Models of Preference for Outdoor Scenes

Abstract

Predictions derived from three models of the relations between cognitive processing of and preference responses to outdoor scenes were examined. Twelve scene types were identified, ranging from the inner city to large-scale natural environments found in the Sydney region of Australia, the Padua region of northern Italy, and the Netherlands. In two experiments, participants from the three locations made preference, familiarity, and typicality judgments of all examples of each scene type, with the participants from Sydney and Padua making judgments of the stimuli from both locations while the Dutch participants judged the stimuli froll all three locations. The results of the experiments were most consistent with a preference-for-differences model, with only limited evidence for a preference-for-prototypes model. The largest effect on preference was related to scene type, an effect that is difficult to explain using either of the models of preference. It is argued that this presents a significant problem if it is accepted that preference is considered an important aspect of environmental experience.

Outside the square? Aesthetic response to the contemporary architecture of Federation Square, Melbourne

“…This outcome is in common with studies that used photographs of buildings (e.g. Purcell et al, 1998;Peron et al, 1998). This suggests that theories of aesthetic preference may be transferable from the laboratory to the field.…”

“…Numerous experiments have been conducted to test the two models. Peron et al (1998) concluded that both models are supported to some degree, with the 'preference-for-difference' model supported more so but that it is not conclusive on its own in explaining the complete mechanism.…”

Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region

“…Thus, the categories can be seen as manifestation of the features "degree of human influence", "type of vegetation", and "prototypicality". All of these have previously been identified as influential features for landscape preference (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989;Múgica and DeLucio, 1996;Peron et al, 1998;see e.g. Real et al, 2000;Herzog and Stark, 2004).…”

“…A number of studies have looked at typicality in relation to preference formation (Wellman and Buhyoff, 1980;Purcell, 1987;Herzog and Stark, 2004;Roth, 2006), and two opposing models have been proposed to explain the relationships: preference-for-prototypes and preference-for-differences. A review of such studies concluded that there is mixed evidence for both models (Peron et al, 1998). Moreover, a study of variability in differences in preference scores among a random sample of Swedes judging a typical Swedish landscape type (pastureland) (Hägerhall, 2001) found that mean preference raised with increased typicality of a setting.…”

The Role Of Schemas In Understanding Places

“…In this regard, Purcell (e.g., Peron et al, 1998) studied the visual aspects of people's place schemas. He examined visual preferences, expectations, and building identity/ image using the concept of prototype, for a more integrative nature of place experience.…”