Complexity, age, and building preference

Environment and Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 557-575

  Herzog, Thomas R ^a   Shier, Ronda L ^b  

^a GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Grand Valley State University ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; BUILDING; PERCEPTION;

EID: 0033941083     PISSN: 00139165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00139160021972667     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Day, L. L. (1992). Placemaking by design: Fitting a large new building into a historic district. Environment and Behavior, 24, 326-346.
3. Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1997). Moderating and mediating processes in environment-behavior research. In G. T. Moore & R. W. Marans (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design (pp. 255-285). New York: Plenum.
4. Evans, G. W., & Maxwell, L. (1997). Chronic noise exposure and reading deficits: The mediating effects of language acquisition. Environment and Behavior, 29, 638-656.
5. Frewald, D. B. (1989). Preferences for older buildings: A psychological approach to architectural design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.
6. Hershberger, R. G., & Cass, R. C. (1973). The adequacy of various media as representations of the designed environment. Man-Environment Systems, 3, 371-372.
7. Herzog, T. R., & Gale, T. A. (1996). Preference for urban buildings as a function of age and nature context. Environment and Behavior, 28, 44-72.
8. Hetherington, J., Daniel, T. C., & Brown, T. C. (1993). Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environment perception research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 283-291.
9. Hull, R. B., IV, & Stewart, W. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114.
10. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (Eds.). (1978). Humanscape: Environments for people. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
12. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
13. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers' preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15, 589-614.
14. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Sommer, R., Summit, J., & Clements, A. (1993). Slide ratings of street tree attributes: Some methodological issues and answers. Landscape Journal, 12, 17-22.
16. Stamps, A. E., III. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913.
17. Stamps, A. E., III. (1991). Public preferences for high rise buildings: Stylistic and demographic effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 839-844.
18. Stamps, A. E., III. (1994). Formal and nonformal stimulus factors in environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 3-9.
19. Trent, R. B., Neumann, E., & Kvashny, A. (1987). Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 225-235.
20. Widmar, R. (1984). Preferences for multiple-family housing: Some implications for public participation. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 1, 245-260.
21. Zube, E. H., Simcox, D. E., & Law, C. S. (1987). Perceptual landscape simulations: History and prospect. Landscape Journal, 6, 62-80.