Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-16

  Stamps III, Arthur E ^a  

^a Institute of Environmental Quality   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1442331918     PISSN: 02724944     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00023-9     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publications manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Anderson, E. (1978). Visual resource assessment: Local perceptions of familiar natural environments. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (1989 ed.) (pp. 217-220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Batchelor, B. G. (1979). Using concavity trees for shape description. Computers and Digital Techniques, 2(4), 157-168.
4. Brown, T., & Itami, R. M. (1982). Landscape principles study: Procedures for landscape assessment and management - Australia. Landscape Journal, 1(2), 113-121.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Cooper, H. & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage.
7. Davis, L. S., & Benedikt, M. L. (1979). Computational models of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 11, 49-72.
8. Ellsworth, J. C. (1982). Visual assessment of rivers and marshes: An examination of the relationships of visual units, perceptual variables, and preference. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature (1989 ed.) (pp. 220-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Finlay, T. W. (1989). The prediction of preference evaluations of zoo exhibits: A comparison of the informational and psychological theories of environmental preference. Georgia Institute of Technology.
10. Gabr, H. (1993). Enhancing the visual attributes of urban waterfronts for tourism. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
11. Gallagher, T. J. (1977). Visual preference for alternative natural landscapes. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (1989 ed.) (pp. 222-225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
13. Gimblett, H. R. (1990). Environmental cognition: The prediction of preference in rural Indiana. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7(3), 222-324.
14. Gimblett, H. R., Itami, R. M., & Fitzgibbon, J. E. (1985). Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal, 4(2), 87-95.
15. Gindy, H. E., & Avis, D. (1981). A linear algorithm for computing the visibility polygon for a point. Journal of Algorithms, 2, 186-197.
16. Green, B. F., & Hall, J. A. (1984). Quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 37-53.
17. Greene, T. C. (1983). Land-use, instructional set, and policies for landscape evaluation. Fort Collins: Colorado State University.
18. Halvorsen, K. T. (1994). The reporting format. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 425-437). New York: Russell Sage.
19. Hammitt, W. E. (1978). Visual and user preferences for a bog environment. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (1989 ed.) (pp. 227-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Hammitt, W. E. (1979). Measuring familiarity for natural environments through visual images. Proceedings of our national landscape conference. General Technical Report PSW-25 (pp. 217-226). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco.
21. Hammitt, W. E. (1981). The familiarity-preference component of onsite recreational experiences. Leisure Sciences, 4, 177-193.
22. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
23. Hediger, H. (1950). Wild animals in captivity: An outline of the biology of zoological gardens. New York: Dover (G. Sircom, Trans. 1964 ed.).
24. Hediger, H. (1955). The psychology and behaviour of animals in zoos and circuses. New York: Dover (G. Sircom, Trans. 1968 ed.).
25. Herbert, E. J. (1981). Visual resource analysis: prediction and preferences in Oakland County, Michigan. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (1989 ed.) (pp. 230-234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments. Landscape Research, 9(1), 10-16.
27. Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 225-241.
28. Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: Mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landscape Journal, 6(2), 140-152.
29. Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27-43.
30. Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 237-248.
31. Herzog, T. R., & Barnes, G. J. (1999). Tranquility and preference revisited. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 171-181.
32. Herzog, T. R., & Bosley, P. J. (1992). Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 115-127.
33. Herzog, T. R., & Flynn-Smith, J. A. (2001). Preference and perceived danger as a function of the perceived curvature, length, and width of urban alleys. Environment and Behavior, 33(5), 653-666.
34. Herzog, T. R., & Gale, T. A. (1996). Preference for urban buildings as a function of age and nature context. Environment and Behavior, 28(1), 44-72.
35. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1976). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 8(4), 627-645.
36. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5(1), 43-59.
37. Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 429-449.
38. Herzog, T. R., & Shier, R. L. (2000). Complexity, age, and building preference. Environment and Behavior, 32(4), 557-575.
39. Herzog, T. R., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20(3), 320-344.
40. Hudspeth, T. R. (1982). Visual perception as a tool for citizen participation: A case study of urban waterfront revitalization in Burlington, Vermont. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (1989 ed.) (pp. 246-248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Hudspeth, T. R. (1986). Visual preference as a tool for facilitating citizen participation in urban waterfront revitalization. Journal of Environmental Management, 23, 373-385.
42. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43. Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S., & Balakrishnan, N. (1995). Continuous univariate distributions. Vol. 2. New York: Wiley.
44. Kaplan, R. (1973). Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and clients. In W. Preiser (Ed.), EDRA4: Environmental design research, Vol. 1. (pp. 265-274). Norman: Oklahoma.
45. Kaplan, R. (1975). Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources (pp. 118-129). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.
46. Kaplan, R. (1977). Preference and everyday nature: Method and application. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and behavior: Theory, research and applications (pp. 235-250). New York: Plenum.
47. Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 127-161). New York: Plenum.
48. Kaplan, R. (1984). Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: An analysis of a continuing program. Leisure Sciences, 6, 271-290.
49. Kaplan, R. (1985a). The analysis of perception via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161-176.
50. Kaplan, R. (1985b). Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 115-127.
51. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32.
52. Kaplan, R., & Herbert, E. J. (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-293.
53. Kaplan, R., & Herbert, E. J. (1989). Familiarity and preference: A cross-cultural analysis. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research and applications (pp. 379-389). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989a). The visual environment: Public participation in design and planning. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 59-86.
55. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989b). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21(5), 509-530.
57. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(4), 354-356.
58. Kaplan, R., & Talbot, J. F. (1988). Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 107-117.
59. Kent, R. L. (1989). The role of mystery in preferences for shopping malls. Landscape Journal, 8(1), 28-35.
60. Kent, R. L. (1993). A cognitive approach to visual quality assessment and scenic designation for Connecticut highways. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
61. Levin, J. (1977). Riverside preference: On-site and photographic reactions. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (1989 ed.) (pp. 270-272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Medina, A. Q. (1983). A visual assessment of children's and environmental educator's urban residential preference patterns. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Miller, P. A. (1984). Visual preference and implications for coastal management: A perceptual study of the British Columbia shoreline. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (1989 ed.) (pp. 276-278). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67. Mustafa, K. B. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of visual landscape preferences for the natural environment. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.
68. O'Rourke, J. (1998). Computational geometry in C (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
69. Ostroff, C., & Harrison, D. A. (1999). Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 260-270.
70. Oswald, F., & Johnson, J. W. (1998). On the robustness, bias, and stability of statistics from meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: Some initial Monte Carlo findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 164-178.
71. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
72. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (2 ed.), Vol. 6. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
73. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
74. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1986). Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 400-406.
75. Scott, S. B. (1989). Preference, mystery and visual attributes of interiors: A study of relationships. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
76. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication (1998 ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
77. Sharpe, D. (1997). Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: Why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(8), 881-901.
78. Stamps, A. E. (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38, 115-132.
79. Stamps, A. E. (1997a). Advances in peer review research: An introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 3-10.
80. Stamps, A. E. (1997b). Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 85-98.
81. Stamps, A. E. (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
82. Stamps, A. E. (2002a). Entropy, visual diversity and preference. Journal of General Psychology, 129(3), 300-320.
83. Stamps, A. E. (2002b). Meta analysis. In R. Bechtel, & A. Churchman (Eds.), The handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 222-232). New York: Wiley.
84. Stamps, A. E. (in press). Advances in visual diversity and entropy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design.
85. Stern, H. I. (1989). Polygonal entropy: A convexity measure. Pattern Recognition Letters, 10, 229-235.
86. Stino, L. (1983). A visual preference study of urban outdoor spaces in Egypt. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (1989 ed.) (pp. 278-280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
87. Strube, M. J., & Hartmann, D. P. (1982). A critical appraisal of meta-analysis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21(2), 129-139.
88. Strumse, E. (1994). Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 293-303.
89. Sutton, R. K. (1997). Scale in aesthetic assessment of landscapes. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
90. Teng, Y. A., Mount, D., Puppo, E., & Davis, L. S. (1997). Parallelizing an algorithm for visibility on polyhedral terrain. International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications, 7(1 & 2), 75-84.
91. Ulrich, R. (1977). Visual landscape preferences: A model and application. Man-Environment Systems, 7(5), 279-293.
92. Ulrich, R. S. (1974). Scenery and the shopping trip: The roadside environment as a factor in route choice. In R. Kaplan, & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (1989 ed.) (pp. 280-283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
93. Weber, W. M. (1980). A comparison of media for public participation in natural environmental planning. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
94. Woodcock, D. (1982). A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
95. Yang, B.-E. (1988). A cross-cultural comparison of preference for Korean, Japanese and Western landscape styles. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
96. Ying-Hung, L. (1996). An integrated model of scenic beauty assessment for forest management. Clemson University.