Margaret a Wilson_The Socialization of Architectural Preference - JEP No. 16 (1996)

8/13/2019 Margaret a Wilson_The Socialization of Architectural Preference - JEP No. 16 (1996)

1/12

Journ al of En vironmenta l Psychology (1996) 16 , 33 44 0272-4944/96/010033 + 12$18. 00/0 1996 Academ ic Press Limited

ENVIRONMENTAL

PSYCHOLOGY J

o u r n a

l o

f

THE SOCIALIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCE

MARGARET A. WILSON

Departm ent of Psychology, U ni versit y of L iverpool, P.O. Box 147, L iverpool, L 69 3BX, U .K.

Abstract

The apparent difference in the appreciation of architecture between architects and lay people has been thefocus of much research. If architects truly have different standards of appreciation from nonarchitects, it isthen most likely that these standards of judgement are acquired within the schools of architecture during theperiod of architectura l educat ion. The paper describes a cross-sectional study of the a rchitectura l preferencesof students at two schools of architecture at five different stages of their education. Smallest Space Analysis(SS A) of the student s evalua tions of 26 exam ples of contempora ry a rchitecture suggests a process of socializ-ation within the schools of architecture whereby students develop standards of judgement that are bothchara cteristic of the profession a s a wh ole and sha ped by the specific school of tra ining. Ana lysis of the under-lying structure of the students evaluations of the buildings allows a model of architectural preference to beproposed. Although the students give a variety of explanations of why they appreciate the buildings they do,ana lysis of the associations between the buildings shows t hat the underlying st ructure of the evaluations isclearly bas ed on architectural st yle. The implicat ions a re discussed.

1996 Academic P ress Limit ed

Introduction a rchitecture th a t is essentia lly descriptive, objectivea nd nonevalua tive, w hile the second guides subjec-tive evaluative judgements. Groat (1982) has shownSince the late 1960s, environmental psychologists

have a ddressed and re-addressed the quest ion of that architects use different concepts f rom non-architects . I t has been the a ssumption that thesewhether design professionals think differently to

the public. Methodological developments have concepts are developed during the period of tra in-ing, and Wilson and Canter (1990a ) ha ve made vis-t aken researchers f rom semant ic d ifferen t ia l

s tudies (e .g . Canter, 1969; Hershberger, 1969), ible the conceptual t ransformat ion that occursacross each year of professional tr aining. D uringthrough repertory grids (e.g. Leff & Deutsch, 1974;

Stringer, 1977), to less-constra ined techniques such the course of ar chitectura l educat ion, studentsdevelop increasingly abstra ct and more differen-as the Mult iple S ort ing Task (e .g . Groat , 1982;

Devlin, 1990). Researchers have shown tha t a rchi- t iat ed concepts to organize their knowledge. Themost central concept used to organize their under-tects solve both experimental and applied problems

differen t ly f rom nonarch itect s (Edwards, 1974; s t and ing i s a rch itectu ra l s ty le, a concept tha tbecomes more complex in its definition w ith increas-Lawson, 1980). One way or another, it is now well

established tha t design professionals in general, ing length of educat ion.Research to date has demonstra ted that archi-a nd a rchitects in part icular, hold a different syst em

of constructs t hrough which they understa nd and tects both conceptualize a nd evaluat e differentlyfrom nonarchitects. The difference in evaluat iveevaluat e the environment.

Although t he issues a re frequently confused in judgements between a rchitects and nonarchitectshas received both academic and popular coverage,the literat ure, there ar e tw o distinctly different sys-

tems of construct under consideration: conceptualiz- and it has often been suggested tha t rat her tha ndesigning for users, architects design for the criticalat ion and evaluat ion. The first is a system of con-

cepts wi th which to organ ize and unders tand accla im of thei r peers . However, s tud ies of the33


2/12

34 M. Wilson

architectura l value system, nota bly by Lipman group, comparing the mean response of professionaland nonprofessional samples.(1970) and Blau (1980), have suggested that the

most important or ientat ion in architecture is a There are a number of possible reasons for these

differences in orienta tion and eva luat ion w ithin th ehuma nist one, w ith ar chitects reporting concern forboth cl ient and user. Nevertheless , there s t i ll profess ion, including al l those suggested to influ-ence nonprofessiona ls, for exam ple persona lity (e.g.a ppears to be something of a ga p between ar chitec-

tura l and public opinion, an issue tha t has been Henschen & Hershenson, 1975), gender (e.g. Nasa r,1989) and environmental experience (e.g. Mackin-fuelled by royal interest in the U.K.

Much of t he focus for this discrepancy in ta ste tosh, 1982). However, the period of intensive social-izat ion char acteristic of any form of educa tion mustseems to ha ve been placed on Modernism, a nd over

the las t 15 years new stylist ic movements have cer ta inly be considered as a potent ia l determinantof professional orientation. It can therefore be hypo-developed, along wit h critical discussion of why t hey

will succeed where Modernism failed. Cha rles thesized tha t not only do the schools of architecturesocialize architects into the values of the professionJ encks has been the great est proponent of P ost

Modern architecture, and his books did much to as a whole, but also tha t this same process instil ls aset of values associated with the specific institution.launch the movement. J encks (1977) cla imed t ha t

Post Modern architecture is accessible to lay and Thus, the second aim of the present s tudy is toidentify any variations in the architectural evalu-professional people a like owing to wha t he calls

dual coding. That is, whi le the code of Modern at ive system that could be a t t r ibutable to thespecific school of ar chitecture wh ere t ra ining occurs.architecture is a language that can only be read by

the archi tectural ly t ra ined, Post Modern archi tec- In t erms of Facet Theory, the s tudy tests twopossible facets that might account for differences inture is a language tha t can be understood, and thus

appreciated, by all . G roat and Canter (1979) set out evaluat ion: Sta ge of Education and School ofTra ining. The fa cet St a ge of E ducat ion consists ofto test empirically these claims for Post Modernism.

Comparing a matched sample of architects and s ix elements corresponding to the six year groupssampled, and School of Training consists of twoaccountants, they found that reactions to Post Mod-

ernism were mixed for both samples. However, elements corresponding to the tw o schools of archi-tecture st udied.overal l i t was s t i l l the archi tects ra ther than the

accountants who showed the greates t appreciat ion Final ly, the third a im of the s tudy is to ident i fythe underlying str ucture of subjective evalua tion infor Post Modern architecture.Since i t i s l ikely that social izat ion during pro- architecture in order to unders tand the basis for

evaluat ive judgements. Through understa nding t hefessional education is responsible for any differ-ences between architects and nonarchitects, the basis of architectura l evaluat ive judgements, i t may

be possible to provide some tentative guidelines forpresent research focuses on the time spent in archi-tectura l educat ion. The purpose of this study is to environmental educat ion for nonarchitects so tha t

they can appreciat e the built environment a s muchexamine the changing syst em of evaluat ion in a rchi-tectura l students a t two schools of ar chitecture to as i ts creators do.understa nd the wa y in which preference is social-ized within professional training. The first aim ofthe study is to test the hypothesis tha t a rchitectura leducation systematically instills an evaluative sys- Methodtem that is characteristic of the architectural pro-fession in genera l. Par t ic ipants

While education is likely to have a general effect,i t is clearly na ve to assume that a l l members of a One hundred and f if ty Bri t ish architectural s tud-

ents took par t in the s tudy from two schools ofprofessional group think as one. Previous researchhas shown that there are a number of different architecture, one based in Scot land (referred to as

the Northern School) and one based in Southernorientat ions in architectural bel iefs and values(Lipma n, 1970; Bla u, 1980; Wilson & Ca nter, England (referred to as the Southern School). The

tw o schools were of similar size a nd claimed to h ave1990b ), a nd there is no doubt tha t variat ion existswit hin the profession as w ell as betw een ar chitects a similar technologically based orientat ion. A cross-

sectional sample of 15 students from each of sixa nd other groups. However, a grea t dea l of the pre-vious resear ch comparing lay and architectura l years of tra ining took part in the study. The fourth-

year students a t the Southern S chool and t he fifth-evaluation has treated designers as a homogeneous


3/12

35Socialization of Architecture Preference

year st udents at the North ern School were not rep- between the points is inversely proportiona l to therank order of the a ssociat ions between the var i -resented as they were on their year out in practice.a bles. Thus, t he closer t ogether t wo points ar e, the

more highly associated are the variables that theyProcedure

represent. The goodness of fit for the represen-tation is measured by the coefficient of alienation.Ea ch s tudent wa s interviewed separate ly. They

were asked to consider 26 colour photographs of While researchers differ in t heir opinion of w hatconstitutes an acceptable level of fit, Donald (1994)contemporary architecture and to class ify them

according t o their own personal preferences, from suggests 0.2 a s an accepta ble level, while Donalda nd Ca nter (1990) and S hye et al . (1994) discuss th ethose they liked the least to those they liked the

most. The categories formed were calibrated a gainst issue of discretion in using the measure at a ll.In the current analysis, SSA is used to representa scale from 0 to 12, where 0 indica ted th e most pre-

ferred buildings and 12 indicat ed the least pre- the relat ionship betw een each of the 10 variables inthe analysis, i .e. the 10 groups of students. Theferred buildings. After they had indicated their pref-

erences for a ll of the buildings, they were also a sked a ssociat ions used were P earson product momentcorrelations. The closer together two points are, theto expla in why they liked the buildings in t he most

preferred group. more simila r w ere the eva lua tions of the buildingsma de by the t wo groups of students. By consideringthe relat ionship between the year groups in termsThe photographs of the similarity of their preferences for the build-ings, it is possible to infer how the length of timeThe 26 photographs were selected wit h t he help of a

leading architectura l educat or from his own collec- spent in architectura l education at each of theschools has inf luenced the s tudents evaluat ivetion of slides in order to represent as many of the

recent developments in architecture as possible. judgements. According to the principles of Fa cetTheory, the proposed ba ckground fa cets a re shownThe bui ldings shown in the photographs were

ma inly designed by well-known architects a nd rep- to be valid in t erms of their influence on ar chitec-tural preference if the plot can be partitioned intoresent a variety of building types. Previous research

ha s shown tha t t he buildings represent a ra nge of clear regions defined by the facet elements.

The results of the SSA are shown in Fig. 1. Thestylistic trends in contemporary architecture thatfall broadly within four main movements: Modern-ism, Post Modernism, High Tech and Neo-Vernacu-lar (Wilson & Cant er, 1990). Full details of t hebuildings can be found in Appendix 1.

Results

Th e social izati on of ar chi tectur al pr efer ence

For each group of 15 students in the sa me year oftraining at each school of architecture, the averagepreference score for each building was calculated.The resulting data ma trix ha s 26 rows of dat a, ea chcorresponding to one of the buildings. The 10 vari-ables in the analysis represented by 10 columns ofdata correspond to the 10 groups of students. Thecel ls of the matr ix contain the mean preferencescore for ea ch group for each building.

In order t o examine t he differences in architec-tural preference between the student samples, thedat a were analysed using Smallest Spa ce Analysis(SSA-I). Sma llest Space Analysis is a nonmetricMDS technique that represents a number of vari-

NorthernYear 6

NorthernYear 4

Northern

Year 3NorthernYear 2

NorthernYear 1

SouthernYear 1

SouthernYear 2

SouthernYear 3

*

SouthernYear 5

SouthernYear 6

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

F I G U R E 1. SS A plot of year groups with respect to the students

evaluations of the buildings.ables as points in geometric space. The distance


4/12

36 M. Wilson

coefficient of a liena tion is 0.1 in three dimensions. This supports t he first hypothesis of the study, th atprofess ional t ra ining in general plays a role inVectors 1 by 2 are shown. On the left-hand side of

the plot are the points that represent the two developing a system of evaluat ive concepts that are

applied to architecture. The development of thisgroups of first-yea r st udent s. The close proximit y ofthese points shows t hat the tw o first-year sa mples system of judgement is compara ble in two differentschools of architecture. In the first 3 yea rs of tra in-made very s imilar evaluat ions of the bui ldings,

despi te the fact that they were s tudying at di fferent ing, the s tudents in each year have remarkablysimilar views of architecture. However, the pointsschools (r = 0.83). Indeed, these two groups of

students a re more similar to each other than they representing the students in the fourth year at theSouthern Schools and the fifth year a t th e North ernare to the second-year students at their respective

schools. For the first- and second-year students at School diverge. The ana lysis shows tha t, whilemaintaining a similar change in their evaluation inthe Southern School, r = 0.77; for the f irs t - and

second-year students at the Northern School, r = general, with each successive year of training therealso develop more differences that can be associated0.58. This shows h ow q uickly th e student s ar e socia-

lized into the values of the profession. First-year with the specific school of a rchitecture a t whichthey are t ra ining. The points represent ing thearchitectural students are l ikely to be rather diff-

erent from a lay sa mple because of their interest in students in t he final yea r of their tra ining at eachschool are the furthest apart , indicating that i t isa nd, a lbeit brief, tra ining in architecture. Neverthe-

less, in this study they represent t hose with the these students w ho show the most school-specificdifferences. This supports the second hypothesis ofleast experience of architectural t ra ining and as

s uch a r e t h e clos es t t o la y opin ion . t h e s t ud y. Th e s a m e pr oces s t h a t s ocia l iz es ev a lu -a tive concepts t ha t a re common to t he profession asFollowin g each pa ir of year groups across the plot,

it is possible to chart the differences in a rchitec- a whole is likely a lso to socia lize a specific orien-ta tion in architecture t hat reflects the ethos of t hetural evaluat ion that result f rom the increasing

length of t ime spent studying at each school. The particular school of training. It is interesting t hatthe point representing t he final-year st udents a t t hesystemat ic and paral lel change in the s tudents

views in ea ch year of tra ining shows quite clearly Southern School doubles back a cross the plot. Thismeans tha t the f ina l -year s tuden ts a re in somethat architectural education socializes the students

in a s imilar wa y a t both schools of architecture. wa ys more s imilar to the f irs t -year s tudents than

NorthernYear 6

NorthernYear 4

Northern

Year 3NorthernYear 2

NorthernYear 1

SouthernYear 1

SouthernYear 2

SouthernYear 3

*

SouthernYear 5

SouthernYear 6

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

**

F IGURE 2. SS A plot of year groups with r espect to t he students evaluat ions of the buildings, partitioned according to school a nd year

of training.


5/12


the students in the middle years of tra ining. The resenting the similarit ies a nd differences betweenthe buildings with respect to the students evalu-parti t ionings of the plot for the two facets being

t est ed a re show n in F ig. 2. a t ions, it is possible t o revea l t he st ruct ure underly-

ing the student s judgements of the buildings.The results of t he first ana lysis have supportedthe t wo hypotheses of the s tudy, tha t the evalu- To examine the rela t ionship between the build-ings with respect to the evaluations made of them,at ions made by archi tectural s tudents systemat i -

cally change as a result of architectura l educat ion in full dat a for the 150 students judgements wereused. The 26 buildings were used as variables forgenera l, and tha t each part icular school of architec-

ture is likely to have an influence on the particular SSA and are therefore represented as the pointsin t he S SA plot. The closer t ogether tw o buildingsorienta tion of the students evaluat ive judgements.a re , the more s imi la r ly they a re l ike ly to havebeen judged across the whole s tudent sample,A model of architectural preference whether that is positively or negatively. Pearsonproduct moment correlations were used to generateThe third a im of the s tudy was to examine what

underlies architects evaluations of the buildings. the association mat rix.This visual representation of the structure ofContent analysis of the students explanations for

appreciating the buildings they did revealed a num- judgements allows the researcher to discoverwhether there are any similarit ies or differencesber of criteria for their evaluations. The principal

criteria cited were the construction or the materials betw een the buildings tha t might account for thesimilarity in the judgements made about them. Ifused, the way in which the building addresses i ts

funct ion, the theoret ical ideas behind the design, the s tudents were using the many and var iedcriteria that they reported in order to base theirthe form or scale of th e building, contextua l fit a nd

the account the bui ld ing takes of the user. eva lua t ions of the buildings, i t might be expectedtha t t he buildings would be distributed randomly inThus it ca n be seen t ha t th ere are ma ny different

reasons given for why a building is appreciat ed. the space. However, the resulting SSA plot, shownin Fig. 3 , shows a very clear s tylist ic s t ructureHowever, the use of SS A allows a n empirical a na ly-

sis of wha t underlies preference judgements with- underlying architectural preference. The tw o-dimensional solution ha s a coefficient of a liena tionout reliance on verbal feedback. B y visually rep-

of 0.2.Figure 3 below shows that the buildings can bepar t i t ioned according to the four main s tyles ofarchitecture: Modernism, P ost Modernism, Neo-Vernacular and High Tech. The model suggests, forarchitectural students, preferences are likely to bevery predictable within the four s tylist ic move-ments. If a student likes one pa rticular P ost Modernbuilding in the set, for example, it is likely that heor she will also like the other examples. The modelalso predicts that if the majority of buildings likeda re within one stylistic region of the plot, there ma yalso be preferred buildings from an adjacent region,but it is most unlikely that there will be buildingsfrom the opposite region. Thus if a student is ana dmirer of Neo-Verna cula r a rchitecture, t here ma ya lso be certa in P ost Modern buildings a nd/or cert a inModern buildings that also appeal, but i t is veryunlikely that he or she will appreciate High Techa rchitecture a s well.

Styl e and educati on

The results ha ve shown t ha t cha nges do occur in the

Post Modern

H igh Tech

Modern

Neo-Vernacular

F IGURE 3 . SSA plot of buildings with respect to 150 studentsstudents evaluat ive judgements as a result of t heevaluative judgements, part i t ioned according to architectural

style. length of time spent in a rchitectura l educat ion, a nd


6/12

38 M. Wilson

that the s tudents judgements are s t ructured Modern architect Terry Farrell . With each success-ive year at the Northern School, t he mean prefer-according to architectural style. The final section of

the results considers t he differences in judgement ence score for these buildings decrea ses, indicating

increasing preference for ea ch group of stu dents. Atbetween the students a t ea ch school with r espect t othe specific buildings used in the study. Exa min- the Southern School, the opposite is true, with eachsuccessive year liking these buildings less.ation of the mean preference score for each building

across the y ears of study shows which buildings With respect to Modern architecture, Figs 6 and 7show t he st udents average preference score for thebecome more or less well thought of by the students

a t each school. The results show tha t th e difference Ra tional style of Eisenma n an d Rossi. These build-ings a re not apprecia ted by the s tuden ts a t thebetween the two schools can be accounted for by the

students views of Modern and Post Modern Northern School , represented by high average pref-erence scores a cross a ll the years. In contra st , t hearchitecture.

Figures 4 and 5 show contra sting changes in the students in the later year s at the Southern Schoolra te these a rchitects work quite highly.students evaluation of the work of the British Post

6

8

21

Year of tr aining

A v

e r a g e p r e f e r e n c e s c o r e

5

7

6

4

2 3 4/5

3

F IGURE 4. Avera ge preference scores for TVAM for each yea r group at both schools. ( ) Northern School; ( ) Southern S chool.

6

9

31

Year of tr aining

A v


5

8

7

6

4

2 3 4/5

F IGURE 5. Avera ge preference score for Clifton Nurseries for each yea r group at both schools. ( ) Nort hern School; ( ) South ern

School.


7/12


Evidence f rom case s tudies suggests that these contented w ith the or iginal design that she hadredone the project. The same elevation of the new preferences are reflected in the students designs.

An interesting example wa s provided by one of the design is shown in Fig. 9. This part icular student

prov ided an oppor tunity to i llus t ra te how thefinal-year students at the Southern School. Thisstudent ha d completed her undergradua te tr a ining specific orienta tion of the school of architecture caninfluence the students architectural preferencesat a different school a nd had t ransferred to the

Southern School to complete the post-gradua te and subsequently the wa y in which they design.Finally, the results of the first SSA showed tha tdiploma. One of the elevations from the first design

she did during the fifth year a t the Southern School the fina l-year students a t both schools of ar chitec-ture w ere similar in some wa y in their evaluat ionsis shown in Fig. 8. At t he time of t he interviews for

this study, the student wa s nearing completion of to the first-year students. Examina tion of the meanpreference scores for specific buildings reveals anthe sixth a nd final year of her tra ining. During the

time she spent a t the Southern School, her views on interesting pa tt ern. At both schools of architecture,the buildings tha t t he first- and final-year studentsdesign ha d cha nged a great deal and she wa s so dis-

6

12

51

Year of tr aining

A v


7

6

2 3 4/5

11

8

10

9

F IGURE 6. Avera ge preference score for House VI for each year group at both schools. ( )Nort hern S chool; ( ) Southern School.

6

12

51

Year of tr aining

A v


7

6

2 3 4/5

11

8

10

9

F IGURE 7. Average preference score for G alleratese 2 Apartment Complex for each yea r group at both schools. ( ) Northern

School; ( )Southern School.


8/12

40 M. Wilson

F IGURE 8. Elevation from the original design.

both rat e highly are the same, i .e. the Neo-Vernacu- more global within a depart ment, for exam plethrough selection or self-selection of the staff.lar buildings But terworth House and WivenhoePa rk (F igs 10 and 11). These bui ld ings ga ined The result s have shown t ha t , for a rch itectu ra l

students, the underlying structure of architectura la pproval from the first-year students, w ere rejectedby the students in the middle of their tra ining and preference is ba sed on architectura l style. Despite

the variety of other seemingly objective conceptsw ere re-discovered by the fina l-yea r stu dents.used by the students to expla in t heir choice of pre-ferred buildings, the results show a very predictablepattern to architectural preferences based on theDiscussionfour main stylistic movements currently in vogue.This structure is virtually identical to that estab-The results of SSA support t he hypothesis tha t the

period of tra ining in schools of a rchitecture syst em- lished t o underlie the conceptualizat ion of ar chitec-ture based on nonevaluative concepts (Wilson &at ically instil ls an evaluat ive system chara cteristic

of the profession. The students a t both schools ha ve Ca nter, 1990). Not only do a rchitects use sty listicclassificat ions to organize their understa nding ofcomparable views of the buildings dependent on the

length of t ime spent in educat ion. Furthermore, architecture, but these results indicate that th issa me conceptua l structu re is also used to ma ke sub-specific differences exist bet ween t he stu dents eva l-

ua tive judgements tha t a re a ssociat ed with t he par- jective judgements in terms of personal preference.Content analysis of the students rationales forticula r school they a tt end, and these differences are

more pronounced for students who are in the la st 2 preference revea led ma ny possible explana tions ofwhy a building should be judged good or bad. Theyears of training.

Therefore i t appears tha t architects are ta ught concept that w as most rarely applied to their judge-ments was a rch itectu ra l s ty le, a l though th is i swha t to like. I t would be o f interes t to futu re

resea rch to consider wheth er the school-specific clearly the basis for their judgements. This suggestst h a t t h e s t u den t s a r e eit h er u na w a r e t h a t , orinfluence comes from one or two dominant view-

points within a school, or whether the orienta tion is unwilling to sta te tha t, architectural style deter-


9/12


West elevation

F IGURE 9. Elevation from the new design.

6

9

21

Year of tr aining

A v


5

8

7

6

4

2 3 4/5

3

F IGURE 10. Avera ge preference score for Wivenhoe Pa rk for each year group at both schools. ( ) Northern School; ( ) South ernSchool.

mines their evaluate judgements . I t i s possible that another s tudent may say the exact same of aw ooden Neo-Verna cular building.the rationale given for their preferences are those

concepts that actual ly define the s tyles. However, Examinat ion of the content of the evaluat ivejudgements shows that for these two schools ofthe same rationales are often presented in defence

of, or to dispa ra ge, quite opposite stylistic move- a rchitecture, the school-specific differences betweenthe students center on their opinions of Modern andments. For example, while one s tuden t might

believe tha t a concrete Modern building is made of P ost Modern a rchitecture. The results a lso showed

that, with respect to Neo-Vernacular architecture,honest mat erials and will sta nd the t est of t ime,


10/12

42 M. Wilson

6

9

31

Year of tr aining

A v


5

8

7

6

4

2 3 4/5

F IGURE 11. Average preference score for B utterw orth House for each year group a t both schools. ( ) Northern School; ( )Southern School.

there is some agreement between students at the Referencesoutset of t heir t ra ining and those near ing com-

B lau, J . (1980). A fra mework of meaning in a rchitecture.pletion. If students in their first yea r of tra ining are In G. Broadbent , R. Brunt & C. J encks, Eds, Signs,considered to be th e most similar t o nona rchitects in Symbol s and Arch i t ectu re . London: J ohn Wiley &their judgements, this suggests that it is Neo-Ver- Sons.

Ca nter, D . (1969). An int ergroup compar ison of connota -nacular a rchitecture, ra ther tha n P ost Modernism,t ive dimensions in architecture. Env i ronmen t and a s J encks (1977) suggests, tha t ha s t he potentia l toBehaviour, 1, 37 48.a ppeal t o a rchitects a nd nonarchitects a like. Devlin, K. (1990). An examinat ion of architecturalIt ha s often been suggested t ha t the role of a rchi-interpreta tion: ar chitects vs non ar chitects. J our nal of tectural psychologists is to esta blish w ha t a rchitects Ar chitectural and Plan ni ng Research, 7, 235 243.

Donald, I. (1994). The structure of office workers experi-should design in order to please their users. Onceence of orga nizat iona l environment s. Journal of Occu- the a ppropriat e style ha s been identified, ar chitectspational and Organizational Psychology, 67 , 241 258.would then be trained to design in that way. ThisDona ld, I. & Ca nter, D. (1990). Tempora l an d t ra it fa cetssuggest ion has not met with approval f rom the of personnel assessment. Appl ied Psychology, An

a rchitectura l profession. As long a s different schools I nternati onal Review, 39 , 413 429.Edw a rds, M. (1974). C omparison of some expectat ions oftra in a rchitects w ho appreciat e and design different

a sample of housing architects with known da ta . In D.styles of architecture, the richness and diversity inCanter & T. Lee , Eds , P scyhology and the Bu i l t the environment will be maintained. Rather thanEnvironment . London: Architectura l P ress.restricting designers to styles tha t the users a lreadyGroat , L. (1982). Meaning in P ost Modern architecture:

understand, environmental education for nonarchi- an examina t ion us ing the mult iple sor t ing task .Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 2 22.tects could result in greater appreciation of other

G roat, L. & Ca nter, D . (1979). Does Post Modernism com-styles. Once people understand the styles of archi- municate? Pr ogressive Ar chitecture , December, 84 87.tecture that make up their cities, there would be aHenschen, T. & Hershenson, D. B. (1975). Values, inter-var iety of different ta stes to be catered for by a var - ests and architectural preferences. M anEn vir onm ent iety of different architects. Systems, 5 , 239 244.

Hershberger, R. G . (1969). A study of mea ning a nd a rchi-tecture. In H. Sanoff & S . Cohen , Eds , E DR A 1 .R a dleig h: N or th C a r olin a S t a t e U n iver sit y,

Acknowledgements pp. 86 100.J encks, C. (1977). T he Language of Post M odern Ar chitec-

t u r e . London: Academy E ditions.The a uthor w ould like to tha nk G eoffrey B roadbentLawson, B. (1980). H ow Designers T hin k . London: Archi-for his help in select ing the photographs, the

tectura l Press.students and staff at both schools of architecture,Leff, H. S. & Deutch, P . S. (1974). Constr uing t he physica land Nicky in particular for providing copies of her environment: differences between environmenta l pro-

designs. f essiona ls and lay persons . In W. Pre iser, Ed .,


11/12


Envi ronmenta l Design Research , Vol . I , Se lected (14) Aldo Rossi. G a llerat ese 2 Apar tm ent Complex,Pa pers , EDRA 4. Univers ity of Mary land: EDRA,Milan , I ta ly. 1969 70.pp. 284 297. (15) J ames Stirl ing. Neue Sta at sgalerie, Stutt gart ,Lipman , A. (1970). Architectura l education a nd t he social

West G erma ny. 1985.commitment of contemporary British architecture.T he Sociol ogical Revi ew , 18, 5 27. (16) Cha rles Moore a nd William Turnbull. KresgeMackintosh, E. (1982). High in the city. In P. Bart, A. Col lege, Univers ity of Cal i fornia a t Santa Cruz,

Chen & G. Fra ncescato, Eds, Kn owl edge for Design , California, U.S.A. 1965 74.E D RA 13. U n iver sit y of Ma r yla n d: E D RA,(17) Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers. Pompidoupp. 424 434.Cent re, P a ris, Fr a nce. 1971 77.Nasa r, J . L. (1989). Symbolic m eanings of house style.

Envi ronment and Behaviour, 21, 235 257.Shye, S., E lizur, D . & Hoffman, M. (1994). I n t roducing

Facet Theory : Con ten t Design and In t r i n s i c D a ta Anal ysis in Behavioural Research . London: Sa ge.

Stringer, P. (1977). Participating in personal constructtheory. In D. Bannister, Ed., New Perspective in Per- sonal Construct Theory . London: Acad emic Pr ess.

Wilson, M. A. & Ca nter, D. (1990a ). The development of

professional concepts. Appl ied Psychology: An In ter- national Review, 39, 431 455.Wilson, M. & Ca nter, D. (1990b ). Whos who in architec-

ture: a study of architectura l heroes. In H. P am ir, V.Imamoglu &N. Teymur, Eds, Cul tur e, Space, H istory,Volume 5 . Anka ra : ME TU , pp. 43 54.

(7).Appendix 1: Building Details

(1) Foster Associat es, Sainsbury Centre for VisualArts, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk,

U.K. 1975 78.(2) P hilip J ohnson/B urgee Architects. AT&TB uilding, New York C ity, U .S.A. 1978.(3) Richard Meier. Museum fu r Kunsthandwerk,

Frankfurt, West Germany.(4) Michael Gra ves . Publ ic Service Bui lding,

Portland, Oregan, U.S.A. 1980.(5) Ta ft Architects. Municipal Control B uilding,

Quail Valley Utility District, Missouri City, Texas,U.S.A. 1978 80.

(8).(6) Robert Venturi. Addition t o Ca rol M. Newma nLibrar y, Virginia P olytechnic Inst itute, Bla cksburg,Virginia, U .S.A. 1970.(7) Terry Farrell . Cl if ton Nurser ies , Covent

Garden, London, U.K. 1981.(8) Terry Fa rrell. TVAM, Ca mden, L ondon, U.K.(9) Richardo Bofil. Le Theatre, Ville Nouvelle of

Ma rn e-la -Vallee, F ra nce. 1979 83.(10) Ma rio B otta . House, Viganello. 1980 81.(11) Quinlan Terry. Wivenhoe P ark, Essex, U.K.1962.(12) Fra ncois Spoerry. P ort G rimaud, Fra nce,1965 69.(13) Mies Van der Rohe. School of Architecture,Il l inois Insti tute of Technology, Chicago, U.S.A.

1962. (11).


12/12

44 M. Wilson

(24).

(18) Claude Megson. Wood Street Townhouses,Fr eeman s B a y, Aucklan d, New Zeala nd. 1974 75.(19) Claude Megson. Todd House, Rama Rama,

(14). Auckland, New Zea la nd. 1969.(20) L e C or bu sier. N ot r e-D a m e-d u-H a u t ,Ronchamp, France. 1950 54.(21) Mies van der Rohe. Seagram Building, New York, U .S.A. 1958.(22) Moore, P erez Associates, Inc., UI G and RonFilson. Piazza dI ta l ia , New Orleans, Louis iana ,U.S.A. 1975 80.(23) Pe ter E i senman. House VI , Connect icu t ,U .S .A. 1977.

(24) Tu rn er B r ooks . B u tt er w or th H ou se,St a rksboro, Vermont, U .S.A. 1973.(25) Alvar Aa lto. Church of Vuoksenniska, Ima tra ,Fin la nd. 1957 59.

(23). (26) Rica rdo B ofil an d Ta ller de Arquitectura . LaMura lla Roja, C a lpe, S pain. 1969 83.

Margaret a Wilson_The Socialization of Architectural Preference - JEP No. 16 (1996)

Documents

Transcript of Margaret a Wilson_The Socialization of Architectural Preference - JEP No. 16 (1996)