Complexity, liking and familiarity: Architecture and non-architecture Turkish students' assessments of traditional and modern house facades

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 5-16

  Imamoglu, Çagri ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034147871     PISSN: 02724944     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0155     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Berlyne D. E. Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics. 1974;Wiley, New York.
2. Berlyne D. E. The new experimental aesthetics and environmental psychology. Suedfeld P., Russell J. A., Ward L. M., Szigeti F., Davis G., The Behavioral Basis of Design, Book 2, Proceedings, EDRA 7. 1977;13-22 McGraw Hill, Vancouver.
3. Biaggio M. K., Supplee K. A. Dimensions of aesthetic perception. Journal of Psychology. 114:1983;29-35.
4. Crozier J. B. Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. Berlyne D. E., Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics. 1974;27-90 Halsted, New York.
5. Devlin K. An examination of architectural interpretation: Architects versus non-architects. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 7:1990;235-243.
6. Devlin K., Nasar J. K. The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of `high' versus `popular' residential architecture and public versus architect judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 9:1989;333-344.
7. Groat L. Meaning in postmodern architecture: An examination using a multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2:1982;3-22.
8. Groat L. N. Contextual compatibility in architecture: An issue of personal taste? Nasar J. L., Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications. 1988;228-253 Cambridge University Press, New York.
9. Groat L. N. Analyzing compositional principles in the service of environmental design research. Hardie G., Moore R., Sanoff H., Changing Paradigms, Proceedings, EDRA 20. 1989;33-40 N. Carolina State University, Oklahoma City.
10. Hargreaves D. J. The effects of repetition on liking for music. Journal of Research in Music Education. 32:1984;35-47.
11. Heinrichs R. W. Verbal responses to human figure paintings: A test of the uncertainty hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 38:1984;512-518.
12. Hekkert P., van Wieringen P. C.W. Complexity and prototypicality as determinants of the appraisal of cubist paintings. British Journal of Psychology. 81:1990;483-495.
13. Imamoglu O. Konutlara iliskin begeni ve tercihler (Liking and preferences for dwellings). Pultar M., Çevre, Yapi ve Tasarim. 1979;321-345 Çevre Mimarlik Bilimleri Dernegi, Ankara.
14. thConference of the International Association for the People and Their Physical Environment. 1979;Louvain le Neuve. p. 65-85.
15. thConference of the Environmental Design and Research Association. 1974;265-274 Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg.
16. Kaplan S., Kaplan R., Wendt J. S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics. 12:1972;334-356.
17. Krampen M., Öztürk K., Özek V., Saltik H. `Eski ve' `yeni' görünüslerin öznel izlenimleri ve `nesnel' ölçümü (Subjective evaluations and `objective' measurements of `old' and `new' facades). 1979;Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Mimarlik Bülteni.
18. Leff H. S. Construing the physical environment: Differences between environmental professionals and lay persons. Wolfgang F. E., Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the Environmental Design and Research Association. 1974;284-297 Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg.
19. Mehrabian A., Russell J. A. A verbal measure of information rate for studies in environmental psychology. Environment and Behavior. 6:1974;233-252.
20. Nasar J. L. Adult viewers' preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior. 15:1983;589-614.
21. Nasar J. L. Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior. 21:1989;235-257.
22. Nasar J. L., Kang J. A post-jury evaluation. Environment and Behavior. 21:1989;464-484.
23. thConference of the International Association for the People and Their Physical Environment. 1:1990;169-171 Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
24. Pennartz P. J.J., Elsinga M. G. Adults, adolescents, and architects: Differences in perception of the urban environment. Environment and Behavior. 22:1990;675-714.
25. Purcell A. T. Experiencing American and Australian high- and popular-style houses. Environment and Behavior. 27:1995;771-801.
26. Purcell A. T., Peron E., Sanchez C. Subcultural and cross-cultural effects on the experience of detached houses: An examination of two models of affective experience of the environment. Environment and Behavior. 30:1998;348-377.
27. Radocy R. E. Preference for classical music: A test for the Hedgehog. Psychology of Music. 1982;91-95.
28. Rapoport A. Human Aspects of Urban Form. 1977;Pergamon, Oxford.
29. Russell J. A., Snodgrass J. Emotion and the environment. Stokols D., Altman I., Handbook of Environmental Psychology. 1:1987;245-280 John Wiley and Sons, New York.
30. Smith K. C., Cuddy L. L. The pleasingness of melodic sequences: Contrasting effects of repetition and rule-familiarity. Psychology of Music. 14:1986;17-32.
31. Wickelgren W. A. Cognitive Psychology. 1979;Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
32. Wohlwill J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception and Psychophysics. 4:1968;307-312.
33. Wohlwill J. F. Children's responses to meaningful pictures varying in diversity: Exploration time vs. preference. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 20:1975;341-351.
34. Wohlwill J. F. Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. Altman I., Wohlwill J. F., Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. 1:1976;37-86 Plenum, New York.
35. Zajonc R. B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement. 1968;9.