In one theory as perceived surprise increases, arousal increases and pleasantness increase up to a point, after which it levels off or decreases. However, studies indicate that for environmental response, arousal and pleasantness are independent of one another. Those studies did not examine movement through spaces. We sought to study response to surprise as experienced in moving between pairs of offices. We created three simulated offices (A, B, and C) and nine virtual walks between each possible pair, such that some walks had no physical differences (AA, BB, and CC), some had moderate physical differences (AB, BA, BC, CB), and some had larger physical differences (AC, CA). A test confirmed that the manipulations worked as planned. To measure arousal and pleasantness, we created two three-item scales (each in English and Italian). We assigned participants in the US (121 adults, 47 men, 84 men) and Italy (67 adults, 343 men, 33 women) at random to either a within-group condition or one of the three between-group conditions (Low Surprise, Medium Surprise, or High Surprise). We used the within group to test the CFA model, and we used the between group conditions to test the effects of surprise. The CFA found the two three-item scales fit the multi-level model well. We combined the items into two three-item scales for the analysis of effects of surprise. Both arousal and pleasantness increased from low to moderate surprise, but decreased from moderate to high surprise. The results suggest value in studying dynamic environmental experience.
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.
This research looked at the role of sign obtrusiveness and complexity in the perception and evaluation of urban signscapes. It obtained independent scores for features of 19 signscapes. One group of 30 persons judged physical features of 19 color photographs of retail sign scenes. One opportunity sample of 56 persons sorted the scenes into groups and then scored the groups for preference. A random cluster sample of 50 persons sorted the scenes for preference and rated each scene on several evaluative scales. From the two Q-sorts, the authors derived similarity scores between scenes and used them in a nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis to find the dimensions of perception. Sign obtrusiveness related to Dimensions 1 and 2, and sign complexity related at a marginally significant level to Dimension 4. The study also looked at the relation of these two variables to preference. It found preference associated with reductions in sign obtrusiveness.
For design review to achieve its potential, it must be based on knowledge of the properties of the built environment that evoke positive evaluations. Although many people view aesthetics as qualitative and idiosyncratic, researchers have continued in their search for general principles. This paper reviews that research with particular attention to building exteriors. The paper defines and examines two kinds of aesthetic variables--formal and symbolic. It highlights the importance of enclosure, complexity, and order as formal variables, and of style as a symbolic variable. It discusses the relationship of these attributes to evaluative response. As different kinds of evaluative responses may be appropriate and desirable for different kinds of places, the review includes discussion of different kinds of evaluative response--pleasantness, excitement, and relaxingness. The review suggests that design review seeking pleasantness should encourage order, moderate complexity, and elements of "popular" styles; design review seeking excitement should encourage high complexity, a typicality and low order; and design review seeking calmness should encourage high order and naturalness. Acknowledging potential variability across contexts, this paper offers aesthetic programming and evaluation as alternative ways to develop and refine guidelines for design review.
Abstract Most American cities use design review to improve the visual quality and compatibility of ordinary nonhistoric projects. They often use a discretionary design review process. How well does discretionary design review improve community appearance by keeping building projects compatible with their surroundings? This article presents a two-part study aimed at answering this question. For a neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio, our research team did a physical inventory of the compatibility of 96 projects that underwent discretionary design review and 68 that did not. The latter projects met less restrictive administrative appearance controls present in the zoning ordinance. The team also surveyed 39 residents for their opinions on a subset of projects built according to either the discretionary review of the design or the administrative controls. The results indicate that discretionary design review is not demonstrably better than administrative review. Communities can use methods like the ones discussed here to evaluate their own design review programs. They may find that the replacement of discretionary design review with more explicit administrative appearance controls achieves the intended compatibility more efficiently.
