Decoding modern architecture: A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons

Environment and Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 163-187

  Gifford, Robert ^b   Hine, Donald W ^a   Muller Clemm, Werner ^b   Reynolds Jr , D'Arcy J ^b   Shaw, Kelly T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; PERCEPTION;

EID: 0034105597     PISSN: 00139165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/00139160021972487     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Baird, J. C., Cassidy, B., & Kurr, J. (1978). Room preference as a function of architectural features and user activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 719-727.
2. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. Cooksey, R. (1997). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4. Devlin, K. (1990). An examination of architectural interpretation: Architects versus non-architects. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 7, 235-244.
5. Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of "high" versus "popular" residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 333-334.
6. Duffy, M., Bailey, S., Beck, B., & Barker, D. G. (1986). Preferences in nursing home design: A comparison of residents, administrators, and designers. Environment and Behavior, 18, 246-257.
7. Frewald, D. B. (1990). Preferences for older buildings: A psychological approach to architectural design. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(1-B), 414-415.
8. Friedman, C., Balling, J. D., & Valadez, J. J. (1985, June). Visual preference for office buildings: A comparison of architects and non-architects. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, New York.
9. Gifford, R. (1980). Judgments of the built environment as a function of individual differences and context. Journal of Man-Environment Relations, 1(1), 22-31.
10. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 3-22.
11. Groat, L. (1994). Carbuncles, columns, and pyramids: Lay and expert evaluations of contextual design strategies. In B. C. Scheer & W.F.E. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control (pp. 156-164). New York: Chapman and Hall
12. Hershberger, R. G. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture. Dissertation Abstracts International, 2435-A.
13. Hershberger, R. G., & Cass, R. C. (1988). Predicting user responses to buildings. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 195-211). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 237-248.
15. Hubbard, P. (1996). Conflicting interpretations of architecture: An empirical investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 75-92.
16. Kaye, S. M., & Murray, M. A. (1982). Evaluations of an architectural space as a function of variations in furniture arrangement, furniture density, and windows. Human Factors, 24, 609-618.
17. Kuller, R. (1980). Architecture and emotions. In B. Mikellides (Ed.), Architecture and people (pp. 87-100). London: Studio Vista.
18. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Murphy, G., & Kovach, J. (1972). Historical introduction to modern psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
20. Nasar, J. L. (1981). Responses to different spatial configurations. Human Factors, 23, 439-446.
21. 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.
22. Nasar, J. L. (1988). Architectural symbolism: A study of house-style meanings. Paper presented at the 19th annual meeting of the Environmental Design Research Association, Pomona, CA.
23. Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21, 235-257.
24. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26, 377-401.
25. Nasar, J. L., & Kang, J. (1989). A post-jury evaluation: The Ohio State University design competition for a center for the visual arts. Environment and Behavior, 21, 464-484.
26. Nasar, J. L., & Purcell, T. (1990, July). Beauty and the beast extended: Knowledge structure and evaluations of houses by Australian architects and non-architects. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the International Association for People-Environment Studies, Ankara, Turkey.
27. Purcell, T., & Nasar, J. L. (1990, August). Australian architect and non-architect experiences of American houses. Paper presented at the conference of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, Budapest, Hungary.
28. Purcell, T., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Experiencing other people's houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 199-211.
29. Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M., & Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: A factor analytic study. Environment and Behavior, 13, 259-288.
30. Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect grid: A single-item scale on pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 493-502.
31. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
32. Stamps, A. E. (1991a). Comparing preferences of neighbors and a neighborhood design review board. Environment and Behavior, 23, 618-629.
33. Stamps, A. E. (1991b). Public preferences for high rise buildings: Stylistic and demographic. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 839-844.
34. Stamps, A. E. (1992). Pre- and postconstruction environmental evaluations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 481-482.
35. Stamps, A. E. (1993). Public preferences for residences: Precode, code minimum, and avantgarde architectural styles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 99-103.
36. Stamps, A. E. (1994). Formal and non-formal stimulus factors in environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 3-9.
37. 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.
38. Vischer, J. C., & Marcus, C. C. (1986). Evaluating evaluation: Analysis of a housing design awards program. Places, 3, 66-86.
39. Whitfield, T.W.A. (1983). Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 221-237.
40. Wohlwill, J. (1974, July). The place of aesthetics in the study of the environment. Paper presented at the Symposium on Experimental Aesthetics and Psychology of the Environment at the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Montreal, Canada.