CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF ARCHITECTURE: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

Abstract

The idea that environmental preferences are not solely determined by the characteristics of individuals, but instead are socially constituted, has fundamentally challenged many traditional psychological analyses of landscape preference and meaning. In this paper, an attempt is made to suggest that the two interpretations are by no means incompatible, and that there is a growing need for an environmental psychology that recognizes the importance of both individual and social factors. Drawing on traditions within European social psychology, this paper demonstrates how the quantitative analysis of social representations can be used to identify both differences and commonalities in peoples' interpretations of architecture. Specifically, this study reports on one segment of a larger empirical study investigating differences in architectural interpretation between planners, planning students and public respondents. These interpretations were examined using multiple sorting techniques, with respondents asked to sort 15 examples of contemporary architecture according to their own criteria. INDSCAL analysis of this data facilitated the recognition of a shared conceptualization of these architectural stimuli, but also demonstrated a number of important inter-group and inter-individual differences in architectural interpretation, which were evident as variations from this common conceptualization. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of this study for research in environmental psychology, particularly stressing the need to consider notions of power and ideology.