ARCHITECTS PREDICT LAY EVALUATIONS OF LARGE CONTEMPORARY BUILDINGS: WHOSE CONCEPTUAL PROPERTIES?

Evidence suggests that architects as a group cannot predict the public's aesthetic evaluations of architecture. In this study, practicing architects predicted laypersons' responses to large contemporary building, and again these predictions were poorly correlated with ratings by laypersons, although some architects' predictions were better than others, and architects were able to predict accurately that lay ratings in general would be more favourable than their own. To understand why most architects are unable to predict reactions to particular buildings, the architects' predictions were analysed in relation to their own and lay ratings of the buildings' conceptual properties. The results suggest that architects are unable to exchange their own criteria for conceptual properties for those of laypersons when they predict public evaluations, which leads to self-anchored, inaccurate predictions. This was supported by showing that the best-predicting architects related their evaluations to buildings' conceptual properties in a manner similar to that of the laypersons. Implications for design are suggested.

[1]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces , 1992 .

[2]  L. Groat,et al.  Meaning in post-modern architecture: An examination using the multiple sorting task , 1982 .

[3]  Gifford Robert,et al.  WHY ARCHITECTS AND LAYPERSONS JUDGE BUILDINGS DIFFERENTLY: COGNITIVE PROPERTIES AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND PHYSICAL BASES , 2002 .

[4]  Robert G. Hershberger,et al.  Environmental aesthetics: Predicting user responses to buildings , 1988 .

[5]  D. Canter,et al.  The Development of Central Concepts during Professional Education: An Example of a Multivariate Model of the Concept of Architectural Style , 1990 .

[6]  P. Hubbard.  CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF ARCHITECTURE: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION , 1996 .

[7]  M. Appelbaum,et al.  Psychometric methods. , 1989, Annual review of psychology.

[8]  P. Hubbard.  Professional vs Lay tastes in design control—an empirical investigation , 1994 .

[9]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  Experiencing other people's houses: a model of similarities and differences in environmental experience , 1992 .

[10]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Eugene Raskin.  Architecture and people , 1974 .

[12]  Robert G. Hershberger.  Environmental aesthetics: A study of meaning and architecture , 1988 .

[13]  J. Nasar,et al.  The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same , 1989 .

[14]  Rikard Küller.  Architecture and emotions , 1980 .

[15]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  THE SOCIALIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCE , 1996 .

[16]  Arthur E. Stamps.  Comparing Preferences of Neighbors and a Neighborhood Design Review Board , 1991 .

[17]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  Symbolic Meanings of House Styles , 1989 .

[18]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective , 1989 .

[19]  Arthur E. Stamps,et al.  Public Preferences for High Rise Buildings: Stylistic and Demographic Effects , 1991 .

[20]  Donald W. Hine,et al.  Decoding Modern Architecture , 2000 .

[21]  D. Berlyne,et al.  Aesthetics and Psychobiology , 1975 .

[22]  T. Purcell.  Experiencing American and Australian High-and Popular-Style Houses , 1995 .

[23]  Linda N. Groat.  Giving places meaning , 1995 .

[24]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  Environmental aesthetics : theory, research, and applications , 1988 .

[25]  K. Devlin,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL INTERPRETATION: ARCHITECTS VERSUS NON-ARCHITECTS , 1990 .

[26]  J. Nasar,et al.  DESIGN REVIEW AND PUBLIC PREFERENCES: EFFECTS OF GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, PUBLIC CONSENSUS, SENSATION SEEKING, AND ARCHITECTURAL STYLES , 1997 .

[27]  H. Osmond,et al.  Function as the Basis of Psychiatric Ward Design , 1957 .