Dimensions of meaning in the perception of natural settings and their relationship to aesthetic response

Abstract This research identified, through the use of pairwise similarity judgements and a repertory grid methodology, the dimensions of meaning individuals use in discriminating among natural settings, and the relationship of these dimensions to aesthetic response. Randomly selected photographic stimuli were presented to 52 subjects in an experimental setting, using a micro-computer to control presentation of stimuli and tasks. Five dimensions of meaning were identified, with subjects differentially weighting these dimensions in terms of their salience to aesthetic response. It is argued that although the collative properties of experimentally derived stimuli are important in modifying arousal levels (Berlyne, 1971), when investigating “environments” and not “stimuli”, the perceived meaning or ecological properties (Berlyne, 1971) are additional and important determinants of aesthetic response.

[1]  S. Z. Klausner,et al.  On Man in His Environment. , 1976 .

[2]  E. Shafer,et al.  Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model , 1969 .

[3]  L M Ward,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling Of The Molar Physical Environment. , 1977, Multivariate behavioral research.

[4]  Alcira Kreimer.  Environmental Preferences: A Critical Analysis of Some Research Methodologies , 1977 .

[5]  Lawrence M. Ward,et al.  The psychological representation of molar physical environments , 1981 .

[6]  T. Gärling.  A multidimensional scaling and semantic differential technique study of the perception of environmental settings , 1976 .

[7]  Philip Sarre,et al.  Personal Construct Theory I N the Measurement of Environmental Images , 1975 .

[8]  R. Kaplan.  Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and "Clients" , 1973 .

[9]  John A. Dearinger,et al.  An Attempt at Assessing Preferences for Natural Landscapes. , 1972 .

[10]  R. L. Thayer,et al.  Validation of a Natural Landscape Preference Model as a Predictor of Perceived Landscape Beauty in Photographs , 1976 .

[11]  A. Gilg.  A critique of Linton's method of assessing scenery as a natural resource , 1974 .

[12]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material , 1972 .

[13]  James J. Gibson,et al.  MOTION PICTURE TESTING AND RESEARCH , 1947 .

[14]  S. Kaplan,et al.  Cognition and Environment: Function - ing in an Uncertain World , 1983 .

[15]  M. Bartlett.  TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE IN FACTOR ANALYSIS , 1950 .

[16]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Recovery of structure in incomplete data by alscal , 1979 .

[17]  Joachim F. Wohlwill,et al.  Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity , 1968 .

[18]  Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura.  Semantic Dimensional Structures , 1978 .

[19]  D. Fenton,et al.  Visual Sampling of Environments: A Methodological Note , 1981, Perceptual and motor skills.

[20]  D. L. Linton,et al.  The assessment of scenery as a natural resource , 1968 .

[21]  P. Dearden,et al.  A statistical technique for the evaluation of the visual quality of the landscape for land-use planning purposes. , 1980 .

[22]  Lawrence M. Ward,et al.  Cognitive Set and the Perception of Place , 1981 .

[23]  Y. Tuan,et al.  Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values , 1976 .

[24]  Anke Oostendorp,et al.  Dimensions in the perception of architecture:I. Identification and interpretation of dimensions of similarity , 1978 .

[25]  R. Barker,et al.  EXPLORATIONS IN ECOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY. , 1965, The American psychologist.

[26]  B. C. Wallace.  Landscape evaluation and the essex coast , 1974 .