Evaluative Appraisals of Environmental Mystery and Surprise

Abstract

This study used a desktop virtual environment (VE) of 15 large-scale residential streets to test the effects of environmental mystery and surprise on response. In theory, mystery and surprise should increase interest and visual appeal. For each VE, participants walked through an approach street and turned right onto a post-turn street. We designed the streets to have low mystery (straight) or higher mystery (curved); and we designed the street-pairs to have low surprise (no difference between them), medium surprise (moderate difference between them), or higher surprise (higher difference between them). A total of 37 students from the United States and 40 students from Turkey rated each of the 15 walks for mystery and surprise. Each group’s ratings on each scale had high interobserver reliability. The students judged the level of mystery and surprise as intended: They rated the curved streets as higher in mystery than the straight ones, and when the difference between approach and post-turn streets increased, the judged surprise increased. For the evaluations, different respondents (34 from Turkey and 29 from the United States) walked through each of the 15 VEs assigned in random order. They rated each approach street and each post-turn street independently for interest and visual appeal. Because interest and visual appeal had high correlations, we combined them into a composite preference scale. For each country, preference increased with increases in mystery and surprise. To get at the dynamic experience, future research could employ continuous and nonreactive measures of response as people move through environments.

Keywords

aesthetics environmental preference environmental perception interest mystery surprise virtual reality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appleyard, D. , & Craik, K.H. ( 1974). The Berkeley environmental simulation project: Its use in environmental impact assessment. In T. G. Dickert & K. R. Downey (Eds.), Environmental impact assessment: Guidelines and commentary (pp. 121-125). Berkeley: University of California Extension.

Appleyard, D. , Lynch, K. , & Myer, J.R. ( 1964). The view from the road. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Berlyne, D.E. ( 1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berlyne, D.E. ( 1972). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century.

Bosselman, P. , & Craik, K.H. ( 1987). Perceptual simulations of environments. In R. B. Bechtel , R. W. Marans , & W. Michelson (Eds.), Methods in environmental and behavioral research (pp. 162-190). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Cohen, J. ( 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, S. , & Cohen, R. ( 1985). The role of activity in spatial cognition. In R. Cohen (Ed.), The development of spatial cognition (pp. 199-221). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cubukcu E. ( 2003). Photo versus on-site surveying to test artwork preference . In J. W. Robinson , K. A. Harderk , H. L. Pick , & Singh, V. (Eds.), Edra 34 People shaping places shaping people (p. 209). Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research Association .

Gibson, J.J. ( 1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

10.

Gifford, R. ( 2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville, WA: Optimal Books.

11.

Heft, H. , & Nasar, J.L. ( 2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32, 301-322.

12.

Kaplan, R. , & Kaplan, S. ( 1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective . New York: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Kaplan, S. , Kaplan, R. , & Wendt, J.S. ( 1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354-356.

14.

Lozano, E.E. ( 1988). Visual needs in urban environments and physical planning . In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, & applications (pp. 395-421). New York: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Lynch, K. ( 1960). The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT

16.

Nasar, J.L. ( 1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26, 377-401.

17.

Nasar, J.L. , & Cubukcu, E. ( 2005). Influence of physical characteristics of routes on distance cognition in virtual environments. Environment and Planning B, 32, 777-785.

18.

Nasar, J.L. , & Evans-Cowley, J.S. (2007). McMansions: The Extent and regulation of super-sized houses. Journal of Urban Design , 13, 339-358.

19.

Rossano, M.J. , West, S.O. , Robertson, T.J. , Wayne, M.C. , & Chase R. B. (1999). The acquisition of route and survey knowledge from computer models. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 101-115.

20.

Scheer, B. ( 1994). Introduction: The debate on design review. In B. C. Scheer & W. F. E. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic controls (pp. 1-10). New York: Chapman and Hall.

21.

Stamps, A.E. ( 1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis . Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913.

22.

Stamps, A.E. ( 1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38, 115-132.

23.

Stamps, A.E. ( 2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: A meta-analysis . Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16.

24.

Thiel, P. ( 1997). People, paths and purposes. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

25.

Wohlwill, J.F. ( 1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 37-86). New York: Plenum.