–  


 



 .

  
  
 
 

AESTHETIC PREFERENCES: A COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS BETWEEN ARCHITECTS AND STUDENTS
Dr. Husam Bakr Khalil
Faculty of Engineering at Mataria - Helwan University

Abstract:
Recent studies find that the prevailing belief that architects aesthetic preferences
equals that of non-architects to be not accurate. There is a need locally for
similar studies to facilitate understanding of aesthetic preferences differences
between architects and non-architects. Direct pragmatic consequences for
architectural design may result. A sample of residential buildings photos were
displayed to a group of architects and another group of non-architects followed
by a number of questions related to photo preferences and characteristics. A
statistical comparison was then performed and a number of differences were
identified.

: 



 ! )& *
  

  

  
!  " # $ %&
' ()


 +
   +$ ,- 
 %& ./! 0
1 .! +  . 

+$  $ +$   4/ - +   5
+$ . 
 678 9
%& 
 48 . 2
.
 2  +( #
2 : 
*
  

  
 2  +
  
, 
9
 +
 $ ;  5 
#' 
(

<( +(  
 .

(
2!  
$!  0 
" *=- 
>! 

 
( +( 

 .8 )
    25& '

'(   *
 .  ?25 +
   5


 
 .  +
 +
   +$ 

 %& - 
5 
.=- 

:  !
>5  '  –  .  –  
 .
 – +
  


 :
9  / @ *#A B +$  .
/ +  .)
 
+
   . 


C
2
' ( 48   " # $ +D$ .+
( =C 
 .(
 #
*9
  ' - 5 *
' () 78 1  
 .
  

  

 
7 . ; 

 
 E  
! )! *

 E  

 +
/ 
./ ) +$ >

 1  6 
 (/
   +  . 
 .7!
 +
   +$   
.
8 +  . 
 #
 +$ @  /

 
 7& 
@ - 
?' 78
 
%&  
 ,
  .5
+$ 
  


  +$ 

 +  =- +
   
  

 +
  
, 
 .
 +

+
 .  ' 
+( ,  47 *.
 & +

: *=-  

 
- E  


5 F >

0   +$  4 +(

  
A
! ! @ *
 =(& +( '$ G +

5 <H #
. 7 I' ) 8 >



 !
'  @ *
  

  +
   +$  $
  
 <  
 ! "  
 *

  +  4 
+(! .  +$
'  


.  

 =(&  ! *

 
 ! - .  =- =(&
.
 
 ! 9
  +
-J   . 7

: 
47 
 :' 
( =! 2  # %& #A B +$ 9   
"
*
 2  9
 2 #
 5  
( ' 
  
 / 8 $A


Groat .7
" . 
 #
 =! 2 
  ! *.
 
  +5 
+$ . '  ! 

  
 K
2  

 ?25

 +$ "
 =; ! (1988)
. @ 
 
 :& $ # 
 
8!   +   2  .
  

Stamps >
 
 .: 
(  
# 8 : 

  
! . 


E
 L2  
( '   " 
 +
    
+$ +
 =A K D (1995)
. 
 .

5 
(

<( +( ' +
   . 
+$ 
 =A
!
Zube " 
 rating scales 5 :'

  8 : $
 +( ,  $ ; 
=! Bishop (1983) ! Groat (1982) .

 
" .Sanoff (1970) 47 et. al, (1975)
@ .(

+ 5 
(

' 2
 
= $ multiple sorting +
 M
>A .(

 +$ 5 (  
  
 /
#
  (

 +$ 5 
 6

 =   ! 
 D =        . 2
 8

 
 
47 2  ' +$ :   +   
 =! +( ,  +$
 =A 78 .2

(
 :'
 <  "-  
Krampen (1980) "
" .  5
 +

*Elsheshtawy (1997)  " +   
 7 
 78 +$ . +5/ '   . 
.E +(

(& complexity . 
' 
:' +(
=!  " @
2
 ! <( +(

 =! + C
'$ Sanoff (1974) 
! .+;  E  . /
semantic +

 :'
 
 D 2
 ' 
8/
 
= +
  
5 
.5 

2" +(

 >7  6 Osgood et. al (1957) " >7  differential scale
:9
 +$ .
:
  #




  "      

#
'
     


 
 
image sampling +
 
!  
 K
2  9

 5  &  

9

(  & # 9  < >
 @ * 
 O2  

 
& +$ 90 + 
(  &  2  +$ #90
 ?25 +( )! ,  A <  >
  +$ 2 
.  
 +$ 
 =A 8 *?25 678 +$   +(




'$ *
  

  
   
.
8 +  . 
 ? 
$ 
!

5  "! =-  
 8 $ Kaplan (1973) 47 Hershberger (1969)
Nasar & 47 Alp (1984)! Valadez (1984) 
>! 
  
 *=- 
8;
Nasar (1989)

" .8; 
5  =-  8 "$ +( Kunaong (1987)
Vining
  
 *
  

5
  8 $ Devlin & Nasar (1989) 47
+$ 
 
 ! (QRRS) #

   .

'$ 
 . 2  8 $ (1992)

" .

5
 8
( ,  +    
 .
 ( 5 
8

 
 

 .  < +( .

5   
   "& +  .-
  ! Stamps (1991)


   +( 

8& G   ! O  & *.  
  +$ 7  ( O 

 : 

 ! Gifford  Graham (2001) 7
" 78 .>! 5   

+
 ( ' 
 !
 
! )& *9
 +
 +$ 
 >! "
0   +( #
'

<  =(J +$ 
  

 4 / ! 

 
!
 
 *

 
5  . 7
.+

> 
*
'  
9
.   . 
+$ ?25 


  
"
*=/ 

* *= * * 
A

( *,' K *+ J / *5 
9
+
 # >

(   +  ?25 ! Stamps (1993)
 @ *K'J *G 
!  +$ *+
 =(J 
+( , 9C    
* 
A

( *+
 

+( 9C  5  
   + J / *,' / 9
?25


 =(& +$ 4 /
" K  ! (SUUS)  

!

" .  =(J
 
' 
! Imamoglu (2000)
 
 *
J      +
 . 

 @ *9
  
'   +
 .  
 .
 =-  +( 9C 
*
   

'  .
( 
 +8 

' 
 +  .  !

 ! >
' H ! @
 G   ) 
 ! Nasar & Stamps (1997)

 +$ 8 
 

 .   2
 ,'A 9


 5 <
9 K'A  K  " ! (SUUS) 
 

" *
.  %& 
H . 
. +
 

  
%( 9C 
 ' 8! 
+8
 

:   

+
 #5 QV 
(

+$ =-  

 
( I ! '
+(  





 #

 5
+ '
+$ 85  #5 WX

( +
& 
 
  
@ 
K  



" +5"! $ '  ! 

( #G

 . 
 
 ;! *5

!
 #  +$ .C/! . 
  ! 5   +$ +(
" .
'  
  

( 
 #
 +
 
    #5
 

 .8 ) 9
%  QRRU
WX '  ( 5   
" .
' 
+( 
'   +
  8
9C
YA .(

 5 ( ,   #
  (

 5  / @ .(

%& #5


‫
 @   

> 
  '
‪6 9
 5 Z

( +( +2  ) "
" .‬‬
‫ ‪1G
5 Z %& $& *9
 #
 9
>! 5 Z *
2 #5
 -‬‬
‫
  ) ‪!
'  
 
.
+( >  ! (

 5 +$ +(
" .8‬‬
‫ '=  ‪.# 
 . 
 K‬‬
‫"
   !‪" =- 
= [R 
 +A : (


 
 (
$‬‬
‫ ‪
" . A I &  +$ 8
 ,
5 7 =-

( +
& 8 #
 ' +A‬‬
‫" )  (‪*& 5  '  + 
5$ ! +$ #
( +A " =- +‬‬
‫‪X[ 
 $ 

 ( 
! .
 ( 8G
+  . 

 
   A‬‬
‫

> !; 
 !(‪.  
 
  :
 .28 I‬‬
‫"
 (< ‪
! +$
  ." +$ power point O
 - 
=   =- +( 5‬‬
‫ 

‪ 
 ) I & 
'$ 

   
! .(  ) . 
 G
 .‬‬
‫

> (‪. ) I J
  
+$ 
 7 @ ( 
 5 
  #
 +‬‬
‫
  ‪.
 +$ 

  I-
G < +(  &   5
 5   ) G‬‬
‫!>   ‪. 67 .   V +( 5‬‬
‫‪:'
 
  
" .#5  :'
S\ +( 
/   ) #
 
5 
" 78‬‬
‫ 

‪
1 G! 
(

+(

 >7  '   7 semantic differential scale +‬‬
‫ ‪

  /
 :'
 +(

() :'
  
" .') #7
 .5‬‬
‫ ‪.
 "


C  9  < 
( .5  
.

" .& $J‬‬
‫ 
 

  ‪.-
  < I &    ) #
   .

" .5 F 

C‬‬
‫( "     (‪*5 \U +  
 
2" 
5 S\   
" . 
 ( +‬‬
‫"
(‪
 :'
+( .
/ @ *.  ,5  
.5 +( 
/ ! $ +‬‬
‫  '
 
‪.

     ' J   )    #" +"  G‬‬

‫‪٧ ٦ ٥ ٤ ٣ ٢ ١‬‬
‫‪  --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬‬ ‫ 
‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬هد ‬ ‫ﻡدﺡ ‬
‫‪  --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ر ‬ ‫ر ‬
‫‪  --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬‬ ‫ﻡ
‬
‫‪! --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬دی ‬ ‫ﻡة‬
‫ﻝ' ﻝ‪$ %‬ﺏ" ‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﻝ‪$ %‬ﺏ"‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﺏ‪ *+‬‬ ‫ﻡ)(ة‬
‫‪  --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﻡ‪ ,‬‬ ‫ﻡ‪ ,‬‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﻡ‪.‬ﻝ ‬ ‫را ‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﻡ!‪ /‬‬ ‫ﻡی ‬
‫‪10 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ة‬ ‫‪0‬ة‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﻡ‪3‬ﻝ‪ 02‬‬ ‫ی ‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﻡرة‬ ‫ﻡ‪ 40‬‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬اﺱﺕ‪ 5‬‬ ‫دی‪,‬ﻡ‪ 5‬‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬واﺽ ‬ ‫ﻡ‪ 8‬‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﺕ
(ی ‬ ‫ﻡ‪5‬ة‬
‫ ی; ‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ی; ‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﺽ)< ‬ ‫‪2‬ی ‬
‫‪2=! --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ا ‬ ‫ﻡ‪ 4,‬‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﻡ‪ 8,‬‬ ‫ﻡ‪/‬ﻥ‪ +‬‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬أرﺱا‪ $‬‬ ‫) ‬
‫‪  --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﻡ‪ !2,‬‬ ‫ﻡ‪ !2,‬‬
‫‪ --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﻡ‪<,‬ة‬ ‫ ‪.‬اﺏ ‬
‫‪ A --- --- --- --- --- --- ---‬ﺕ)‪@,/‬‬ ‫ﺕ)‪@,/‬‬

‫‬
 :    "#
:     ! & '   (  :$%
   +( ,  analysis of variance +

 +25J   =! 
  
5   
/"
+ 
$ .
 5 +
    
=-  


:O2  
&

١٤

١٢

١٠

Me
٦
an
RA Students
NK
٤ Architects
١.٠٠ ٣.٠٠ ٥.٠٠ ٧.٠٠ ٩.٠٠ ١١.٠٠ ١٣.٠٠ ١٥.٠٠ ١٧.٠٠
٢.٠٠ ٤.٠٠ ٦.٠٠ ٨.٠٠ ١٠.٠٠ ١٢.٠٠ ١٤.٠٠ ١٦.٠٠ ١٨.٠٠

Photo Number ;< =,%# %A B(::

  -@

#/(
A =-  


 
- =     25& )
7 $ +( 
 
*Q[ *QX *QS *QQ *QU *V *W *[ *\ "! 5 +8 */( 
9  
 5 
#5
678 =  +$   $
 
( +  5 =    78 + ) .QV *QW
*R *Z *X *S *Q 5 =  +$ ,-  48 !

" .=-  

  5


 
 '  <( + 
$ .Q /   
 =-  

  QZ *Q\
: 
 5 
#5  =- 

8(! @ *=-  


  ,- 
.
'$ (Q) " #5   ♦
./( +9 G
 8 C
G


 8(! 
 *:
 =   =-
 @ *
 +$ L   

 
)
 9! ! =-  
  7! 
 .Q(Eta2 = 0.15) 

 \,QS  =- X,QU 

.    ' A  ' J  E )   ) :J ,-  %&  (



 *+9 G
 

 8(!  +$ *,- 
! . (S) " #5 ♦
7! 
 .' 
 '
 +$ ' ! )! *  G
 8(! =- !


)*  +#,* -. / 01 23  4 23 !567 8 9#: Eta2 !( .!"#  !$%&   
         
   
.;< =,%#  =1 >%?



'  *(Eta2 = 0.14) ! (Eta2 = 0.22)  9!  

 ! %& 
.=- 
  
E & 9! 

 8  
 .=- 
(Eta2=0.17)
48 ! )& *=-  

  (X) " #5 =   ,- ) 
; ♦


 8(!  +$ .$A @ 
A @9 +$ + C ! +( 
=- :& %&   */( @9 =   =- 8(! *A =  
.

 
 9! C
  !
 @ (\) " #5 =  +(  (

    ,- 
 ) ♦
! +( #5 =- 0 +$  5  .QX G
 8   C
G

(mean = 

 
 ! 
(mean =3.63) (Eta2 = 0.11) G

  

.5.05)
+( 
  *    / G
 *

.  ([) " #5 ♦
.#5 =-  

 #E +$ $

' 
-J #
 .


 ) 
  +   (Z) " #5 
! ♦
>  +$ .=-  

  >8 ,-  
.
'$ *#5

 " G
 >! QW G
 +$ ! =- > :
 G
   ! 


9!  (Eta2 = 0.29) =- 
9! 

   678 =  .A
%& 47 7! 
 .(Eta2 = 0.29) '/  (Eta2 = 0.24)  7 (Eta2 = 0.22) )

(Eta2 = 

 (Eta2 = 0.14)   (Eta2 = 0.17) +" 9!  

 !
 ' ! (Eta2 = 0.11) I 9 (Eta2 = 0.27)   (Eta2 = 0.27) "/ 0.14)
.=- 
(Eta2=0.20)
  (Eta2 = 0.11)   (Eta2 = 0.11)
G
 .  @ * (

   
 5 
. (W) " #5 
! ♦
 @ *(Eta2= 0.10)   (& 9! =- ! +$ 5  .$-  +9
.(Eta2 = 0.13) 

 
 ! 
G

   !
. (

  ,  Q[ G
 8 C
G
.  (V) " #5 ♦
(Eta2= 0.10) )
 9! !  @ *

 >! 
$! $ =- >!
! "
 
 @ *#5 67 "
;   678 .(Eta2 = 0.12)  
.$! =  +( 5
=   +$ Q " #5    +$ .,-  
! . (R) " #5 ♦
; =   +$ ,- )  *:
 G
   ! 

 > =-  
 7 9! =- 8  . (

 
 '
 +$ ' @ >8

 
8 (Eta2 = 0.12)   (Eta2 = 0.10) #9& (Eta2=0.11) )
 (Eta2=0.15)
>"! (Eta2 = 0.10) #" 9! (Eta2=0.11)  9!   =- C 6
.

 
(Eta2 = 0.27)  
 >8 $
 
( 
:
 =   -  
; (QU) " #5 ♦
' & "/   )
 9!  @ 9! =- = ! )& * (


.

 
"
=-  

  D $A =  +$ 
9 G
 . & (QQ) " #5 ♦

9!    !  =- ! I9 D 
 8  $
 
(
.(Eta2 = 0.10) 



C
 >8 $ 
/( :
 8 C
G
. & (QS) " #5 ♦


G  (Eta2 = 0.13) #! 9!   

 ! I9 D =-  


.=- 
(Eta2 = 0.12)  ; (Eta2 = 0.13)
'  (Eta2=0.3)


 
   A  /( 
9 G
 . & (QX) " #5 ♦
8   +$ *

 E  
!! 8 (& 
I 
 +( =- 
>!  : '/ ; 

 8     "/  


=-
. 
#
 9
! 
! +8 *=- ( 

  (Q\) " #5 ♦
./( :
 =   =- 8(!   =   

 8(!
'$ *
-J
.(Eta2= 0.16) G

   ! 

  
=- ! L  */( >
 G
 8 
G
. & (Q[) " #5 ♦
(Eta2= 
E !(Eta2= 0.13)  (Eta2= 0.13)   9! #5  
.

 
(Eta2= 0.13)
' "! (Eta2= 0.13)   0.12)
,- & 
5 
. ! 9
 - +
 +   (QZ) " #5 ♦
  ! 

 > *=- >
 +9 =   #5    +$ * 
(Eta2= 0.12)  7 9! =- 8  @ .>8 ,-  8 / G

(Eta2= + "(Eta2= 0.2) #! (Eta2= 0.12) '/  (Eta2= 0.3) ) 

(Eta = I 9(Eta = 0.16) ' &(Eta = 0.10)   (Eta = 0.15)  0.19)
2 2 2 2

.

 
(Eta2= 0.14)
 (Eta2= 0.23)   (Eta2=0.11) #"0.13)

@9 G
 8 

'
G
  ! +( $  ! (QW) " #5 ♦

 *(Eta2=0.14)
' "! *(Eta2=0.15) F 9! #5 C 

 :&
.

 
9! (Eta2=0.15)    ! =- >
8  * (

  C   G
 8 
G
. & (QV) " #5 ♦
.(Eta2= 0.17)  9! 



:+ 
E-
  





( +( 8 ,- ) ! "
 

 ! =-  

   ) 
.Q
.(#5 QV 
5 W) 5 





 #
'
 ! 
  I  =- 
; +
-J   . 7 5 .S
$ 

   .QW *QZ *Q[ G 
   
-J 5 9-9 - 
/  +$ ( 9A  .
 +$  9A +8 Z #5 . @ *, 


! *  
G
. 
'$ K  
+8 Q\ #5 
 *
+8
.
'$ /    ! )& L 
 

' 9A +8 V #5


 
+
-J   . 7 5 D$ 
( 5 .

 
;
*7 87! = . 7   67$  >! +( .  ! )! *=- (
9C . 7 V *Z "! 5 5  G  ! +$ @  >
 4/ 48 ! @
.
$ 
  

 >! +( + 

'$ QV *QZ *QU *S "! 5 +$ 9
+   -  +  9
^   .X
 7 =- ( 

 
( 9A +8 S " #5 .
+$ QZ #5 
! .
  
    ' = +$ QU #5 
! *

./ G
    

 = ) +9 G
   @ =- =


 :& ! +$ 9
 =-  

   .  G
   QV " #5
QZ #5 ! =- > @ * 

 :& :( .  +" =-
9! =- D$ *
( 5  .: 

 > 
 S #5 
" 9!
  +$  ! )& *" 9!  

 
- 9
A  (&
." .
=-  

 
; 
$ QS *\ 5 +$ 9

  '  5   .\
.7 ,-  

L
-
 : -
  *

  =- 
  

$ QW *W  5 
! .[
.W #5
' 


G 


5 

 
2' 7 +$   
 *

 H #5 $!   R " #5 .Z
.47 +$ 
8
'  

G 
=  


(

*
(

:.(

@-9 %& $A =  = 5 ' 
 .W
:
; >! *

*,- - (

 5 $! +8 QW *QU *W "! 5 ! +(  4$ ♦
 " 
9! 
S #5 
8 =   +$ ,- 
 
 5 %& $&
.=-  " 
9! 
R #5 
 *




 '
 +$ ' QV *Q[ *Q\ *QQ *[ 5 ! +(  & ! 48 ♦
.$A =  @
.
; 5 +8 QX *QS *V *\ *X 5 ! +(  &
 
 ♦
 ! 48 D$ *QZ *Q\ *R *Z *X *S *Q 5  ,-
 
; +( ♦
+" +( ,- 
! *QZ *Q\ *Z *Q 5 +8   ,- 
. 5
  S / .  '
: 
=    ,- $ 5
..  .5 +
& +$ =-  



5
‫ ب‬
4 ‫ر‬


  
   

  !  

D
 ' I(J 
 
 *5 

 (& "! 

 ! (S) / 
L  .V
*"/ * ) *  *+" *#! *
 * 7 .5 =- 
"!
I(J 

  6 48 
 .  *#' *I 9 *' J *=(J *: 
(Eta2 ) " .   ! )& *
'  $C
 #5 F 
 +(! '
L  =(& +( QW *QZ *QU *R *W +8 5 [ .E
" .(.5 
 < 0.1
'  : +( '$  5 .E 
 *=-   ( X 
"! ' ) =- 

.W *Z 5 +8 

  
=(& ! multiple regression analysis +

 +25J =A 
   .R

   *

 *:  *"/ *+" ?25    .  



 .(R2= 0.67) E )  ' J  +" =-     
 *(R2=0.6) 


.5 +" +$   '$ +" +$ =- 

 / 

 C '
.  =(J +$ #90


:     ! * '  : )

  E +  ' +( ,  <H factor analysis +
   =! 
  

 .  ' +  +
 $ %& 5  *.  %& =-  

 


-   =A :  


   +  .5 ,5 
" .=-  



(

   48
 
7& ! +
*factors 
( %& =-  


+(  (

 
 +
   I & 
" .
  
( +$ 

   D$ .5

.  %& (

 0 +$ ,- )   /  
+( ,  <H 6

:O2  /"
+ 
$ . 


.H  
%[W ( 2

( X 48 !
 *=-  
* 7 *
 *=(J .5 
  H  
 A / ( 2
  A 

. ) ! * ' A *  *#' *"/ *
  *' J *  */  *+"
.

  *#! * ) *F *A *
G) *
'  
  +9 

.:   E ) 
  @9 


.H  
%ZX ( 2

( 9-9 ! 48 *

  
*' J *  */  *+" * 7 *
 *=(J .5 
  A 

.   *#' *"/ *
 
.K  *  *

 *#! * ) *A 
  +9 

.:   E ) *I
 *  *F *  
  @9 


:+ A 1     



I 9  +" 
  7  
 +
  +$ =-  

 4 / .Q
'  .5 %& , =-   ! )&    "/  #'  G
  ' J 
=-    ' A 
   A 8 $ 8 * ' A   )
+
"  )   ! 
 *=- 87 +$ 
+(
 > 
  6

.
' 
 +$ ,
" 

 :J !

E
3 2 1

0 / .

- , +

F
0 / .

" "" "#

# # #

"& "% "$

# # #

") "( "'

# # '#


   $ *=- ( 

   (  :()
'  
+$ ,- 
 .S

( E ) 
(   
( :  
   
G) 
'  D$ 


#!   )   H   
G) 
'  D$ =-   
 *F


     
"

'  C + 

*F 
( 

 
.

  #!   )  ) =- + &
 
   
  )
(
  !    H  

   )  #! +
  

   .X
!   @ 8 $ 8
'  =-   +
 :   
 *
' 
( E <H 9
 

 .8 ) 

 87 +$   '  .5
.#
! 
'  ( E <H
'  
  =- 
 8
' 

 +(  
 
 *
'   
  /
 
   


 ) .\
.I 
 +( 

  =-
'    

:  4  #' "#

+$ +
 .
 6 

  
 
 :& $ 6 +$ #  
 678

: 
( 7 '
$ %& 5 
(
>! .  + 1  # +8 5

.

   7 ( ,  
 ; ! '  . 
 . >7   
 ! =-  

   ) 
! 

 O2  


( +!  
 .5
"
+
-J   . 7 +
 ! .5 





( +( 8 ,- ) ! "
 

 ! )& *

 ( =- 
- +
 
 =- ( 

 

*I 
 +( =-  


 
; '  +
 ! 
 *" .   +$


 


'   K  




   9
  +  +
 
.  

 =(& ! *=- 
5 

 (& "! 

 ! *=- 
  =(J   
 


   *

 *:  *"/ *+" ?25  
.E )  ' J  +" =-
I 9  +" =-  

 >
  7  
 +
  %& !  
 .5
 ) '  .5 %& , =-   ! )&    "/  #'  G
  ' J 

( <"    >7  complexity
'  
+$ 
 ,- 
 
 * ' A 


  #!   )   H   
 *

 >
 <
H  2 /   

 *
'   
  #/
"-(
 . 9& %& 5     
 *=- >
 <
H 
.I 
 +( 

  =-
'      +(  

! )& *
  

  +
   +$  $
 < 5 . 9  
 O2 

C  5 . 9
" 78 .  9&      +(
'  
9C $
. 7 .  

 =(& ! *

 
 ! - .  =- =(&
." .  ! )& =- 
 ! 9
  +
-J  
 #

    ) 
$ .
 O2  


   ! 
 O2  678
.8 ) / -H  
 5 <  
( ! 5 +$ I  * (



 :  
$
! 
 *$   ;
H .8 ) (
    ;

.


  
 + +

5 +$ 




C   
.  /
. 
 .$  9
8 ( 
 O2  67$  >! +(
+$ +
 O
 7A # +5 .2  
 +$ K/  "  5 
( !  5
+
 .  "-(  
 8
  *
 . 


( ,' )  ' 
. 


#
(' +8 . 
 678 O2   ! *#
 +(    .
 
8A 8  

.
 > 
I' )$ * 
 .
 
E
./  .)
>! 
 + 
< +$ @
 

   +
 .  
 I-



' 9!  
 2 

 ;
   ' )
( "  ! *=H 8 
 
>! 
 ! *

.
  

 E 

REFERENCES:
Alp, A. (1984): Aesthetic response to geometric organization of architectural space. In D. Duerk & D.
Campbell (Eds), The challenge of diversity. EDRA 15:
Brown, G; & Gifford, R (2001): Architects Predict Lay Evaluations Of Large Contemporary Buildings:
Whose Conceptual Properties? Journal of Environmental psychology. No. 21 pp: 93-99, 2001.
Devlin, K & Nasar, J. (1989): The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of high versus
popular residential architecture and public versus architect judgement of same. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. No. 9, pp 333-344.
Kaplan, R. (1973): Predictors of Environmental Preference: Designers and Clients. In EDRA 3: Proceedings
of the first annual environmental design research Association conference (pp. 6-7-1 to 6-7-5).
Hershberger, R. (1969): A study of Meaning and Architecture. In H. Sanoff, & S. Cohen, (eds), EDRA 1:
Proceedings of the first annual environmental design research Association conference (pp. 86-100).
IMAMOGLU C. (2000): complexity, liking and familiarity: architecture and Non-architecture turkish
students' assessments of Traditional and modern house facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
No. 20, pp 5-16.
Nasar, J & Kunaong, C. (1987): Architect and lay judgement of architecture: Do they really differ? In J.
Henning (Eds.), Public environments, EDRA: Proceedings of the first annual environmental design
research Association conference.
Nasar, J, & Stamp, A. (1997): design review and public preferences: effects of Geographical location, public
consensus, sensation seeking, And architectural styles. Journal of Environmental psychology. No. 17 pp:
11-32, 1997.
Nasar, J (1989): Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and Behavior, 21, 235-257.
Osgood, C., Suci, G., and Tannenbaum, P. (1957): The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press.
Stamps, A. (1993): Advocacy Membership, Design Guidelines, and Predicting Preferences for Infill
Designs. Environment & Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, May 1993, pp: 367-409.
Stamps, A. (1995): Dolan, Daubert, & contextual urban design principles. 26th Annual Conference of the
Environmental Design Research Association. Pp 60-65.
Valadez, J. (1984): Diverging meaning of development among architects and three other professional
groups. Journal of Environmental Psychology. No. 4, pp 223-228.
Vining, J. (1992): Environmental emotions and decisions: A comparisons of the responses and expectations
of forest management, an environmental group, and the public. Environment and Behavior, 24, 3, 34.



0
.12
345 

6

7 89:
;<= >?  >@A :*
+, - .

  :(EE) !,% G"H
.G P !#$ !
&MQ !( – G%LM 2N O%" !
% .G
; H83 ?IJKA G 7 (C 9
D E*)
W&X 
&MQ YZ  .QJ9
 R@8 S 81T U
9O
P  M
>@
  N
- O
:(FF) R6S -1 T&U V
.!,-6# !(M? !(-1