Entropy, visual diversity, and preference

Journal of General Psychology

Volumn 129, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 300-320

  Stamps, Arthur E ^a  

^a Institute of Environmental Quality   (United States)

Author keywords

Diversity; Entropy; Environments

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; EMOTION; ENTROPY; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; EMOTIONS; ENTROPY; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SAN FRANCISCO;

EID: 0036651734     PISSN: 00221309     EISSN: 19400888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00221300209602100     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Attneave, F. (1959). Applications of information theory to psychology: A summary of basic concepts, methods, and results. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2. Bates, D. M., & Watts, D. G. (1988). Nonlinear regression analysis and its applications. New York: Wiley.
3. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appieton-Century-Crofts.
5. Berlyne, D. E. (1973). Interrelations of verbal and nonverbal measures used in experimental aesthetics. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 14, 177-184.
6. Berlyne, D. E. (1974a). The new experimental aesthetics. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 1-25). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
7. Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.). (1974b). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. New York: Wiley.
8. Berlyne, D. E. (1974c). Verbal and exploratory responses to visual patterns varying in uncertainty and in redundancy. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 121-158). New York: Wiley.
9. Berlyne, D. E., & Madsen, K. B. (Eds.). (1973). Pleasure, reward, preference. New York: Academic Press.
10. Bernaldez, F. G., Gallardo, D., & Abello, R. P. (1987). Children's landscape preferences: From rejection to attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7(2), 169-176.
11. Calderon, E. (1994). Design control in the Spanish planning system. Built Environment, 20(2), 157-168.
12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1993). Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of information theory. New York: Wiley.
15. Crazier, J. B. (1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 27-90). New York: Wiley.
16. Duerksen, C. J., & Goebel, R. M. (1999). Aesthetics, community character, and the law (Planning Advisory Service Report 489/490). Chicago: American Planning Association.
17. Eisenman, R. (1966). Pleasing and interesting visual complexity: Support for Berlyne. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 23(3), 1167-1170.
18. Elsheshtawy, Y. (1997). Urban complexity: Toward the measurement of the physical complexity of street-scapes. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 14(4), 301-316.
19. Feimer, N. R. (1984). Environmental perception: The effects of media, evaluative context, and observer sample. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 61-80.
20. Gallant, A. R. (1987). Nonlinear statistical models. New York: Wiley.
21. Hare, F. G. (1974). Verbal responses varying in distributional redundancy and in variety. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 169-173). New York: Wiley.
22. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(4), 354-356.
23. Krampen, M. (1979). Meaning in the urban environment. London: Pion.
24. Kreher, D. L., & Stinson, D. R. (1999). Combinatorial algorithms: Generation, enumeration, and search. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
25. Lightner, B. C. (1993). Survey of design review practices (Planning Advisory Service Memo). Chicago: American Planning Association.
26. Loew, S. (1994). Design control in France. Built Environment, 20(2), 88-103.
27. Lu, N. (1997). Fractal imaging. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
28. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
30. Miller, G. A. (1994). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343-352.
31. Nasar, J. L. (1981). Visual preferences of elderly public housing residents: Residential street scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1(4), 303-313.
32. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers' preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15(5), 589-614.
33. Nasar, J. L. (1984). Visual preferences in urban street scenes: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(1), 79-93.
34. Nasar, J. L. (1989). The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 300-320). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Nelissen, N., & de Vocht, C. L. (1994). Design control in the Netherlands. Built Environment, 20(2), 142-156.
36. Normore, L. F. (1974). Verbal responses to visual sequences varying in uncertainty level. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 109-119). New York: Wiley.
37. Nystrom, L. (1994). Design control in planning: The Swedish case. Built Environment, 20(2), 113-126.
38. Osgood, C. E., May, W. H., & Miron, M. S. (1975). Cross-cultural univers?ls of affective meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
39. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
40. Pantel, G. (1994). Design control in German planning. Built Environment, 20(2), 104-112.
41. Renyi, A. (1984). A diary on information theory. Budapest: Akademiaki Kiado.
42. Russell, J. A., Lewicka, M., & Niit, T. (1989). A cross-cultural study of a circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 848-856.
43. Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 311-322.
44. Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M., & Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: A factor analytic study. Environment and Behavior, 13(3), 259-288.
45. Ryan, T. P. (1997). Modem regression methods. New York: Wiley.
46. Saklofske, D. H. (1975). Visual aesthetic complexity, attractiveness and diversive exploration. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41(3), 813-814.
47. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication (1998 ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
48. Stamps, A. E. (1992). Bootstrap investigation of respondent sample size for environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 220-222.
49. Stamps, A. E. (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38, 115-132.
50. Stamps, A. E. (1994). A study in scale and character: Contextual effects on environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 42, 223-245.
51. Stamps, A. E. (1997). A paradigm for distinguishing significant from nonsignificant visual impacts: Theory, implementation, case histories. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17, 249-293.
52. Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental preferences: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 155-175.
53. Stamps, A. E. (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
54. 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.
55. Thayer, R. L., & Atwood, B. G. (1978). Plants, complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3(2), 67-76.
56. Uzzell, D. L., & Jones, E. M. (1996). Incorporating the visual impact of buildings into BREEAM: A study for the building research establishment. Guilford, UK: University of Surrey.
57. Vignozzi, A. (1994). Design control in Italian planning. Built Environment, 20(2), 127-141.
58. Vitz, P. C. (1964). Preferences for rates of information presented by sequences of tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(2), 176-183.
59. Vitz, P. C. (1966). Affect as a function of stimulus variation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(1), 74-79.
60. Vitz, P. C., & Todd, T. C. (1969). A coded element model of the perceptual processing of sequential stimuli. Psychological Review, 76(5), 433-449.
61. Wohlwill, J. F. (1968). Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Perception & Psychophysics, 4(5), 307-312.
62. Wohlwill, J. F. (1975). Children's responses to meaningful pictures varying in diversity: Exploration time vs. preference. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20(2), 341-351.