Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Environment and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Herzog, T. R.
Right arrow Articles by Bryce, A. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Mystery and Preference in Within-Forest Settings

Thomas R. Herzog

Grand Valley State University, herzogt{at}gvsu.edu.

Anna G. Bryce

Grand Valley State University

Recent studies have found negative correlations between mystery and preference for forest settings. Our reanalysis of earlier data suggested that those findings may have stemmed from a failure to examine setting categories within the forest domain. In the current study of 70 within-forest settings, factor analysis of preference ratings revealed two setting categories corresponding to high- and low-visual-access settings. In the high-access category, preference was positively correlated with mystery but uncorrelated with visual access. In the low-access category, preference was uncorrelated with mystery but positively correlated with visual access. We also examined an expanded definition of mystery that made explicit the distinction between mystery and surprise. The expanded definition produced results identical to the standard definition in the high-access category, but in the low-access category, expanded mystery was positively correlated with preference. We conclude that when properly understood, mystery tends to be positively related to preference.

Key Words: preference • mystery • visual access • danger

References

  • Balling, J.D., & Falk, J.H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
  • Gimblett, H.R., Itami, R.M., & Fitzgibbons, J.E. (1985). Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal, 4(2), 87-95.[CrossRef]
  • Hammitt, W.E. (1980). Designing mystery into landscape-trail experiences. Journal of Interpretation, 5(1), 16-19.
  • Heft, H., & Nasar, J.L. (2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32, 301-322.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Hershberger, R.G., & Cass, R.C. (1973). The adequacy of various media as representations of the designed environment. Man-Environment Systems, 3, 371-372.
  • Herzog, T.R., Herbert, E.J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C.L. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 323-346.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Herzog, T.R., & Kirk, K.M. (2005). Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 37, 620-639.[Abstract]
  • Herzog, T.R., & Kropscott, L.S. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36, 659-677.[Abstract]
  • Herzog, T.R., & Kutzli, G.E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 34, 858-874.
  • Herzog, T.R., & Leverich, O.L. (2003). Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35, 459-477.[Abstract]
  • Herzog, T.R., & Miller, E.J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429-449.[Abstract]
  • Hull, R.B.Iv,, & Stewart, W.P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R.L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  • Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
  • Kuo, F.E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W.C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59.[Abstract]
  • Nasar, J.L., & Jones, K.M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29, 291-323.[Abstract]
  • Ruddell, E.J., Gramann, J.H., Rudis, V.A., & Westphal, J.M. (1989). The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior, 21, 393-412.[Abstract]
  • Scott, M.J., & Canter, D.V. (1997). Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 263-281.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Stamps, A.E., III. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  • Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., & Evans, G.W. (1983). A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 115-128.[CrossRef]
  • Zube, E.H., Simcox, D.E., & Law, C.S. (1987). Perceptual landscape simulations: History and prospect. Landscape Journal, 6(1), 62-80.[CrossRef]

This version was published on November 1, 2007

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 6, 779-796 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0013916506298796


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



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Herzog, T. R.
Right arrow Articles by Bryce, A. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?