|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
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

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