study of aesthetic evaluation and aesthetic response to architectural space

8/11/2019 Study of Aesthetic Evaluation and Aesthetic Response to Architectural Space

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/study-of-aesthetic-evaluation-and-aesthetic-response-to-architectural-space 1/9

The SIJ Transactions on Computer Science Engineering & its Applications (CSEA), Vol. 2, No. 4, June 2014

ISSN: 2321-2381 © 2014 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ) 123

Abstract — This study used various photographs of architectural space as the tool of investigation to 1,167

college students. During the process of developing research instrument, we first used multi-cross comparison,

and gradually narrow down the quantity of pictures used for the investigation, then conducting formal

investigation without going through the ― pilot test‖ process. After the field investigation, we further reduced

the quantity of factors and questionnaires according to the statistical analysis of data gathered through theinvestigation. Then the methods of Delphi technique and the focus group are used to interpret the various

factors and physical features, and naming all the factors accordingly before the final differentiation analysis.

Two major conclusions are drawn from this study. First of all, a built space with features of ―form of modern

technology and materials, showing the flowing curve of infinite extension and tension‖ is more likely to create

aesthetic response. Secondly, at the aesthetic evaluation of the 8 factors, different gender and age are

significantly diverse in 3 and 4 factors respectively, while students with design and non-design major have

significant differences in 5 factors. The conclusion responds studies made abroad in this regard.

Keywords — Aesthetic Evaluation; Aesthetic Factors; Aesthetic Response; Environmental Aesthetics; Formal

Aesthetics.

I. PREFACE

EAUTIFUL things are welcome by everyone. Still,

some environment sends out a sense of pleasure,

while some shows unattractiveness and dullness.

What are the factors or components contribute to aesthetic

environment? How do different individuals judge an

environment being attractive or not? How do designers create

aesthetic experiences to users of spaces? These are all

important issues that waited to be explored for environment-

related practice, such as urban planning, landscape,

architecture and interior design. That is why research relates

to environmental aesthetics has always been focused. Fromthe educational viewpoints, professional training and

education begin at college; will training bring differentiation

to certain aspects? Are aesthetic evaluations from design and

non-design students totally different? These are all questions

require further discussions.

Most of the existing researches of environmental

aesthetics are based on scientific empirical theories. The so-

called empirical aesthetics focus on physical features of

environment, it focuses entirely on form or structure of

objects to explore relation between aesthetic experience and

form or structure. Thus, it is also known as formal aesthetics

or structural aesthetics. Aesthetics research often uses

scientific approach to analyze relation between physical

features of environment and human response to aesthetics, so

that designers can capture creation of aesthetics precisely.

Discussions mainly focus on correlational analysis of

environment components that offer aesthetic perception.

Using environment structure as independent variables and

individual perception as dependent variables to analyze

relation between each other based on individual attribute

manifest variables such as gender, age, education

background, socio-economic status, and personality.

Environmental aesthetics is a subject that has widecoverage; the current international research focuses on urban

planning, architecture, and landscape heavily, a few also

concentrates on interior design. Though less empirical

research of environmental aesthetics are found in Taiwan,

some focus on landscape architecture can be seen as well.

Research targets or tools vary from different research studies,

which lead to various aesthetic factors. However, an

unanimous finding regarding distinguished preference exists

between the professionals and the general public indicates

that preference of man-made environment and aesthetic

B

*Assistant Professor, Department of Interior Design, Chung Yuan Christian University, Zhongli City, Taoyuan County, Taiwan (R.O.C.).

E-Mail: deshouse{at}ms46{dot}hinet{dot}net

**Professor, Department of Design, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City, Taiwan (R.O.C.).

E-Mail: hsiutyan{at}ntnu{dot}edu{dot}tw

Shih-Yung Liu* & Hsiu-Tyan Chuang**

Study of Aesthetic Evaluation and

Aesthetic Response to Architectural

Space





evaluation do exist in-between (i.e. Groat, 1982; Duffy, 1986;

Devlin & Nasar, 1989; Nasar & Kang, 1989; Nasar,

1989;1997; Scott, 1993; Gifford et al., 2000). Zube & Taylor

(1982) believe that cultural background affects environment

preference. Professional knowledge and cultural background

of the professionals and the general public could result in

significance of environment preference. The question of

whether the difference also exists between design and non-

design college students requires further discussion.Although college students cannot represent the

professionals and the general public, they can be typical

group sample as this study hopes to find out difference results

from professional education. Therefore, this study takes

college students as its participants and photos of exterior and

interior space as its study tool to measure aesthetic

evaluation. Main purposes of this research include:

Developing measure tool and method to explore

college students’ aesthetic evaluation of

architectural space.

Analyzing differences among various grades,

ganders and majors towards aesthetic evaluation.

Results from this research will benefit further

understanding of differences from professional design

training and education.

II. L ITERATURE REVIEWS

Definition of aesthetics varies for over thousands of years

[Valentine, 1968; Tatarkiewicz, 1970; Feagin, 1995].

Santayana (1896; 1955) believes that aesthetics is a positive

and objective value within. Dewey (1934) argues that

aesthetics is a living and concrete experience formality,

which indicates that aesthetic experiential consequences

should be the standard of aesthetic evaluation. Hence,aesthetic experience is often defined as a subjective

pleasuring experience toward objects. In other words,

aesthetics and aesthetic pleasure are interacted with each

other [Kubovy, 2000; Martindale & Moore, 1988]. Shih

(2002) sorts out that aesthetics is the subjective inner

experience, judgment, and evaluation of human with certain

aesthetic ability and thoughts results from objects that

commonly seen as beautiful and aesthetic, as well as the state

of mind with pleasure and peace.

Research of environmental aesthetics in the past is

mostly empirical aesthetics. Environmental aesthetics is also

defined as sensory aesthetics, formal aesthetics, and symbolic

aesthetics. Sensory aesthetics emphasizes on human reaction

to the environment, formal aesthetics concentrates on

composition of elements, such as balance, proportion, color,

lighting, texture, and its effects to aesthetic perception; while

symbolic aesthetics focuses on human perception results from

culture and experiences.

Formal aesthetics uses empirical aesthetic theory to find

out ―aesthetic factor ‖ resulted from stimulation of real

environment and ―aesthetic response‖ from different

individual towards different aesthetic factors. ―Aesthetic

factor ‖ means physical features of environment — form or

structure that composes objects, including its variations.

Discourses vary from shape, proportion, rhythm, ratio,

complexity, color, brightness and shadow, [Lang, 1987]

space syntax and space relation system, [Groat & Despres,

1991] complexity, incompatibility, ambiguity, marvel,

uniqueness and order. Wohlwill (1976), Nasar (1988) sorted

out these aesthetic factors into three categories: complexity,

spatial perception and order. Complexity includes visualrichness and decoration accessories. Spatial perception

includes openness, broadness and density, while order

includes unity, order and clarity. In addition, ―aesthetic

response‖ is the sweet physical, psychological and behavioral

responses caused by environmental aesthetics. Lang (1987)

pointed out that traditional definition of aesthetics means

artistic perception of aesthetics, aesthetic response only deals

with feelings of enormous density, such as feeling of sublime.

However, aesthetics in environmental aesthetics is not the

traditional aesthetics; instead, it is defined as psychologically

pleasure sensation towards environment. In other words,

aesthetic response in environmental aesthetics stands for the

sense of pleasure caused by environmental aesthetic factors.

Probabilistic framework for aesthetics by Nasar (1997)

clearly explains the relation between aesthetic factor and

aesthetic response based on interactionalism. Aesthetic

response is one of many responses from environmental cues

within this framework. Environment offers all sorts of cues

and human react to these cues mentally, physically, and

behaviorally. Aesthetic response or preference is presented as

pleasuring feelings arose. Moreover, aesthetic response is an

interaction process of preference evaluation results from

different individual attributes, perception, and

acknowledgement. Therefore, aesthetic response can be seen

as a probabilistic relation with physical features ofenvironment, which is built upon continuous interaction

between human and its surroundings.

The probabilistic framework indicates that aesthetics

results from human, the environment, and the interaction in-

between. Aesthetic response and building physical features

have probabilistic relation, that is to say some building

physical features might trigger aesthetic response. Moreover,

cognition is a very important intervening variable during this

process. Aesthetic response could be different due to

personality, emotion, social-cultural experience, goal, and

expectation, probability might be different as well. For

instance, Gifford (1980) finds out that positive review often

comes along with good mood. It is clear that individualattributes have certain influence on aesthetic response. The

most effective individual attribute is highly related to culture

and education background. Nasar (1997) states that different

learning and experience from different groups is the key to all

differences. And the most significant and consistent group

difference among all is between the high- cultural designers

and the general public.

Aesthetic evaluation results have approved that

significant difference exist between professional designers

(i.e. architects, interior designers) and the general public.





Hershberger (1969) tries to compare architectural semantic

description among architects, architect candidates, and the

general public, architects obviously have extreme different

description from the rest, which could result from

professional training and experience that architects have.

Duffy (1986) also looks into preference on nursing home

design from nursing home managers and residents, and

design major students. Results show that designers and

managers have similar preference in general, while themanagers and residents only have the same preference on

table design and exterior design of nursing home. Gifford et

al., (2000) point out difference appears when aesthetic

evaluation is made by architects and non-architects regarding

architecture façade. Groat (1982) selects 24 buildings and

asks 20 architects and non-architects respectively to assess

modernism architecture and post-modernism architecture via

multiple sorting task. The assessment specifies that the

general public tend to assess architecture by its own

subjective viewpoint, while architects tend to assess it based

on design quality, shape, style, and historical element.

Architects can easily distinguish difference betweenmodernism architecture and post-modernism architecture

with their professional background, while the general public

cannot.

Figure 1: Probabilistic Framework for Aesthetics [Nasar, 1997]

Significant difference of environment evaluation

between designers and non-designers could be the results of

cultural background. Rapport (1969) defines that spatial

culture characteristics as various context appear in the same

space pattern used by different ethnic groups. Context is

formed by users’ cultures intentionally and unintentionally,

which reflects its certain core value. Since environment

preference is different from personal experience and culture

background, with different culture background and

experience, designers and non-designers are destined to have

different environment preference.

III. RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. Research Structure, Hypothesis and Respondents

Based on empirical formal aesthetic targeted at architectural

space, this research took college students as its respondents

and tried to explore aesthetic evaluation of various

architectural space from different individual attributes.

Individual attribute and architectural space are the

independent variables in this research, dependent variable is

aesthetic evaluation. Null hypothesis in this research is ―no

significant difference from aesthetic evaluation of

architectural space among different college students’

attributes‖.

In order to explore possible differences between design

students trained by architecture or interior design education

and non-design students trained by other professional

education on aesthetic evaluation, this research sorted out one

of its variables as ―department/major ‖ to differentiate the

differences. Moreover, due to the high similarity of

demographic variable, only ―gender ‖ and ―grade‖ were added

additionally, while ―grade‖ was classified as freshman,

sophomore, junior and senior year. Respondents were divided

into design schools and non-design schools via stratified

sampling.

Building

attributesA1

A1

A2 A2

A3A3

.a.

.a.

.a.

Observer (O)(personality, affective state, intention, cultural experience)

Perception (P) (of buildingattributes)

Cognition (C)

Judgment of building

attributes

Affect (a)

(Emotional

reactions)

Affective

Appraisals (aa)

Connotativemeanings

Aesthetic Response

（affect, physical reaction, and behavior ）

Pa1

Pa2

Paa

PP1 PC

PP2

PO1 PO2

P1

P2

Pn

P3





3.2.

Research Tool

Quantification of aesthetic evaluation is the key to a

successful research in empirical environmental aesthetic

research. It is not judged by rational perception, but by

intensity of feelings [Stamps, 2000]. Nasar (1997) believed

that suggestions from related researches (eg. Oostendorp,

1978; Feimer, 1984) indicate that using pictures as the

measure tool can predict respondents’ similar responses from

the scene. Owing to the rich information it contains in

pictures, it is one of the tools that can display complicated

environment completely so that respondents can go through

assorted environments in a short period of time. Therefore,

pictures are widely used for aesthetics research, being

effectively and easily. Most research results from other

countries are identically the same. Respondents react the

same to the colored slides or photographs as they were at the

scene [Seaton & Collins, 1970; Hershberger & Cass, 1974;

Oostendorp, 1978; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989]. Therefore, this

research adopted colored photographs retrieved from

magazines or websites domestically and internationally as the

research tool. This research defines ―architectural space‖ asspace (indoor and outdoor) that after architecture and interior

design work. Due to objective restrictions, this research

carried out its questionnaire through slide projection instead

of real on-site evaluation. Even though the above literatures

show that evaluations from seeing photographs match on-site

seeing experience, it only indicates photograph presentation

which should not be explained as an identical overall

experience. In other words, extrapolation results should be

made within certain restrictions.

When it comes to developments of research tool, based

on literature reviews and experts’ opinions, outlining 10

aesthetic components related to architectural space. They are

ratio and scale, shape and format, complexity, style, order,color, spatial perception, texture, shadow and lighting, and

marvel and originality. 2 architecture graduate students and 2

interior design graduate students worked together to select

300 pieces of real design work colored photographs from

recent architecture and interior design magazines and

websites worldwide. Later, four experts with year-long

practical working experience from architecture and interior

design industry selected their 300 photographs in the same

way. Photographs with poor printing quality or complex

background are excluded, keeping only those with distinct

architectural space. Cross comparing photographs from the

two groups, 165 photographs interacted. 10 teachers from

architecture and interior design departments were gathered at

the expert meeting via focus groups approach to pick out the

most ideal photographs to measure the 10 components. There

were 105 photographs approved by 6 teachers, including 52

photographs of architectural space and 53 of interior space,

each component has different pieces of photographs.

Numbering these 105 photographs and converting them onto

PowerPoint file in use of measure tool for questionnaires.

Only the number of A1 to A105 showed while display, not

revealing its component category.

Without pilot test, the formal questionnaire was carried

out straight away. After analysis, this research narrowed

down list of questions and numbers of components. Final

analysis was based on the reduced components and questions.

A brief introduction of goal and instruction was given before

the official display of questionnaire. There is a 10-second

delay between each photograph display, respondents were

asked to choose their subjective aesthetic feeling of each one.

Likert scale was used to evaluate aesthetics, from 5, 4, 3,2 to1, each represents extremely attractive, attractive, ordinary,

unattractive and extremely unattractive. The higher the point

is, the higher aesthetic value it shows to the respondents.

Results from 105 questions regarding aesthetic

evaluation were analyzed by SPSS 12.0. This research sent

the file via email to 10 teachers with master’s degree that

have at least 5 years of practical design working experience

with Delphi technique to interpret these photographs on

psychological attributes and visual features. Psychological

attribute is the overall feeling sends out from space in

photographs, described in adjectives. Visual feature is the

appearance from each space, described in objective

description. After collecting replies from experts, the

reorganized results were sent back to them so that they could

review and revise if necessary. This step was repeated twice.

A focus group invited these experts to exchange and discuss

their thoughts and opinions. The author finalized and named

each component after complete description and discussion

from these experts.

IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1.

I ndividual A ttributes Distribution

In all valid 1,167 samples collected by this research,

individual attributes distribution are: 1. Gender: 443 males(38.0%) and 724 females (62.0%). 2. Grade: 390 freshman

students (33.4%), 385 sophomore students (33.0%), 336

junior students (28.8%) and 56 senior students (4.8%). 3.

Professional background: 581 design major students (49.8%)

and 586 non design major students (50.2%).

There are 105 questions in this research scale composed

by 105 pictures. All respondents are asked to assess aesthetic

evaluation of all 105 questions. With Cronbach's α reaches

.945, meaning these questions have an excellent internal

consistency that makes the scale highly reliable.

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Results from 105 questions regarding aesthetic evaluation

were analyzed by SPSS 12.0. Using KMO and Bartlett’s test

of sphericity to determine variables suitable for factor

analysis and results showed that KMO= .930 with superb

suitability, while chi-square distribution was 39095.228

(df=5460), p=.000 with significance. In short, there are

common factors in correlation matrix of population suitable

for factor analysis. After using principle component analysis

and orthogonal varimax rotation, 22 components with eigen

value higher than 1were extracted, which could explain





53.03% variance. However, the extracted components were

too many and too complex, it was better to find a balance

point between numbers of components and overall

explainable variance. Thus, this research deleted questions

with factor loading lower than .5, split loading above .4 and

single component composed by single question after

examining rotated factor loading. 75 questions were deleted

while further analyzing the rest 30 questions. Cronbach's α

went down a bit to .809, reduced by .136, still the 30questions had high reliability. Bear in mind that numbers of

questions usually lead to decreasing reliability. As for factor

analysis, results from KMO and Bartlett’s test indicated

KMO=.832 with fine suitability, while chi-square distribution

was 7169.850 (df=435), p=.000 with significance. In short,

there are common factors in correlation matrix of population

suitable for factor analysis. 8 factors with eigen value higher

than 1 were extracted, which could explain 54.70% variance.

Not only the measure tool of questions were reduced 71.4%

(75 out of 105), but also the results were condensed. Its total

explainable variance did not decrease; it went up 1.67% with

numbers of factors reduced from 22 to 8. Therefore, numbers

of factors and explainable variance reached a better balance

point. Further analysis in this research was based on the

reduced 8 factors with 30 questions.

4.3.

Factor Attr ibutes and Features

This research invited 10 experts to interpret the 8 factors with

30 photographs to understand its psychological attributes and

visual features via Delphi technique and the focus group so

that a common view is reached for each factor. The

followings are the name for each factor named by this

research based on these common views. 1. A- Simple

Clarification, 2. B- Mysterious Sensation, 3. C- Streamline

Tension, 4. D- Refined Steadiness, 5. E- Pure Nature, 6. F-Exaggerating Change, 7. G- Sentimental Fashion and 8. H-

Concise Sophistication. Table 1 presented photograph of the

highest factor loading of each factor and its psychological

attributes and visual features.

Table 1: Photograph of each Factor and its Attribute, Feature and

Name

Photograph* and its

Serial Number

Factor Code (FC), Psychological

Attribute (PA) and Visual Feature (VF)

Factor1

A80

FC: A- Simple Clarification

PA: simple, geometric, rational

VF: simple format and organized lines,

concise blocks piling up, usage of raw

material and hue

Factor2

A19

FC: B-Mysterious Sensation

PA: modern, sensual, colorful, lavish

atmosphere

VF: genius shape of line, modern space

elements, avant-garde color and lighting

Factor3

A68

FC: C- Streamline Tension

PA: wing-spreading, streamline,

technological, tension extension

VF: form of modern technology and

materials, showing the flowing curve of

infinite extension and tension, shining by

the reflection in water

Factor4

A84

FC: D-Refined Steadiness

PA: steady, magnificent, oriental style

VF: steady lines and balanced shape,

ordered ratio and solid texture, solemn hue

and color matching

Factor5

A13

FC: E- Pure Nature

PA: contemporary moderate, natural,

comfortable, delicate

VF: pure lines and Japanese housing style,

natural light and vision penetration, delicate

color match, plain and unadorned

Factor6

A98

FC: F- Exaggerating Change

PA: vivid, twisted and deformed,

paradoxical, oppressedVF: exaggerated form and presentation,

excessive use of the structure lead to

unexpected changes in sense, and too

monotonous segmentation and texture with

the

solemn tones of color

Factor7

A44

FC: G- Sentimental Fashion

PA: flowing, characteristic, dreamy,

appealing

VF: multilayered soft curve constructing a

space,

subversion of traditional ideals and make

them

interesting, contrast colors to draw

attentions

Factor8

A22

FC: H- Concise Sophistication

PA: concise, contemporary, elegant, serene

VF: steady hue, concise lines, slick and

simple,

emphasizing on its inward grandeur texture

* representative photograph is the photo with highest factor loading

in each factor category, sources of each representative photograph:

Factor 1 (A80)

http://www.99265.com/Article/UploadFiles/200703/2007031620382

6166.jpg, Factor 2 (A19) Chinese Society of Interior Designers,

Taipei (2007) p.66, Factor 3 (A68) Bahamon, (2006)，Factor 4

(A84)

http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/zhTW/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=51, Factor 5 (A13) Japanese Society of

Commercial Space Designers, Taipei (2007), Factor 6 (A98)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2150/2339526951_3f983dc184.jpg,

Factor 7 (A44) Broto, (2007)， p.23, Factor 8 (A22) Chinese Society

of Interior Designers, Taipei (2007).

4.4.

Descri ptive Statistics

Among all 8 factors, Factor 3 C- Streamline Tension has the

highest ranking to 3.875, while Factor 4 D- Refined

Steadiness being the lowest to 2.768 (Table 2). To conclude





from all these analyses, a space with modern format and

technological texture that shows smooth flowing streamline

tension far beyond seems more likely to be an attractive

scene. On the contrary, exaggerated form and presentation,

excessive use of the structure lead to unexpected changes in

sense, and too monotonous segmentation and texture with the

solemn tones of color ‖ would hardly give rise to the aesthetic

response.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics Summary of Aesthetic EvaluationResults (n=1167)

Rankinga

Factor

Factor Average b

Standard

Deviation

(SD)

1 3 C-Streamline Tension 3.875 .607

2 7 G-Sentimental Fashion 3.459 .674

3 5 E-Pure Nature 3.371 .667

-3 2 B-Mysterious Sensation 3.092 .620

-2 6 F- Exaggerating Change 2.883 .913

-1 4 D-Refined Steadiness 2.768 .748aranking by its evaluated score, 1 is the highest, -1 is the lowest, b

aesthetic evaluation average range from 1 to 5.

4.5.

Var iance Analysis/ t Test

Variance analysis was used to further understand three

individual attributes — genders, grades and

departments/majors, towards aesthetic evaluation.

4.5.1.

Genders

Genders made obvious differences on Factor 2, 3 and 7.

Males believed that Factor 2 ―B- Mysterious Sensation‖

contributes more to aesthetic, while females preferred Factor

3 ―C- Streamline Tension‖ and Factor 7 ―G- Sentimental

Fashion.‖ Generally speaking, males tend to like genius curve

and modern spatial elements surrounded by mysterious

lighting and diverse shade. Females, however, prefer space

with modern technological form and texture that displays

flowing, multilayered extension goes far beyond. Table 3

showed significance results from gender t Test.

Table 3: Results of Gender t Test

TiGender a(average b±SD) Levene Test

Significance

t Test Significance

(two-tail)d

ComparisonMale (1) Female (2)

Factor 2

B-Mysterious

Sensation

3.152±.594 3.056±.633 .290 .010 1＞2

Factor 3

C-Streamline

Tension

3.811±.566 3.915±.626 .013 .004 1＜2

Factor 7

G-Sentimental

Fashion

3.378±.650 3.508±.684 .094 .001 1＜2

a Gender: 1, male n=443; 2, female, n=724。 b Average range from 1-5. c If test results show significance from Levene Test, then Equality of

variance is not hypothesized. d t Test significance (two-tail) p < .05, shows variance significance.

When it comes to gender, Li (2005) argues that no

significant difference is found of 15 factors regarding hot

spring hotel environment preference. Hsieh (2005) also points

out that no significance of eight factors regarding residential

dining room. However, Hsu (2005) finds two significant

factors out of 8 of apparel store between different genders.

Four significant factors are also found in six factors and eight

types of visual preference on school space between five to six

grade schoolboys and girls by Chen (2007). Peng (2008) also

finds out two significant factors appear in eight visual

preference of hot spring open space. These results show noconsistency regarding gender on aesthetic and preference.

Identically, international research studies present the same

results as well, i.e. McLaughlin et al., (1983); Beaton, (1985);

Mead & McLauglin, (1992), all show no significance

between male and female. I & Lin (2008) believe that gender

difference on aesthetic preference results from biological

needs and culture background. What cultural causes might

trigger aesthetic preference difference? Or, how genders

affect aesthetic preference? It all requires further discussion

to find out more.

4.5.2. Grades

Different grades presented apparent differences among Factor

3, 4, 6 and 7. After multiple comparison by Scheffe’s method,

variance significance appeared in 4 groups. Factor 3 C-

Streamline Tension: freshman > senior and sophomore >

senior. Factor 4 D-Refined Steadiness: freshman >

sophomore, junior and senior. Factor 6 F Exaggerating

Change: senior > sophomore. Factor 7 G-Sentimental

Fashion: freshman > senior. Freshman grade has obvious

differences than other grades. In other words, test results

indicated that junior and senior students tend to give lower points than freshman students regarding architectural space

aesthetic evaluation, which could result from their knowledge

and life scope and experiences being better and wider than

other students. Table 4 showed significance results from

grade t Test.





Table 4: Results of Grade t Test

FactorGrade a(Average ± SD)

FScheffe’s

MethodFreshman (1) Sophomore (2) Junior (3) Senior and above (4)

Factor 3

C-Streamline Tension3.908±.621 3.914±.621 3.835±.575 3.621±.508 4.742 1,2＞4

Factor 4

D-Refined Steadiness2.961±.756 2.687±.715 2.665±.718 2.601±.847 13.634 1＞2,3,4

Factor 6

F-Exaggerating Change2.942±.948 2.777±.921 2.876±.872 3.232±.733 5.040 4＞2

Factor 7

G-Sentimental Fashion3.519±.665 3.459±.688 3.425±.651 3.244±.726 3.234 1＞4

afreshman n=390, sophomore n=385, junior n=336 and senior and above n=56. b average range 1-5.

Chou (2005) also considers that freshman group has

significant difference regarding landscape evaluation, its

sense of aesthetics seems to be single, self-centered, visual,

and artistic-oriented; while senior group tends to reach

consensus with integrated, egoless, mental, and design-

oriented. According to Critique of Judgment by I. Kant,

aesthetic judgment relates to conceptualization with rationalcriticism [Tsui, 1992]. Life experience and knowledge

learning promote students’ comprehension along the lear ning

process, which rises the evaluation standard of aesthetic

judgment based on their own comprehension ability. Han

(2004) argues that everyone has the potential to understand

aesthetics…, however, observation to aesthetics varies;

human instinct to aesthetics requires education and

cultivation to grow. That is to say, education and cultivation

help promote aesthetic judgment, as well as knowledge and

experience could affect aesthetics evaluation and results.

4.5.3.

Departments/ Majors

Different majors had obvious significance on Factor 1, 3, 4, 5

and 7. Design major students considered aesthetic factors as

Factor 1 A-Simple Clarification and Factor 5 E-Pure Nature.

Non-design major students took aesthetic factors as Factor 3

C-Streamline Tension, Factor 4 D-Refined Steadiness and

Factor 7 G-Sentimental Fashion. By all accounts, design

students preferred ―concise nature‖ as simple format and

organized lines, concise blocks piling up, usage of raw

material and hue, penetration of nature lights and visions,

pure lines and delicate colors. Non-design students, however,

tended to enjoy modern technological form and materials that

display a flowing and multilayered curves construction and

lighting and colors that subverting traditions result in endless

fun. Table 5 showed significance results from

department/major t Test.

Table 5: Results of Department/Major t Test

Factor Department/Major

a

(Average

b

±SD) Levene TestSignificance

t Test Significance(Two-Tail)

d

ComparisonDesign Major (1) Non-design Major (2)

Factor 1

A-Simple Clarification3.35±.584 2.908±.649 .016 .000 1＞2

Factor 3

C-Streamline Tension3.834±.598 3.916±.611 .393 .020 2＞1

Factor 4

D-Refined Steadiness2.668±.772 2.866±.711 .028 .000 2＞1

Factor 5

E-Pure Nature3.426±.663 3.318±.648 .744 .005 1＞2

Factor 7

G-Sentimental Fashion3.387±.672 3.530±.668 .829 .000 2＞1

a department/major: 1 design major (n=581), 2 non-design major (n=586). b Average range from 1-5. c If test results show significance from

Levene Test, then Equality of variance is not hypothesized. d t Test significance (two-tail) p < .05, shows variance significance.

Results from the department/major t Test show that five

of eight factors have significance between design and non-

design students regarding aesthetics evaluation. It supports

the existing finding of architects have significant difference

from the general public regarding human environment

aesthetics evaluation. Lien (1997) points out the identical

findings that significance shows between gender and grades

regarding aesthetic cognition. Students with design major

have different aesthetic cognition than other major students in

vocational schools as well.

Results from these t Tests and variance analyses did not

support the null hypothesis, ―no significant difference from

aesthetic evaluation of architectural space among different

college students’ attributes.‖ That is to say, college students

with different attributes have significance regarding

architectural space aesthetic evaluation.





V. CONCLUSIONS

To explore the relation of physical features of man-made

environment and people's aesthetic response, this research is

to carry out the empirical research of formal aesthetics and

test the possible differences among college students with

different attributes. The followings are results from this

research.

A built space with features of ―form of moderntechnology and materials, showing the flowing curve of

infinite extension and tension‖ is more likely to create

aesthetic response. Contrarily, ―exaggerated form and

presentation, excessive use of the structure lead to

unexpected changes in sense, and too monotonous

segmentation and texture with the solemn tones of

color ‖ would hardly give rise to the aesthetic response.

Three factors showed significance among all 8 factors

regarding gender differences. Males tend to like genius

curve and modern spatial elements surrounded by

mysterious lighting and diverse shade. Females,

however, prefer space with modern technological form

and texture that displays flowing, multilayered extension

goes far beyond.

Four factors showed significance among all 8 factors

regarding grade differences. Junior and senior students

tend to give lower points than freshman students

regarding architectural space aesthetic evaluation, which

could result from their knowledge and life scope and

experiences being better and wider than other students.

Five factors showed significance among all 8 factors

regarding department/major differences. Design students

preferred ―concise nature‖ as simple format and

organized lines, concise blocks piling up, usage of raw

material and hue, penetration of nature lights andvisions, pure lines and delicate colors. Non-design

students, however, tended to enjoy modern

technological form and materials that display a flowing

and multilayered curves construction and lighting and

colors that subverting traditions result in endless fun.

Without a doubt, constructed by education, training, and

experience, the foundation of cognition comprehension

is definite to affect one’s aesthetic judgment since

comprehension is included in aesthetics evaluation.

Consistency of conceptual model appears from identical

education, training, and experience background, which

might result in similar aesthetic judgment. For instance,

design students have been training with the sameaesthetics education for long, they are sure to have

different conceptual model of aesthetics than those non-

design students. Aesthetics evaluation is definitely

different from each other.

As a whole, this research aimed to achieve two goals.

First of all, regarding research method, this research tried to

revise traditional related research methods, hoping to uplift

validity of photographs as measure tool by skipping pilot test.

After carrying out the formal questionnaires, this research

deleted questions with indiscernible degree via exploratory

factor analysis which turned out to be a workable method.

Secondly, regarding research results, this research found that

gender, grade and major do have certain affects on

architectural space aesthetic evaluation; moreover, it also

verified that professional training brought significant

differences to aesthetic evaluation.

REFERENCES

[1] J. Dewey (1934), ―Art as Experience‖, New York: Putnam.

[2] G. Santayana (1955), ―The Sense of Beauty‖, New York: Dover . (Original work published in 1896).

[3] C.W. Valentine (1968), ―The Experimental Psychology ofBeauty‖, London: Methuen.

[4] A. Rapoport (1969), ―House, Form and Culture‖, Prentice-

Hall .[5] R.G. Hershberger (1969), ―A Study of Meaning and

Architecture‖, Editors: H. Sanoff & S. Cohn, EDRA 1: Proceedings of the First Annual Environmental Design

Research Association Conference, Raleigh: North CarolinaState University.

[6] W. Tatarkiewicz (1970), ―History of Aesthetics‖, The Hague: Mouton.

[7]

R.W. Seaton & J.B. Collins (1970), ―Validity and Reliability ofRatings of Stimulated Buildings‖, Editor: W.S. Mitchell,Environmental Design: Research and Practice, Los Angeles,CA: Environmental Design Research Association.

[8] R.G. Hershberger & R.C. Cass (1974), ―Predicting UserResponses to Buildings‖, Editor: G. Davis, Man EnvironmentInteraction: Evaluations and Applications, the State of Art inEnvironmental Design Research - Field Applications,

Milwaukee: Environmental Design Research Association.[9] J.F. Wohlwill (1976), ―Environmental Aesthetics: The

Environment as a Source of Affect‖, Editors: I. Altman & J.F.

Wohlwill, Human Behavior and the Environment: Advances in

Theory and Research, Vol. 1, New York: Plenum.[10] A. Oostendorp & D.E. Berlyne (1978), ―Dimensions in the

Perception of Architecture-II, Measures of Exploratory

Behaviour‖, Scandivanian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 19.[11] R. Gifford (1980), ―Environmental Dispositions and the

Evaluation of Architectural Interiors‖, Journal of Research in Personality, 14.

[12] E.H. Zube, J.L. Sell & G. Taylor (1982), ―Landscape

Perception: Research, Application and Theory‖, Landscape Planning , 9.

[13] L. Groat (1982), ―Meaning in Post-Modern Architecture: AnExamination using the Multiple Sorting Tasks‖, Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 2.[14] J.P. McLaughlin, P. Dean & P. Stanley (1983), ―Aesthetic

Preference in Dextrals and Sinistrals‖, Neuropsychologia, 21, No. 2.

[15] N.R. Feimer (1984), ―Environmental Perception: The Effects of

Media, Evaluative Content, and Observer Sample‖ , Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 4.[16] A. Beaton (1985), ―Left Side, Right Side‖, New Haven: Yale

University Press.

[17] M. Duffy (1986), ―Preferences in Nursing Home Design‖, Environment and Behavior , 18.

[18] J. Lang (1987), ―Creating Architectural Theory: The Role ofthe Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design‖, New York:

Van Nostrand Reinhold .[19] C. Martindale & K. Moore (1988), ―Priming, Prototypicality

and Preference‖, Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance, Vol. 14, No. 4.





[20] J.L. Nasar (1988), ―Environmental Aesthetics: Theory,Research, and Application‖, New York: Cambridge University

Press.

[21] J.L. Nasar (1989), ―Symbolic Meanings of House Styles‖, Environment and Behavior , Vol. 21, No. 3.

[22] J.L. Nasar & J. Kang (1989), ―A Post-Jury Evaluation: TheOhio State University Design Competition for a Center for the

Visual Arts‖, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 4.[23] R. Kaplan & S. Kaplan (1989), ―The Experience of Nature: A

Psychological Perspective‖, New York: Cambridge University Press.

[24] K. Devlin & J. Nasar (1989), ―The Beauty and the Best: SomePreliminary Comparisons of High versus Popular ResidentialArchitecture and Public versus Architect Judgments of Same‖,

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9.

[25] L. Groat & C. Despres (1991), ―The Significance ofArchitectural Theory for Environmental Design Research‖,

Editors: E.H. Zube & G.T. Moore, Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 3, New York: Plenum.

[26] K.C. Tsui (1992), ―Aesthetic Judgment DevelopmentResearch‖, Taipei: Shtabook .

[27] A.M. Mead & J.P. McLauglin (1992), ―The Roles ofHandedness and Stimulus Asymmetry in Aesthetics

Preference‖, Brain and Cognition, Vol. 20, No. 2.

[28]

S.C. Scott (1993), ―Visual Attributes related to Preference inInterior Environment‖, Journal of Interior Design Educationand Research, Vol. 18, No. 1 and 2.

[29] S.F. Feagin (1995), Beauty. In R. Audi (Ed.), ―The CambridgeDictionary of Philosophy‖, Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

[30] J.L. Nasar (1997). ―New Developments in Aesthetics for Urban

Design‖, Editors: G.T. Moore & R.W. Marans, Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 4, Toward theIntegration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization,

New York: Plenum Press.[31] T.R. Lien (1997), ―Design Aesthetic Cognitive Tendency of

Design Students and Non-design Student in College‖, Taichung Business School Journal , 31.

[32] M. Kubovy (2000), ―Visual Aesthetics‖, Editor: A.E. Kazdin,

―Encyclopedia of Psychology‖, Vol. 8, New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

[33] A.E. Stamps (2000), ―Psychology and the Aesthetics of theBuilt Environment‖, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[34] R. Gifford, W.H. Donald, M-C. Werner, J.R. D’Arcy & T.S.Kelly (2000), ―Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens ModelApproach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of

Architects and Laypersons‖, Environment and Behavior , Vol.32, No. 2.

[35] R.P. Shih (2002), ―Shaping Aesthetics‖, Journal of Heilongjiang College of Education, Vol. 21, No. 3, Pp. 63 – 64

[36] P.T. Han (2004), ―Aesthetics by Pao-Teh Han‖, Taipei: Linking Publishing .

[37] I.S. Hsieh (2005), ―The Environmental Preference Factors ofthe Interior Space: An Example of Residential Dining Rooms‖,

Master’s Thesis, Department of Interior Design, Chung YuanChristian University.

[38] Japanese Society of Commercial Space Designers (2005),―2005 JCD Design Award‖, Tokyo, Japan: Japanese Society ofCommercial Space Designers.

[39] C.J. Hsu (2005), ―The Preference Factors of Formal Aestheticin Commercial Space: An Example of Clothing Stores‖,

Master’s Thesis, Department of Interior Design, Chung Yuan

Christian University.[40] W.C. Lee (2005), ―The Factors of Consumers’ Environmental

Preference for the Hot-spring Hotels‖, Master ’s Thesis, Department of Interior Design, Chung Yuan Christian

University.[41] C.S. Lin, F.I. Lin, Y.M. Huang, K.F. Liu, R.C. Hsiao, C.F. Su

& S.F. Chong (2005), ―The Selected ContemporaryArchitecture and Landscape in Taiwan‖, Taipei: SinoBooks (in

Chinese).[42] H.S. Chou (2005), ―Relation between Environmental Cognition

and Aesthetics‖, 2005 International Conference of Basic

Design and Environment Review, Taipei: Taiwan Society of

Basic Design and Art.[43] A. Bahamon (2006), ―World Class Architects Show how it’s

Done Sketch-Plan-Build‖, (Li, W.Y. Tans.). Shenyang, China: Laioning Science & Technology Publishing House. (Original

work published 2005) (in Chinese)[44] C. Broto (2007), ―Apartment Interiors‖, Page One Publishing

Ltd .[45] International Federation of Interior Architects/Designer (2007),

―International Interiors Annual 2007‖, Singapore.

[46]

Chinese Society of Interior Designers, Taipei (2007), ―The TIDGold Award of Interior Design Award 2007‖, Taipei: ChineseSociety of Interior Designers, Taipei. (in Chinese)

[47] Japanese Society of Commercial Space Designers (2007),―2007 JCD Design Award, Tokyo‖, Japan: Japanese Society ofCommercial Space Designers.

[48] I.Y. Chen (2007), ―The Visual Preference of Primary School

Space: Students of Third Grader or Higher as Example‖, Master’s Thesis, Department of Interior Design, Chung YuanChristian University.

[49] B. I & Y.C. Lin (2008), ―The Trend of Empirical Studies ofAesthetics in the Past Century‖, Journal of Design, Vol. 13,

No. 2, Taipei. (in Chinese).[50] C.I. Peng (2008), ―The Relationship between Aesthetic

Response and Visual Preference in Hot Spring Bathing Space‖,

Master’s Thesis, Department of Interior Design, Chung YuanChristian University.

Shih-Yung, Liu. Assistant Professor,Department of Interior, Chung Yuan

Christian UniversityPh.D Program in Design, Chung YuanChristian University. Academic Specialty:

Interior Design, Environmental Behavior,Post-occupancy Evaluation, Interior Design

Professional Competence. He teaches InteriorDesign, Research Data Analysis Methods,

Project Management and Evaluation, Design Management andResidence Research for Elderly. Professional Experiences: Deputy

CEO, iiDesignCenter, Chung Yuan Christian University, ExecutiveDirector, Association of Taiwan Interior and Space Design,Director, Chinese Society of Interior Designers, Member, AsiaPacific Space Designers Alliance, Member, International Federation

of Interior Architects/Designers, Design Consultant, Fine ArtsAssociation of Miaoli County, Executive Editor, Taiwan InteriorDesign.

study of aesthetic evaluation and aesthetic response to architectural space

Documents