Analysis of gender differences in the perception of properties: An application for differential semantics

Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 273-298

  Llinares, Carmen ^a   Page, Alvaro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Building design; Gender differences; Semantic differential

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; SEMANTICS;

ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS; BUILDING DESIGN; DIFFERENTIAL SEMANTICS; EMOTIONAL RESPONSE; GENDER DIFFERENCES; PURCHASE DECISION; SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL; VALENCIA (SPAIN);

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

EID: 84865061588     PISSN: 20138423     EISSN: 20130953     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3926/jiem.2009.v2n1.p273-298     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C., & Kilicoglu, O. (2009). Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: preference, complexity and impressiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (1), 124-132.
2. Basilevsky, A. (1994). Statistical factor analysis and related methods: Theory and application. New York: Wiley.
3. Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4. Devlin, K. (1990). An examination of architectural interpretation: architects versus nonarchitects. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 7(3), 235-244.
5. Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. (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, 333-344.
6. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York: St.Martin’s Press.
7. 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.
8. Evans, G. (1980). Environmental cognition. Psychology Bulletin, 88, 259-287.
9. Flury, B. (1988). Common principal components and related multivariate models. New York: Wiley.
10. Friedman, C., Balling, J.D., & Valadez, J.J. (1985). 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.
11. Gans, H. (1978). Towards a human architecture: A sociologist’s view of the profession. Journal of Architectural Education, 31(2), 26-31.
12. Gifford, R. (1980). Judgements of the built environment as a function of individual differences and context. Journal of Man-Environment Relations, 1, 22-31.
13. Gifford, R., Hine, D.W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds, D., & Shaw, K. (2000). Decoding modern architecture. A lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons. Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 163-187.
14. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 3-22.
15. Jindo, T., Hirasago, K., & Nagamachi, M. (1995). Development of a design support system for office chairs using 3-D graphics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15(1), 49-62.
16. Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Bizot, E. (1988). Acquisition of procedural knowledge about a pattern of stimuli that cannot be articulated. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 24-37.
17. Michelson, W. (1976). Man and his urban environment. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
18. Moore, G.T. (1979). Knowing about environmental knowing: The state of theory and research on environmental cognition. Environment and Behavior, 11, 33-70.
19. Nasar, J.L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21(3), 235-257.
20. Nasar, J.L., & Purcell, T. (1990). Beauty and the beast extended: Knowledge structure and evaluations of houses by Australian architects and non-architects. In H. Pamir, V. Imamoglu and N. Teymur (Eds.), Culture-Space-History. Proceedings 11th International Conference of the International Association for People-Environment Studies, Ankara, Turkey.
21. Nasar, J.L., Valencia, H., Omar, Z.A., Chueh, S.C., & Hwang, J.H. (1985). Out of sight further from mind. Destination visibility and distance perception. Environment and Behavior, 17, 627-639.
22. Osgood, C.E., & Suci, G.J. (1955). Factor analysis of meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 325-338.
23. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
24. Purcell, A.T. (1986). Environmental perception and affect: A schema discrepancy model. Environment and Behavior, 18, 3-30.
25. Purcell, A.T. (1987). The relationship between buildings and behavior. Building and Environment, 22, 215-232.
26. Purcell, A.T., & Nasar, J.L. (1992). Experiencing other people´s houses: A model of similarity and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 199-211.
27. Royse, D.C. (1969). Social inferences via environmental cues. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
28. Stamps, A.E. (1991a). Comparing preferences of neighbors and neighborhood design review board. Environment and Behavior, 23(5), 616-629.
29. Stamps, A.E. (1991b). Public preferences for high rise buildings: Stylistic and demographic effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 839-844.
30. 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.
31. Wethman, C. (1968). The social meaning of the physical environment. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
32. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.