Table 3 Findings relating to environmental preference in interiors

Scott (1993a)

Survey using stimuli

√

√

√

√

Positive findings: the study revealed a preference for “horizontally and vertically spacious settings structured into multiple, partially enclosed zones that permit visual access from one area to another; more rather than less complexity […], and natural content in the form of plants, window views, natural light and soft forms” (15)

Scott (1993b)

Survey using stimuli

–

–

√

√

Positive findings: complexity (high) and mystery (moderately high) are positive correlated to preference and to each other. “Scenes that offered greater depth and included views of destinations more immediate […] were perceived as offering more mystery” (29). “[B]oth the tightest […] and the most wide-open spaces were perceived as having little mystery” (30)

Franz et al. (2003)

Combined survey and isovists

√

O

–

–

Positive and neutral findings: “spaciousness correlated with the actual room area […] but the coefficient with overall window area was even higher [… and] the correlation [of the three evaluative rating dimensions beauty, pleasure and interestingness] with the physical openness ratio was highest” (6)

Franz et al. (2004) (test 1)

Combined survey and isovists

√

O

–

–

Positive and neutral findings: “isovist area as the dominant factor […] highly correlated with all rating categories […] except for clarity” (7)

Franz et al. (2004) (test 2)

Combined survey and isovists

√

O

–

√

Positive and neutral findings: “rated spaciousness […] and beauty were […] strongly correlated with isovist area [… and] complexity was correlated highest with the number of vertices” (7)

Stamps (2006) (test 1)

Survey using stimuli

√

X

O

–

Mixed findings: “the main finding was that nothing showed up […] [I]t made very little difference if one were looking from the small, dark. Low room into the large, light, tall room or vice versa […] The individual contrasts for differences in light […] and differences in height […] were also very small […] The only contrast that had a more than trivial effect was the difference between looking from a large room into a small room […], and that contrast was opposite to the relevant hypothesis” (647)

Stamps (2006) (test 2)

Survey using stimuli

√

X

X

–

Mixed findings: “views from large, bright, high rooms were judged as being considerably more comfortable […] views from the large rooms were more comfortable” (649). “For light, the difference between dark to light and light to dark was small […] the prediction that views from wide rooms would be more comfortable than views from narrow rooms was supported by the data” (651)

Wiener et al. (2007) (test 1)

Combined survey and isovists

√

O

–

√

Positive and neutral findings: “while performance of female and male subjects did not differ with respect to finding the best overview place […] male subjects showed a better performance in finding the best hiding place than female subjects” (1074). “Average isovist area was highly correlated with rated pleasingness […], beauty […] and spaciousness [… and] the average number of isovist polygon vertices […] turned out to be strongly interrelated with experienced complexity […], interestingness […] and clarity” (1075)

Wiener et al. (2007) (test 2)

Combined survey and isovists

√

O

–

√

Positive and neutral findings: “no significant differences were found between the mean ratings of the two experiments […] scenes perceived as more interesting in experiment 2” (1077)

Wiener et al. (2007) (test 3)

Combined survey and isovists

O

O

–

O

Neutral findings: male better in finding best overview place. “[J]aggedness was negatively correlated with average angular velocity during locomotion, i.e. subjects turned more slowly in more complex environments” (1080)

Stamps (2008b) (test 2)^a

Survey using stimuli

O

O

–

–

Neutral findings: “rooms with nature views being perceived as being more comfortable than rooms with views of shops” (149). “Depth of view made little differences for the nature scenes […] but depth of view made substantial differences for the built scenes [,,,] with shorter depths of view [on small shops] being preferred over longer [on mall]” (150)

Stamps (2008b) (test 3)^b

Survey using stimuli

X

√

–

–

Mixed findings: “the more refuge, the greater the comfort […]. The relationship to prospect was sufficiently weak to be nonsignificant over the range of 20–60 m. For the range of 60–80 m, the relationship of comfort to prospect was opposite the prediction of prospect and refuge theory, with the closer tree line (60 m) being judged as more comfortable than the farther tree line (80 m)” (152). Supportive of refuge, not prospect. (Participants: men only.)

Stamps (2008b) (test 4)^b

Survey using stimuli

√

X

–

–

Mixed findings: “For refuge there was a significant relationship for comfort between the no-refuge and the fence conditions […] but in direction opposite to theory. These respondents felt [that] the wide-open view was more comforting than the view over the fence” (153). (Same test as under c but with men and women)

Dalton et al. (2010)

Combined survey and isovists

O

O

–

O

Neutral findings: “stimuli materials were […] equally well recognised if they were displayed in a location visible from a large or a small isovist [… but] for the large isovist areas, images were recognised better than words […] whereas for the small isovist areas, words were recognised better than images [… and] images were recognised significantly better in spiky [more complex/low isovist area to perimeter ratio] than in round spaces” (3844)

Dzebic (2013) (test 1)

Combined survey and isovists

√

O

–

√

Positive and neutral findings: “Isovist area was significantly positively correlated with ratings of spaciousness [..] and clarity [as well as with] pleasantness […] and beauty” (19). “Number of vertices was positively correlated with ratings of complexity [… and] interestingness […] but was not significantly correlated to ratings of pleasantness” (18)

Dzebic (2013) (test 2)

Combined survey and isovists

O

O

–

O

Neutral findings: “Isovist area significantly positive correlated with ratings of spaciousness […], clarity […], complexity […] and sociability [… but not with] pleasantness [..] nor beauty […] Number of vertices was negatively correlated with ratings of sociability […] Correlations between number of vertices and complexity […], pleasantness […] and interestingness […] were not significant” (38)

Ostwald and Dawes (2013)

Isovist analysis

O

–

X

–

Neutral and contrary findings: the results for isovist area show that “four of the houses possess a lower level of prospect at the point of entry and a higher level at the centre of the living room [… however,] this trend would be anticipated in any family house large enough to have a separate entry and living room […] There is no overarching pattern in the results for mystery found in the five paths” (155). “There are insufficient similarities [in paths of five of Frank Lloyd Wright’s canonical Prairie houses] to support the claim that there are any underlying spatio-visual patterns” (156)

Dawes and Ostwald (2014a)

Isovist analysis

O

O

O

O

Neutral findings: partial support for factors of prospect and refuge: “of the ten primary indicators, nine support the hypothesis, and of the ten secondary, seven support the hypothesised condition [… However, when] calculating the Pearson’s correlation coefficient for each combination of prospect and refuge […] four of the [… five of Wright’s textile-block houses] show at least one strong positive correlation [… as well as] at least one negative [… and] six are moderate” (238). “Wright’s preferred technique of reduplicating prospect and refuge characteristics was manipulation of ceiling height and distance to a solid surface” (238). Levels of mystery and complexity are confirmed to decrease in three of five cases. “In total, 26 out of 35 primary indicators […] supported the presence of the four major measurable properties of the Wright Space” (239)

Dawes and Ostwald (2014b)

Isovist analysis

O

–

O

–

Neutral findings: limited evidence for spatial pattern in five of Wright’s Usonian houses: pattern for prospect supported by isovist area results (80 %) while “longest radial data decreased in 60 % of cases” (17). More limited evidence for mystery with results for “proportional occlusivity [that] show a significant pattern of decreasing in every house” [while actual occlusivity levels vary]” (17). Results for mystery show that only “60 % of the paths conformed to either [… drift direction or drift magnitude and] only two houses conformed to both conditions” (18)

Dawes and Ostwald (2014c)

Isovist analysis

O

O

O

–

Neutral findings: some similarity between 17 of Wright’s most famous houses. Refuge values for three positions in living room (threshold, centre and hearth) most similar as “the minimum radial line results are identical under both window conditions [opaque or transparent, which] confirms that window conditions alone will not alter the spatial experience recorded by the isovists” (11)

Vaughan and Ostwald (2014)

Fractal analysis

–

–

–

X

Contrary findings: “the fractal analysis results […] generally fall marginally along the exterior section of the path […] before rising […] along the interior section […]” (564). The first part of this result is relatively neutral, but overall this is contrary to the anticipated result

Supportive √

Neutral O

Contrary X