Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tasr20

Download by: [Hebrew University] Date: 02 March 2017, At: 06:27

Architectural Science Review

ISSN: 0003-8628 (Print) 1758-9622 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

The Effect Of Personality Traits On ArchitecturalAesthetics' Evaluation: Familiar And Non-FamiliarEnvironments As Evaluated By Architectural AndNon-Architectural Students

Anwar F. Ibrahim , Natheer Abu-Obeid & Fayez Al-Simadi

To cite this article: Anwar F. Ibrahim , Natheer Abu-Obeid & Fayez Al-Simadi (2002) The Effect OfPersonality Traits On Architectural Aesthetics' Evaluation: Familiar And Non-Familiar EnvironmentsAs Evaluated By Architectural And Non-Architectural Students, Architectural Science Review, 45:3,197-210, DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2002.9697511

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2002.9697511

Published online: 11 Oct 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 76

View related articles

UDC: 728.1: 72.01 Keywords: Aesthetics; Architectural aesthetics; Environment; Personality; Students.

Architectural Science Review Volume 45, pp 197-210

The Effect Of Personality Traits On Architectural Aesthetics' Evaluation: Familiar And Non-Familiar

Environments As Evaluated By Architectural And Nan= Architectural Students

Anwar F. Ibrahi.m* t, Natheer Abu-Obeid*, and Fayez Al-Simadi*

Our personality traits tend to play a sign @cant role in our interaction with the environment. Besides, our personality is one of the most important factors of our subjectivity in dealing with the environment. nis research investigated the effect of our personality traits on the perception of the built environment. One hundred and twelve (112) studentsbm Jordan University of Science and Technology completed the Cattell sixteen-pemmulity factors type B test. Two experiments were conducted. In the first experiment, sixteen (60) students, divided into thirty (30) architecture students and thirty (30) non- architecture students, rated ten (1 0) non-familiar architectural environments on a seven step semantic diferential scale that contained thirty two (32) items. In the second experiment, fib-two (52) students divided into twenty-four (24) and twenty eight (28) architecture and non-architecturestudents, respectively rated ten (1 0) familiar environments on thesame scale. Results pointed out that personality traits had a strong effect on our perception of the environment and that the relationship between environmental perception and personality traits is a dynamic one. Familiarity played a significant role in the results obtained on both personality traits and the correlated evaluation items. Furthmre, architecture students were more consistent in their most affective personality traits in environmental perception. They were more objective whereas non-architecture students were subjective and emotional in their responses.

Introduction In our interaction with the environment, Merent variables play a

significant role, but it is always depends on individuality how we perceive, recognize and behave. In their discussion of this relationship, Baron and Byrne (1977) indicated that ourperceptionoftheenvironment ingeneral isinfluencedandmediated bythesubjectiverealitywhich isaresultofthe combined impact of three factors: objective reality (the real things out there), personality characteristics (our needs, tastes, and past experi- ence), and quality of the situation (Calhoun & Acocella, 1990).

*JordanUniversityofScienceandTechnology,P. O.Box3877, PostalCcde21110, Ihid, Jordan. t Corresponding author. E-mail anwarl379@yahoo.com

Upon Leighton's theory of personality, in which he stressed the impor- tance of environmental influences on the total life of man and personality formation, Moller (1968) pointed out that architectural environment is well expected to exert a direct and significant role in our everyday experience. He concluded that whereas architecture comprises a consid- erable ponion of our surrounding, it lnnuences our everyday experience and further stability or disruption of each individual persodty. Moller (1968) suggested that architectural spaces affect and influence our emo- tional state, psychological health, and behavior. Consequently, it may assist our exploration of mental and spatial behavior of people if we understand their relation with architecture. Moreover, there seems tobe a dynamic reciprocal relationship between structural space and the

197

Architectural Science Review Volume 45

psychological processes of individuals (Moller, 1968). Perception is one of the most important aspects of this reciprocal relationship. As a result, the psychological state and prior experience of an individual is expected to m d f j the impact of space upon hirwher.

Built environment is exposed to interpretations and distortions exer- cised by human perception. Such distortions and interpretations are changeable and related only to individual personalities. Therefore, it is possible to say that the individual experience of architectural space is influenced by hisher personality. On the other hand, the architectural space itself might have a “personality” that is formed by the dynamic relationship between physical, structural elements, and its effect on the peoplewhouseit. Suchapersonalityhasnofixedcharacterbutexistsonly in the image formed by the person who experiences the surrounding environment, which in its turn affects hisher personality. Therefore, Moller (1968) suggested that architecture could be best defined as the dynamic interaction of space and personality.

Symbolic meanings of the environment might be predicted according to Merences in personality. Cooper (1974) referred to Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious to explain whycenain forms take on meaning for us. As proposed by Jung (1968), people are linked to the past by a collective unconscious, in which there are “bundles of psychic energy“ calledarchetypes,andtheselfisoneofthemost fundamentalarchetypes. Cooper concluded, “since such archetype are difficult to grasp, people attempt to express their personalities and aspirations through the envi- ronments they select for themselves” (Iang, 1987, p211).

In his work to provide a semantic model for describing perceived environment, Kuller (1972) suggested that personalities of the individual might be decisive in the way he/she perceives and rates environments.

Personality scientists, especially those who worked on the personality trait theory, argued about the traits and their relationship with the environment.AUpon(1966) suggestedthatpersonalitytraitsarenaturally connected to panicular environments. This assumption of systematic interconnection between traits and settings became acentral tenet in the interactionist approach to personality which assumed that a speafic trait would be found only in the situations that are relevant to its expression (Kenrick,McCreath,Govem, KingandBordii, 1990).Allponpointedout that personality traits do not lie dormant waiting to be aroused by external stimuli; but that the individual actively seeks stimulus situations that encourage the expression of hisher traits.

Holland (1966, 1985) in his work on vocational interest, categorized people and occupations into six types (realistic, intellectual, social, conventional, enterprising and artistic) and argued that each type of person will seek out occupational environment that expresses himself/ herself (Holland, 1965, 1985). Based on Hogan’s (1982) six cenual personality dimensions (adjustment, likability, self control, dominance, social inclination, and intellectence) Kenrick, McCreath, Govern, King and Bordin (1990) made a study in which they used different approaches in searching for a systematic overlap between the personality dimensions and the types of settings. Results indicated that there is an order pattern of relationship between traits and settings, in addition to a significant interaction of trait and setting. They concluded that some settings would be more informative about trait standings in general than other settings. Furthermore, person - environment intersection can be found across subjects. Another study was inducted by Devlin, Trudeau, zaff, Mendez, Weir, Broadbear, Slasor and College (1995), in which they studied the relationship between personalityenvironmental preference and stress

reduction in college students. They found that there are some relation- ships between personality vanables and stress-reduction variables and so between personality variables and environmental preferences.

There is some evidence that the preference of different visual forms is related to personality differences (hg, 1987). Cooper (1974) had found the introversionamversion dimension of personality to be a useful predictor of people’s attitudes toward the environment. She found that those who are m v e r t people tend to decorate their houses more than others. Eysenck (1973) indicated that lower levels of stimulation in the environment are preferred by introverts more than extroverts. Acomplex research investigation by Janssens (1984) in Sweden first confirmed that the evaluation of a building as pleasant is related to its visual complexity. Extroverts were then found to perceive buildings as more complex than did introverts. Furthermore, individual experimental studies show a variety of linkages between personality and visual patterns preferences. Barron (1965) indicated that creative people like complex line drawings. Also personality affects the preference of artifact shapes. People who are content and dependable are said to prefer round shapes. Ovals are said to be liked by creative and organized people, and squares to be liked by those who are clearheaded (Iang, 1987). Janssens (1984) also found that neurotics perceive tall and massive buildings as unpleasant, whereas persons with a strong sense of self perceive them to be smaller, less massive, and less complex (Porteous, 1996).

Previous studies indicated a difference between architects and non- architects in perceiving and evaluatingthebuilt environment. Hershbuqer (1969), in his study of meaning and architecture, hypothesized that architects and laymen dl not differ greatly in the underlying dimensions of meaning used to judge architecture, and that the significant differ- ences in spedic judgments of meaning will be on the evaluative dimen- sions, and often also on the representational dimensions. Hershburger concluded that forms intended by architects may not be interpreted by laymen, as architects wanted them to be meant. Other studies have addressed the issue of communication between architects and the public througharchitectural products. Nasar(1989) madeastudythat examined the connotative meanings laypersons infer from various home-styles, the variability of those meanings with sociodemographic characteristics and region, and whether architects share or know public meanings (Nasar, 1989). Results indicated that meanings are different in relation to sociodemographic characteristics, and that architects responded differ- ently. Groat (1982) found that building associations perceived by the public are not necessarily the ones intended by the architects. Using a multi-sorting technique, she investigated the difference in communica- tion between Modern and Post-Modern buildings and discovered that Post-Modern buildings, despite the architect’s intention to engender popular acceptance to relate their design to a popular code, were not perceived as distinct from Modem buildings (Groat, 1982). Moreover, Groat found that architects and non-architects employ different sets of criteria for evaluating buildings. Devlin and Nasar (1989) also found that architects and non-architects differed in how they characterized and evaluated “high style” and “popular” architecture. Most of previous studies referred the differences between architects and non-architects to theeffect oftraining. Otherstudiesrefed thesedifferences to the factor of experience and schemata discrepancies (Purcell& Nasar, 1992).

In sum, the previous discussion supports the notion that personality traits have an impact on the perception of the environment. The question of how personality mediates this process and the possibility that specific evaluative aspects of perceived environments may interact with specific

198

September 2002 Number 3

Environment 2

Enironment 1

Environment 3 -

pei3xditydimensions are still to be answered. There seems to be a lack in the research that concentrate on the study of human personality traits as a mediation in the process of environmental perception. The objective of this paper is to cover this gap through investigation of the personality traits’ effect on environmental perception, cognition and affect. Besides, the present paper aims to identify the related personality traits that influence the environmental perception and the related environmental evaluative dimensions that may interact with our personality traits.

Method Two experiments were conducted as follows:

Environment 4

Experiment One Subjects

S i (60) students: thirty (30) non-architecture students and thirty (30) architecture students participated in this experiment. Non-architecture studentswere fourteen (14) femalesandsixteen (16) males frorndifferent colleges and different levels of study (i.e. first year, second year, and so forth). On theother hand, architecturestudents were thirteen (30) fourth ( 4 I h ) and fifth ( 5 9 year; twenty (20) females and ten (10) males. . Stimulus Material Ten (10) non-familiar architecture environments, six (6) exterior and

four (4) interior images, were selected randomly to be used as stimuli.

199

Environment 5

Environment G

These environments were selected to achieve diversity in formal and functional attributes. The environments were presented to the sub jects as mattecolored photographs with (l0xl5cm) size (Images 1-10).

PersonalityTest The choice was made to use Cattell (16)

Personality FactorstypeBtest (16PF) Pable 1) (Halletal., 1985;Kalat,1993;Fehr,1983;Hjelle & Ziegler, 1985). This test was developed by Raymond Cattell (1965) on the basis of his analysis of the m a t basic temperament and ability source traits. Cattell based his chms upon the assumption that the best way to predict the behavior of a person is to deter- mine the nature of one’s trait structure. Through factor analytic techniques, Cattell de- termined that sixteen traits could be identi- fied. So, heestablished 16PFinordertoproide

what is considered to be the most comprehensive analysis of the traits of the individual that has ever been developed. The 16PF contain two major forms, each ofwhich has a total of 187 items and four shorter forms. Each item contains three choices, which are typically of the Yes, Uncertain and No. Each of the sixteen (16) factors of the scale is independent; i.e. every item is included within one factor only (Hal et al., 1985; Kalat, 1993; Fehr, 1983; Hjelle&Ziegler, 1985).This test hastheadvantageofbeingeasilyconductedwithout theneed for special training. Used in this study was a copy mslated to Arabic and adjusted for the Jordanian environment. This copy was translated by Qera’een, 1980. The researcher com- puted the validity and reliability of this test on the Jordan environment by using the Cronbach equation. In his sample, this value was (0.81).

The Evaluation Tool The environments had to be rated on a 7-step semantic

differential scale that contained thirty-two (32) items, which covered three clusters of semantic items; perceptual, cogni- tive, and affective semantic items. This questionnaire was constructed by refening to the literature and previous re- search that used the same evaluation tool (such as Kuller, 1972 and Hershberger, 1%9).

Perceptual items were: (brightdull), (fuayclear), (open- closed), (ordered-random), (simplecomplex), (coherent- incoherent) and (loose-tight). Cognitive items were: (novel-familiar), (modem-traditional), (aggressive-friendly), (uniquecommon), (overtcovert), (superficial-profound), (distinguished-inconspicuous), (dead-alive), (stable-unsta- ble), (masculine-feminine), (flexible-rigid), (lazy-active), (gen- tle-violent), (safedangerous) and (spiritual-materialistic). And affective items were: (delightfuldreadful), (excitingcalm), (comfortable-uncomfortable), (interesting-boring), (depress- ingcheerful), (good-bad), (happy-sad), (dignified-trivial), (restful-annoying) and (cold-warm).

Table 1: The sixteen personality traits

Trait Identification

A OUtgOing-Reserved. B More hteIligent-Less Intelligent. C E F G H I L M N 0

Q3 4

$

Stable-Emotional Assertive-Humble. Happy Go Lucky-Sober. Conscientious-Expedient Venturesome-Shy

Suspicious-Trusting Imaginative-Practical.

Apprehensive-Placid Experimenting-Conservative Self Sufficient-Group Tied Controlled-Casual Tense-Relaxed.

Tender Minded-Tough Minded

Shrewd-Forthright

200

Number 3 September 2002

Environment 8

Environment 7

All these variables were measured on a seven-step scale ranging from three to minus three (3 - (-3)).

ErpenmentalSetting The experiment was conducted in the Behavioral labora-

tory at the Department ofhchitecture -Jordan University of Science and Technology. The space within which the experi- ment took place was a windowless rectangle with gray and white neutral colors for floor, ceiling and walls respectively. The subject tilled the questionnaire, while the pictures were presented one by one on a white surface table in front of him/ her.

8 Procedure The experiment was divided into two parts. In the first part,

respondents were asked one at a time to fill the personality test so as to elicit their personality traits. In the second part, each respondent individually was presented with a group of colored photos, which represented the ten environments. Respondents were shown environments one by one and asked to rate their feelings towards these environments according to the items of the questionnaire. The order of presenting these environments was randomized. The two pansoftheexperiment tookplacein twodifferent trials,with one week apart. The personality questionnaire took about (45) minutes to be completed, while evaluating the pre- sented environments took about (30) minutes.

Environment 9

Environment 10

20 1

Architectural Science Review Volume 45

Envimment 11

Environment 13

Experiment Two Subjects

Fifty two (52) students from Jordan University of Science and Technology participated in this experiment. Subjects were divided into twogroups: twenty four (24) of founh (4'") and fifth (5'") year architecture students; founeen (14) fe- males and ten (10) males, and twenty eight (28) non-architec- ture students; twelve (12) females and sixteen (16) males from different colleges and years.

9 Stimulus Material Ten (10) familiar architecture environments, seven (7)

exterior and three (3) interior images wereselected randomly to be used as the stimuli. Familiarity refers to the building material, architecture style, furniture style, and the space design. Five of these images are from Amman; all are exteri- ors. The other five images are from outside Jordan. The three interiors are all residential interiors. The environments were selected to achieve diversity in formal and functional aspects.

Environment 12

Environment 14

Environment 25

202

Number 3 September 2002

Environment 16

Environment I7

Environment 19

Environment 20 Environment 28

203

Architectural Science Review Volume 45

Table 2: Experiment One and Two of Non-Architecture and Architecture Students Traits’ Significant Correla- tions Frequency with Environmental Evaluative Items.

_ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _______ Non-Architecture students Per. Architecture students

Trait Non-h . Fam. Non-h. Fam.

A 7 18 7 40 B C 3 7 12 11 E 9 17 4 4 F 4 9 6 5 G 7 21 8 8 H 12 7 17 I 8 11 4 9 L 15 19 7 2

M 2 11 2 2 N 12 20 5 4 0 9 18 15 3

1 3 12 10 5 5 4 4 6 10 7 8 4 9 4 3

-. - __ -

Q’ Q’ Q’ Q4

These environments were presented to respondents as mattecolored photographs with (lOxl5cm) sue (Images 11-20).

The same personality test, environmental evaluative tool with the same items, and the same setting as that of the first experiment were used. The procedure of the first experiment was repeated, too.

Analysis 1. Theaverageofscoresperpersonalitytrait testwascomputedand

the means were then used as data for further analyses. 2. Factor analysis was applied to all environments in both experi-

ments, one for architecture students and one for non-architecture stu- dents. It revealed no factors that can be interpreted meaningfully; i.e. items that are correlated with the extracted factors did not represent one construct per factor. Consequently, the respondents’ ratings were used for further statistical analyses.

3. Correlation matrix was applied to the means computed for traits as in- dependent variables, and the items of environmen- tal evaluation (for all envi- ronments taken together) as dependent measures. No sigrufimt differences were found in the analysis.

4. Correlation matrix was then applied to the means computed for traits as independent variables, and to the items of envi- ronmental evaluation for each environment sepa- rately as dependent meas- ures. Significant ddferences were found in these Corre- lation matrices. Thevalues of (r) and (p) were tabu- lated in a specific form per the twenty (20) environ- ments.

5.

6.

Correlation matrix was applied to both architectural students and non-architectud students, separately.

The significant comlations (Correlation Coefficient (CC) >0.45, p<0.05) between personality traits and evaluation items were tabulated in a spedfic form for the twenty (20) environments.

Trait B(More intelligent-less intelligent) was excluded from analysis because it is an ability trait and the concentration of this research is on dynamic and temperament traits.

7.

As applied to each of the twenty (20) evaluated environments sepa- rately, correlation m a w revealed high (C00.45) and @<0.05) correla- tions between specific personality trait and environmental evaluative items. These correlations pointed out that personahty traits had a strong effectonthe perception, cognition,andaffectiveresponsetotheenviron- ments. The traits that played a significant role in the perception and evaluation of the environments are O(apprehensive-placid) and A(outgoing-reserved).

Table 3: Experiment One and Two of Non-Architecture Students’ Traits of the Highest Frequency Significant Correlations with Environmental Evaluative Items.

Experiment 1 Freq. Experiment 2 Freq. 0 (appreharsivaplacid) 15 A(a~tgoing+savad) 40

c (stablbanotional) 12 H(ventumomesby) 17 Q’ (CXJl&lQQ&lg+XRldVC) 12 C (stable-emotional) 1 1

G (amscientiowqcdient) 8 *Q’(expaimenting-wnsavatin) 10

Replicated trait m familiar and non-familiar cnvironmcnts

For trait A(outgoing-re- served); the more outgc- ing persons correlated in a positive sense with the evaluation items that have significant correlation, ei- ther for architectural or non-architectural stu- dents. This was applied to familiar and non-familiar environments. On the other hand, trait O(apprehensive-placid)

204

Number 3 September 2002

fornon-architecture students in familiar environments had only three significant correla- tions; it correlated with the items (superficial-profound) (CC=-0.48, p=0.006) and (masculine-feminine) (CC=- 0.47, p=O.007) in environ- ment (18) and item (restful-annoying) (CC=- 0.55, p=O.001) in environ- ment (20). For architecture students, this trait correlated with different itemsacross the environments. The persons who tended to be apprehen- sive evaluated environment (ll), (14), (15) and (19) in a positive sense whereas they evaluated environment (16) and (20) in a negative sense.

By comparing the significant correlations for non-architec- ture and architecture students with the personality traits in non-farmlnrenvironmentswith thosein hiliarenvironments, it was noticed that the total sum of significant correlations in farmliar environments was higher than thenon-familiar en- vironments. Non-architecture studentsshowedan increase in the number of correlations in some traits and a decrease in others (Table 2)

With regard to Architecture students, almost alloftheirper- sonality traits showed an increase in the numberofcor- relations except trait Q*(self sufficient- group tied), which wastheonlytraitthat showed a consist- ency in the number of correlation items five (5) times.

According to per- sonalitytraits, bycom- paring the most affective personality traits for non-archi- tecture students in both Bcperirnents, it was noticed tha t there were only

Table 4: Experiment One and Two of Architecture Students’ Traits of the Highest Frequency Significant Correlations with Environmental Evaluative Items.

Experiment 1 Freq. Experiment 2 Freq.

L (suspicious-trusting) 15 G ( a m s c i e n t i d c n t ) 21 N (Shmrvd-fdght) 12 N (Shrmd-fOrttUight) 20

19 18

I (tmdm minded-tough minded) 8 0 (apprchansivbplacid) 18 E ( d v a h m b l e ) 17

E (assertivehumble) 9 +L(suspicious-trusting) 0 (apprehensiveplacid) 9 A(outgoingmed)

Replicated trait m Miliar and non-familiar ~viraunents.

Table 5: Environmental Evaluative Items of the Highest Frequency of Significant Correlations with Personality Traits In Non-Familiar Environments.

Architectural Students Noa-Architecture Students

The Item Freq. The Item Fteq.

6 Distinguished-inconspimow 6

5 Dead-Alive 6 Simplacomplex 5 Dignified-Trivial 6 Dead-Alive 5 Restfirl-Annoying 6 MasculmaFuninine 5 Stablaunstable 6 GentlaViolcnt 5 Modan-TditiOaal 5

UniquaCommon FlexiblaRigid

5

5

Table 6: Environmental Evaluative Items of the Highest Frequency of Significant Correlations with Personality Traits in Familiar Environments.

Architectural Students Non-Architecture Students

The Item Freq. The Item Freq.

10 Simple-canplex 9 Novel-Familiar

CanfortablaUncanfacable 10 MasculinsFaninine Distinguished-Inccmspicuous 10 GcntleViolcnt Exciting-calm 9 COid-Wm Bright-Dull 8

Ordaed-RandOm 8 overt-covert 8

9 8 8

205

Architectural Science Review Volume 45

two shared traits: C(stable, emotional) and Q' (experiment- ingconsemtive). On the other hand, for ar- chitecturestudents, al- most all the most affective personality traits in the first experi- ment were replicated in the second one ex- cept trait I (tender

Table 7: Shared Correlation Items and Traits (C00.45, pX0.05) Between Architecture and Non-Architecture Students, and in Spectfic Familiar Environments

Env. Semantic Items Personality Traits r

Arch Non-Arch

G (amscienti-ent) -0.45 0.48 A (*Oi%-mm=o 0.49 0.45

13 ~ld-wann 14 O r d u e d m h

14 Ovat-Conrt A(wtgdngr*laved) 0.49 0.55 minded, .tough 14 Rertful-moying A (adgoinpz9crvai) 0.70 0.50 ~-

A (*ohg-rssQvsd) 0.51 0.5 I

I (tendm minded-tough minded) -0.50 -0.50

minded). In the famil- 16 Good-bad iar environments, trait

dient) andA(outgoing- reserved) were added

0.65 0.65 18 Coha~t-hcohucnt G ( c o a s c i a r t i o i m t ) 20 Exciting-

G(c0nscientiOUW-

(Tables 4). For non-ar- chitecture students, the most kequently Occurrence trait in non-familiar environments was trait O(apprehensive-placid); frequency, fifteen (15) times. In familiar environments, the most frequency Occurrence trait was trait A(outgoing- reserved); with a frequency of fony (40) times. On the other hand, in non- familiar environments, architecture students most frequency Occurring traits were trait L(suspicious-trusting), fifteen (15) times and trait G(consciousnessexpedient), twenty one (21) times (Tables 3,4).

According to the correlated items, the highest frequency items for non- architecture students in non-familiar and familiar environments were a mixture of perceptual, cognitive and affective items. On the other hand, the items with the highest frequency for architecture students in non- familiar environments were only perceptual and cognitive items. In familiarenvironments, theitems with the highest frequency for thisgroup were a mixture of perceptual, cognitive and affective items.

Results demonstrated that in non-famdiarenvironments, there were no shared effective evaluative items between architecture and non-architec- ture students that correlated significantlywith specific personality traits at a specific environment. On the other hand, such correlations were found in familiar environments. Almost all shared evaluations has the same sign of r, the only exception was the item (cold-warm) that corre- lated with G(conscientiousexpedient) in environment (3), for non- architecture students (CC=0.48, p=O.ooS) and for architecture students (CC=-0.45, p=O.o07). The strongest shared correlation was (coherent- incoherent) with G (consciousnessexpedient) in environment (8), for both architecture and non-architecture students (CC=0.65) (Table 7).

Funhennore, it wasnoticed thatarchitecture-students differ from non- architecture students in the most affected traits (Tables 3,4). Differences between architecture students and non-architecture students appeared as they responded to the different environments. Architecture students had more correlations between personality traits and the items than non- architecturalstudentsdid. Such correlations showedvarietybetween the two types of respondents acms environments. According to the most affective, frequented, personality traits, trait O(apprehensive-placid) was the only shared personality trait in the first experiment and traitA(outgoing- reserved) was the only shared trait in the second experiment (Tables 3,4).

correlated significantly with different items across the environments. Besides, certain traits had a high number of correlations with evaluation items in specific environments, while other traits had frequent correla- tions in other environments. There were environments that gained a high number of correlations between personality traits and the items, whereas other environments possessed low number of correlations. In the first experiment and in the case of non-architecture students, environment (6) and (9) had the highest number of correlations, nineteen (19) and sixteen (16), respectively. In the case of architecture students, environ- ment (2) and (3) had the highest numberofcomlations, fifteen (15) and twelve (12), respectively. In the second experiment, for non-architecture students, environment (11) and (16) had the highest number ofcorrela- tions, twenty-one (21) and nineteen (19) respectively. For architecture students, in the same experiment, environment (15) and (14) had the highest number of correlations, thrty-two (32) and twenty-nine (29), respectively (Tables 8,9).

Discussion When regression analysis was applied to all environments taken te

gether, no significant correlations between personality traits and environ- mental evaluative items were revealed. On the other hand, applying regression analysis to these environments separately revealed several significant correlations. Both traits and items in these correlations varied across environments. This means that subjects' personahty traits were not constant variables in influencing theirenvironmental evaluations, In otherwords, each environmental situation presented its own interaction between individual personality and environmental perception. This dynamic interaction can be considered as a type of adaptation between the person and the environment through hisher personality traits. This finding is in support ofAllpon's argument (1%6), in which he stated that personality traits are naturally connected to particular environments, which, according to interactionist approach, are relevant to trait expres- sion. Regarding the comparison between architectural students and non- architectural students, only a limited number of correlations between

It was found from the results that personality traits did not correlate significantly with certain specific items in all environments; but they

specific personality traits and specific evaluative items were found to be shared between the two respondent POUPS, and not all envimnments

206

Number 3 September 2002

were included in these correlations. Architectural students had different The previous discussion enables us to state that architecture students influencing traits from other students, and these traits were more fre- develop certain personality traits (that differ from non-architecture stu- quent than those of other students in correlating with evaluative items. dents) that are objective in character through which they perceive and Moreover, architecturalstudents haddifferent correlatedevaluativeitems recognize environments, not because of their schema or training only. from other students, and these items were more frequent than those of Its effect

c a n b e r e c e through threemain otherstudents in correlatingwith per- sonality traits. Referring to Moiler's points: thenumberofcorre]ations in view (19% these findings indicate both ~n~ofenvironments, themost

affective personality traitsandquality that architectural students developed oftheevaluationitems,and howthey a different dynamic reciprocal rela- correlate negativelyor positivelywith

and environment, from that of other

6 19 2 15 According to the first point, the students. Referring to Cooper’s con- cept (1974) of representing the self through environmental expression, it 9 16 3 12 number of correlations, it was no- seems that the two different groups of *8 15 *7 11 ticed that the number of significant

correlations was higher in familiar respondents developed two different *8 11 environments for both groups of re- spondents. This shows that respond-

environmentally related archetypes. These archetypes were expressed throughinteractingwithdifferent bun- ents interact more with the familiar dlesofenvironmental dimensions, ac- environments because they could codng to which, respondents judged their environments.

The results found that architecture students had h g h m ~ ~ e n q ~ o ~ For the second point, the most affective personality traits, this was very forauencing ats and highm frequenqscores for evaluative clear with non-architecture students. Although they were emotional in items than non-architmre students. ne active persodty uaits in character, the most affective personality traits in non-familiar environ- both Bcpehents almost the me for h i t m r e students, on the ments differed from those in familiar environments. In non-familiar other hand, non-architecture students showed a Wetyofthe m a t active environments, the most affective personality trait was O(apprehensive- persodtyats in both affective placid) which tended toevaluate all the environments in a negative sense. pemdty traits for archtecture students that duence their perception, In familiar environments, the most affective personality trait was trait a p t i o n and responses are Consfant; i,e, not affected by the A(outgoing-reserved) which evaluated most the environments in a posi- quality or ty~e of the environment. On tive sense. This can be explained ac-

Familiarity hada very effect in the results

Table 8: The Environments that had the Highest Number of Correlated Items for Architecture and Non-Architecture Students

in the First Experiment.

tionship between their personalities NUI-Arch. Ardl.

EnV. Cmno Env. Cm.no. the personality traits.

*: hteriar cnvimunmt

more understand them than non-familiar environments.

indicates that the

cording to the familiarity and preferences model of the Kaplans (1982). Kaplan and Kaplan (1976) found that familiarity is an effective

Other such traits for architmrestudentsarechangeablede- pending on the quality of the environment. Architecture students

Table 9: The Environments That Had the Highest Number of Correlated Items for Architecture and Non-Architecture Students

in the First Experiment. predictor of preference (Porteous, 1996). They introduced a matrix that

were more objective’ than non-archi- tecture students, who were subjective andemotional, in theirresponses to the EnV. Corr.no Env. Cmmo. describes the relation between pref- environments. This is clear from the 11 21 15 32 erences and familiarity. Their matrix

illustrates their notion that “life is a most affective personality rraits for both 16 19 *14 29 continuous trade-off between the ex- citement of the new and the comfort 14 17 12 21 ardutecture and non-architecture stu-

*13 12 ofthe known”(Poneous, 1996 pJ26). dents. For architecture students, these traits were L(suspicious-trusting) in

For architecture students, the emo non-familiar environments and G(conscientious-expedient) in famil- - tional trait A(outgoing-reserved) be- iar environments. For non-architecture came one of the most affective students, they were O(apprehensive-placid) in non-familiar environments personality traits in familiar environments; i.e. architectural students and A(outg0ing-reserved) in familiar environments. This revealed that became more emotional in their evaluation. Furthermore, it was noticed architects evaluated the environments with acriticd point ofview whereas that in non-familiar environments, there was no specific personality trait non-architecture students were emotional and subjective in their evalua- that had a supreme number of correlations varying greatly from other tion. traits in both architecture and non-architecture students. Whereas the

architecture students did not show any difference in the second experi- ment, trait A (outgoing-reserved) in non-architecture students showed a

thananyothertrait. ~ h ~ ~ f i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ thesubjectivity and emotionality of the non-architects in their responses to the environ- n~n t s .

NCRl-Arcb. Arch.

I

*: htaior cnvirauncnt

* Subjectivity and objectivity are two contrasted qualifications used to describe supreme number of significant correlations with the evaluative items the aesthetic responses or certain properties of objects. Subjectivity reveals the dependence of someone’s judgment or the property of the perceived object on the person who announces the judgment or perceives this object, On theother hand,objectivityreveals theindependenceofsuch judgment or the propeniesoftheperceivedobjecton thenatureofthe perceiver (Ossowski, 1978)

of

207

Volume 45 Architectural Science Review

Finally, afamiliarityfactoreffectappeared in thequalityofthecorrelated items; especially, for architecture students. In non-familiar and familiar environments, the most frequented items that correlated significantly with the personality traits for non-architecture students were a mixture of perceptual, cognitive and affective items. This was due to the fact the respondents tended to be more subjective and emotional in their reac- tions. Their evaluations were not based on scientific knowledge but on their spontaneous and emotional feelings towards environments, either familiar or non-famiiiar environments.

Architecture students showed that the items that achieve the highest frequency scores in non-familiar environments were perceptual and cognitive items which indicates that architecture-students were more objective in theirevaluations. This objectivityis related totheir training in the field ofarchitecture and the shared knowledge base forevaluation. In familiar environments, those items were made of perceptual, cognitive and affective items. They tended to criticize the non-familiar environ- ments but in familiar environments, besides criticism, they formed an attitude towards these environments as a result of real interaction with them, which occurred between the personality, knowledge and familiar- ity. This result suppow the notions of Rapoport (1982) that designers tend to react towards environments in perceptual terms whereas lay public reacts to environments in associational terms.

Funhermore, familiar environments rwealed a limited shared number of correlations between specific personality traits and specific evaluative items of the two respondent groups, architecture and non-architecture students. Such correlations were not found in non-familiar environments. By lookingat thesesharedcorrelations, it will benoticed that they almost shared the same direction of evaluations except trait G (conscientious- expedient) with the evaluation item (warmcold) in environment (13). This difference in evaluation refers to the objectivity of architecture students and subjectivity of non-architecture students. It should be noticed that the colors in environment (13) are warm. Consequently, and referring to their past experience and knowledge, architecture students evaluate this item of the environment objectively according to its colors. On the other hand, non-architecture students evaluated this environ- ment as they felt it, i.e. subjectively.

Besides, traitA(outgoing-reserved) hadthe mostshareditems. Thisalso can be clarified by the familiarity factor, because this factor appeared strongly in the familiar environments. As mentioned above, architects in familiar environments tended to form attitudes towards these environ- ments, i.e. more subjective than in evaluation non-familiar environments. In addition, it was noticed that environments that gained shared correla- tions are simple and domestic environments for either exteriors or interiors.

In relation to theformalattributesandthekmdofenvironment,exterior vs. interior and public vs. private environments, the interaction with environments was different for architecture and non-architecture stu- dents. In non-familiar environments, non-architecture students inter- acted more with interior environments of domestic scale and character. This result can be explained in so far as that non-architecture students are more concerned about the interiors than the form of the built environ- ment since they interact more with the interior space of the built environment especially for domestic environments. In relation to exteri- ors, the environment they interacted with more than any other environ- ment was a very strange environment that had no clear Function. In familiar environments, they interacted with the simple environments, especially the domestic environments for both exterior and interior. For

architectural students, the most interactions were with the exteriors and public buildings. In familiar environments, the environment that has some complexitystimulated them more than the simple ones. This result is a logical one since architecture students are most concerned with the form and exterior design because they do not pay much attention to interior design in their studies of architecture.

References Allpon, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychohgst, 21,l-10.

Abel, C. (1980). Meaning and rationality in design. In G. Broadbent, R Bunt & T. Liorencs (Eds.), Meaning and Behavior in the Built Envimment (pp. 293-311). Chichester, UK: John Wiey and Sons Ltd.

Aiken, L R. (1993). Personality, Theories, Research, andApplications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewd Cliffs

Baron, R. k & Byme, D. (1977). Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

W o n , F. (lW5). The psychology of creativity. In New Directions in Psychology I f . (pp. 1-134). New York:Holt, Rand, Winston.

Bechtel. R B. (1980). Architecture space and semantic space: should the twain try to meet? In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt &T. Liorencs (Eds.), Meaning and Behavior in the tuilt Environment (pp. 215222). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Bell, k P., h u m , A, Fisher, J. D. & Greene, T. C. (1990). Environmental Psychology, (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcoun Brace Jovanovich Col- lege Publishers.

Berlyne, D.E. (1971). AestheticsandPsychoblogy. New York: Meredith Corporation.

Broadbent, G. (1980)a. Asemiotic program for architectural psychology. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt and T. Liorencs, (Eds.), Meaning and Behavior in the Built Environment (313-359). Chichester, UK: John Wiey and Sons Ltd.

Broadbent, G. (1980)b. The deep suuctum of architecture. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt&Ch. Jencks (Eds.),Sip, S’ymhk, andArchitec- &re (pp.119-168). Chichester, UK: John Wiey & Sons

Canter D. (1969). An intergroup comparison connotative dimensions in architecture. Environment andBehavior ,18,3748.

Canter. D., & Tagg, S. (1980). The empirical classification of building aspects and their attributes. In G. Broadbent, R Bunt & T. Liorencs (Eds.),MeaningandBehavior in theBuiltEnvironment. (pp.1-19). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Calhoun, J. F. & Acocella, J. R (1990). Psychology of Mjusstment and Human Relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company

Cheek, J. M. (1982). Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer-rating study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,12541269.

Chandler, D. (1998). Semiotics for beginners. h#p:llwwuraaber.ac.uk%7Edgcls~ll.html

Cook, T. D. & Cmplell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-erpmimentatim: &sign & Analysis h e s for Field Settings . Boston: Houghton Mimin Com- pany.

208

Number 3

Cooper, C. (1974). The house as symbol of self. In Jon Iang et. al. (eds.,), Designing for Human Behaviot; Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences @p.13@146). Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Deviin,N.,&Nasar,J. (1989). Thebeautyandthebeast:somepreliminary comparison of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal OfEnuironmen-

Devlin, K. (1990). An Examination of architectural interpretation: archi- tects versus non-architects. The Journal of Architectural and Plan- ning Researcb. 73,235-244.

Devlin ,AS., Trudeau , K, M , J., Mendez, N., Weir, J.M. , Broadbear, k, Slasor , L, College, C. (1995). Environmenral preference, person- alityandstress-reduction incollegestudents. In J. L Nasar, P. Gn~is, & K. Hanyu (Eds.), Pmeedings of the Twenty-Shth Annual bnfm- ence of the Environmental DesignResearch Amciation @p. 75-86). Boston: Massachusetts.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Sumeys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wdey & Sons.

Eco, U. 1980. Function and sign: thesemiotics ofarchitecture. In Geoffrey Broadbent et al. (Eds.),Sip, Symboki, andArchitecture bp.11-70). Chichester, UK: John Wdey & Sons Ltd.

E N W A , (1997). Aesthetics. Micmfi (R) Encarta (R) 97 Enqclope- diu. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoh Corporation.

Fehr, L. A. (1983). lntroduction to Personality. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.

Garling, T. (1976). The structural analysis of environmental perception and cognition: a multidimensional scaling approach. Environment andBebavior, 3,385415.

Groat. L, and Canter D. (1979). Astudyof meaning, does Post-Modern- ism communicate? hgrem.ue Architecture 60,12,84-87.

Hall. C., Lindzey, G., Loehlin, J. C. & Manosevitt, M. (1985). Introduction to TheoTies of Personality. N e w York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hjelle, L A. & Zeigler, D. J. (1985). Personality Theories, &IsicArrump tions, Research, andApplications, (2nd ed.). New York: McGnw-Hill International Book Company.

HjeUe, L A. & Zeigler, D. J. (1976). Personality Theories, Basic h m p tions, Research, and Applications, (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill International Book Company.

Heaog, T. R Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1976). The prediction ofpreference for familiar urban places. Environment andBehavior, 8 ,627643.

Hershberger. R. G. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture In H. Sanoff and S. Cohn (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe First Annual Environ- mentalMgn ResearchAssociation Confmence @p. 86-100). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.

Holland, J. L. (1966). The Psychology of Pocational Choice: A T h y of Personality TypeandMcdelEnvironments. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.

Holland, J . L. (1985). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory oflocarionul Personalitiesand Work Environments (2nded.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jencks, Ch. (1980). Thearchitecturalsign. In G. Broadbent, R. Bunt &Ch. Jencks (Eds.),Sip, Symbols, andArchitecture (pp.119-168). Chich- ester, U K John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

tal PsJd.nlogY, 9,333-344.

2(

September 2002

Jung, C. G. (1968). Approaches to the unconscious. In Jung C. (Ed.),Man andbisS’ls @p. 1-94). New York: Pell.

Kalat, J. W. (1993). fnrroduction to Psychology. California: Brooks, Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove.

Kenrick. D. T., McCreath , H. E., Govern, J., King, & R, Bordin , J. (1390). Personenvironment interaction, everyday settings and common trait dimensions. JournalofPersonality andSociu1 Psychofogy, 58, 685-698

Kenrick, D.T. & Stringfield, D. 0. (1980). Personality traits and the eye of the beholder, crossing some traditional psychophysical boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the people. P y ~ b ~ l g ’ d Reuiew, 87,88104.

Kedinger, F . N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research (3rd ed.). Fon Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehan and Winston Inc.

Krampen. M. (1991). Environmental meaning. In W. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design: pol. 3, pp.231-264). New York: Plenum Press.

Kuller, R (1972). A semantic model for describing perceived environ- ment. (NationalSwdish BuildingResearch),DocumentDI2: 1972, 204 p.ill, Svensk Byggtjanst.

Iang, J. (1987). CreatingArchitectural Theoy. New York: Van Nostmd Reinhold.

Iang. J. (1992). Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: Toward a research agenda. In Jack Nasar, (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theoy, Research, undApplications: @p.ll-26). New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Iang, J. (1994). UrbanDesign: TkAmericanErpmerience. NewYork Van Nostmd Reinhold.

Leedy, P. (1995). Practical Research: Planning and Design. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Lozano, E. E. (1988). Visual needs in urban environments and in physical planning. In J. Nasar (ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Thy, Researches, Applications . New York: Cambridge University Press.

McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person?. Journal of Personality 63;3 September.

McCall, R. B., (1986). Fundamental Statktics for Behavioral Sciences, (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcoun Brace Joranovich, Publishers.

Mills, H. P., (1998). Walkers Percy’s philosophy of language. hrrplfsunsite. unc. edulwprqlmills fhpml. hnnl.

Moller, C. B. (1%8).ArchitecturalEnvironmentandOurMentalHealth. New York: Horizon.

Moore, G. T. (1984). New directions for environment-behavior research in architecture. In James Snyder (ed.), Architectural Research.. New York: Van Nustrand Reinhold.

Moos, R. H. (1973). Conceptualization of human environments. Ameri- can Psychologist, August 1973,652-665.

Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings ofhouse styles. Environment and Behavior, 21 ,235-257 .

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

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). TheMeasurement oJMeuning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

39

Architectural Science Review Volume 45

Ossowski, S. (1978). The Foundations OfAesthetics. HollandRoston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Poneous. J. D. (1%). Environmental Aestktiq Ideas, Politics and Planning. London: Routledge.

Purcel, AT. (1984). The organization of the experience of the built environment. EnvironmentandPlanning B: PlanningandDesign,

Purcell, A. (1986). Environmental perception and effect: a schema dis- crepancy model. E n v i m n m andBehavior, 18,330.

Purcell, k T. & Nasar, J. (1992). Experiencing other people’s houses: a model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. J o u d ofEnvimnmental Psychology, 12,199-211.

Rapopon, k (1982). The Meaning of tbe Built Environment; A Nonver- bal Communication Appmuh. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

11,173-192.

Robinson, J. P., Sharer,P. R & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of Personulity andSocial Psychological A, pol. 1). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Sadalla, E. K. & Sheets,V. L (1993). Symbolism in buildings materialsself- presentationandcognitivecomponents. EnvinmmentandBehior,

Scrutin, R (1979). TheAestkticsofhhitecture. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Sommer, T. & Dommer, B. B. (1980). A practical Guide to Behavioral Research: TodsandTecbniques. NewYork: Oxfod Universityh.

Veitch, R. &Arkkelin, D. (199~.EnvironmentalPsycbology;Anlnterdis- c@/inuty Perspeaive. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Zeisel, J. (1984). Inquiry by Mgn Tods for Environment-Behavior Research. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

25 , 155-180.

2 1 0