Louis, Missouri: 29th Annual Meeting of the Environmental Design Research Association.
14.
KrierR. (1988) Architectural composition. New York: Rizzoli.
15.
LyonsE. (1983) Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 15,487–511.
16.
MaciaA. (1979) Visual perception of landscapes: Sex and personality differences. Our national landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. (General Technical Report PSW-35, 279–285).
17.
McAlesterV.McAlesterL. (1995) A field guide to American houses. New York: Knopf.
18.
NasarJ. L. (1989) The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. In NasarJ. L. (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, UKCambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 300–320.
19.
NasarJ. L.KangJ. (1989) A post-jury evaluation: The Ohio State University design competition for a center lot the visual arts. Environment and Behavior, 21, 464–484.
20.
NewellP. (1997) A cross-cultural examination of favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 29,495–514.
21.
Penning-RowsellE. C. (1982) A public preference evaluation of landscape quality. Regional Studies, 16, 97–112.
22.
RosenthalR. (1991) Meta-analytic procedures for social research. (2nd ed.) Vol. 6. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1991) Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
SearleS. R.CasellaG.McCullochC. E. (1992) Variance components. New York: Wiley.
25.
SextonR. (1995) Parallel utopias: The quest for community. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books.
26.
StampsA. E. (1991) Public preferences for high rise buildings: Stylistic and demographic effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 839–844.
27.
StampsA. E. (1993a) Public preferences for residences: Precode, code minimum, and avant-garde architectural styles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 99–103.
28.
StampsA. E. (1993b) Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38, 115–132.
29.
StampsA. E. (1994) Formal and nonformal stimulus factors in environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 3–9.
30.
StampsA. E. (1995) Stimulus and respondent factors in environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80668–670.
31.
StampsA. E. (1996a) Effect sizes as a lingua franca of environmental aesthetics. In NasarJ. L.BrownB. (Eds.), Public and private spaces: EDRA 27. Salt Lake City, UT. Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research Association. Pp. 151–162.
32.
StampsA. E. (1996b) People and places: Variance components of environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 323–334.
33.
StampsA. E. (1997a) Advances in peer review research: An introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 3–10.
34.
StampsA. E. (1997b) Meta-analysis in environmental research. In AmielM. S.VischerJ. C. (Eds.), Space design and management for place making: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Montreal, Canada. Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research Association. Pp. 114–124.
35.
StampsA. E. (1997c) Of time and preference: Temporal stability of environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 883–896.
36.
StampsA. E. (1997d) A paradigm for distinguishing significant from nonsignificant visual impacts: Theory, implementation, case histories. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17, 249–293.
37.
StampsA. E. (1997e) Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 85–98.
38.
StampsA. E. (1998a) Complexity of architectural facades: From vague impressions to definite design features. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 1407–1417.
39.
StampsA. E. (1998b) Effect sizes of mountains and molehills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 913–914.
40.
StampsA. E. (1999) Architectural detail, van der Laan Septaves, and pixel counts. Design Studies, 20, 83–97.
41.
StampsA. E.NasarJ. L. (1997) Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical locations, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 11–32.
42.
StrumseE. (1996) Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 17–31.
43.
Van Der LaanH. (1983) Architectonic space: Fifteen lessons on the disposition of the human habitat. (PadovanR., Transl.) Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.
44.
WinerB. J.BrownD. R.MichelsK. M. (1991) Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
45.
YiY. K. (1992) Affect and cognition interface in aesthetic experiences of landscapes. College Station, TX: Texas A & M Univer.
46.
ZubeE. H.ViningJ.LawC.BechtelR. B. (1985) Perceived urban residential quality. Environment and Behavior, 17, 327–350.
