This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Herzog, T. Articles by Smith, G. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Danger, Mystery, and Environmental Preference

Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan.

Gregory A. Smith

The possibility of a connection among high mystery, perceived danger, and depressed preference for certain categories of environments was investigated. Past research had suggested that urban alleys and narrow canyons would exhibit such a pattern. Comparison categories, chosen to be high in mystery and low in perceived danger, were urban and nonurban nature (that is, field-and-forest settings within urban or nonurban environments), respectively. Preference ratings were obtained for settings from each of the four categories. The settings were also rated by independent raters for six predictor variables: mystery, physical danger, social danger, shadow, nature, and vertical depth. The major findings were that danger was a negative predictor of preference and mystery was a positive predictor. There was no evidence that high mystery was involved in depressed preference ratings for any of the environmental categories investigated. The distinction between physical and social danger proved useful, with only social danger related (negatively) to preference.

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 3, 320-344 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/0013916588203004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. R. Herzog and A. E. Rector Perceived Danger and Judged Likelihood of Restoration Environment and Behavior, May 1, 2009; 41(3): 387 - 401. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. A. Fischer and P. E. Shrout Children's Liking of Landscape Paintings as a Function of Their Perceptions of Prospect, Refuge, and Hazard Environment and Behavior, May 1, 2006; 38(3): 373 - 393. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. A. Alfonzo To Walk or Not to Walk? The Hierarchy of Walking Needs Environment and Behavior, November 1, 2005; 37(6): 808 - 836. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. E. Stamps III Visual Permeability, Locomotive Permeability, Safety, and Enclosure Environment and Behavior, September 1, 2005; 37(5): 587 - 619. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. R. Herzog and K. M. Kirk Pathway Curvature and Border Visibility as Predictors of Preference and Danger in Forest Settings Environment and Behavior, September 1, 2005; 37(5): 620 - 639. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. E. Stamps III Enclosure and Safety in Urbanscapes Environment and Behavior, January 1, 2005; 37(1): 102 - 133. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. R. Herzog and L. S. Kropscott Legibility, Mystery, and Visual Access as Predictors of Preference and Perceived Danger in Forest Settings without Pathways Environment and Behavior, September 1, 2004; 36(5): 659 - 677. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Heft and J. L. Nasar Evaluating Environmental Scenes Using Dynamic Versus Static Displays Environment and Behavior, May 1, 2000; 32(3): 301 - 322. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. R. Herzog and E. J. Miller The Role of Mystery in Perceived Danger and Environmental Preference Environment and Behavior, July 1, 1998; 30(4): 429 - 449. [Abstract]

				C. T. Pasquali, M. H. Hernandez, and C. C. Munoz Study of Environmental Factors Associated with Primary Health Care Environment and Behavior, September 1, 1997; 29(5): 676 - 694. [Abstract]

				T. R. Herzog and T. A. Gale Preference for Urban Buildings as a Function of Age and Nature Context Environment and Behavior, January 1, 1996; 28(1): 44 - 72. [Abstract]