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



AbstractThis 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 the
investigation. 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.
KeywordsAesthetic 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. From
the 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 wide
coverage; 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
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) 124
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. LITERATURE 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 environmentform 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 visual
richness 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 of
environment, 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 individual
attributes 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.
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) 125
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 the
managers 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 faade. 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 between
modernism 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.
AnAn

.a.
.a.
AnAn
Observer (O)
(personality, affective state, intention, cultural experience)
Perception (P)
(of building
attributes)
Cognition (C)
Judgment of
building
attributes
Affect (a)
(Emotional
reactions)
Affective
Appraisals (aa)
Connotative
meanings
Aesthetic Response
affect, physical reaction, and behavior
Pa1
Pa2
Paa
PP1
PC
PP2
PO1 PO2
P1
P2
Pn
P3
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) 126
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 as
space (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 to
1, 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 masters 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 Attributes 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 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 Bartletts 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
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) 127
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
went down a bit to .809, reduced by .136, still the 30
questions had high reliability. Bear in mind that numbers of
questions usually lead to decreasing reliability. As for factor
analysis, results from KMO and Bartletts 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 Attributes 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)
F
a
c
t
o
r

1


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
F
a
c
t
o
r

2


A19
FC: B-Mysterious Sensation
PA: modern, sensual, colorful, lavish
atmosphere
VF: genius shape of line, modern space
elements, avant-garde color and lighting
F
a
c
t
o
r

3

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
F
a
c
t
o
r

4


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
F
a
c
t
o
r

5


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
F
a
c
t
o
r

6


A98
FC: F- Exaggerating Change
PA: vivid, twisted and deformed,
paradoxical, oppressed
VF: 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
F
a
c
t
o
r

7


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
F
a
c
t
o
r

8

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&t
ask=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. Descriptive 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
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) 128
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 Evaluation
Results (n=1167)
Ranking
a

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 .748
a
ranking by its evaluated score, 1 is the highest, -1 is the lowest,
b
aesthetic evaluation average range from 1 to 5.
4.5. Variance Analysis/ t Test
Variance analysis was used to further understand three
individual attributesgenders, 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
Ti
Gender
a
(average
b
SD) Levene Test
Significance
t Test Significance
(two-tail)
d

Comparison
Male (1) Female (2)
Factor 2
B-Mysterious
Sensation
3.152.594 3.056.633 .290 .010 12
Factor 3
C-Streamline
Tension
3.811.566 3.915.626 .013 .004 12
Factor 7
G-Sentimental
Fashion
3.378.650 3.508.684 .094 .001 12
a
Gender: 1, male n=443; 2, female, n=724b 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 no
consistency 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 Scheffes 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.




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) 129
Table 4: Results of Grade t Test
Factor
Grade
a
(Average
b
SD)
F
Scheffes
Method Freshman (1) Sophomore (2) Junior (3) Senior and above (4)
Factor 3
C-Streamline Tension
3.908.621 3.914.621 3.835.575 3.621.508 4.742 1,24
Factor 4
D-Refined Steadiness
2.961.756 2.687.715 2.665.718 2.601.847 13.634 12,3,4
Factor 6
F-Exaggerating Change
2.942.948 2.777.921 2.876.872 3.232.733 5.040 42
Factor 7
G-Sentimental Fashion
3.519.665 3.459.688 3.425.651 3.244.726 3.234 14

a
freshman 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 rational
criticism [Tsui, 1992]. Life experience and knowledge
learning promote students comprehension along the learning
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 Test
Significance
t Test Significance
(Two-Tail)
d

Comparison
Design Major (1) Non-design Major (2)
Factor 1
A-Simple Clarification
3.35.584 2.908.649 .016 .000 12
Factor 3
C-Streamline Tension
3.834.598 3.916.611 .393 .020 21
Factor 4
D-Refined Steadiness
2.668.772 2.866.711 .028 .000 21
Factor 5
E-Pure Nature
3.426.663 3.318.648 .744 .005 12
Factor 7
G-Sentimental Fashion
3.387.672 3.530.668 .829 .000 21
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.
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) 130
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 modern
technology 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 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.
Without a doubt, constructed by education, training, and
experience, the foundation of cognition comprehension
is definite to affect ones 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 same
aesthetics 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 of
Beauty, 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 Carolina
State University.
[6] W. Tatarkiewicz (1970), History of Aesthetics, The Hague:
Mouton.
[7] R.W. Seaton & J.B. Collins (1970), Validity and Reliability of
Ratings 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 User
Responses to Buildings, Editor: G. Davis, Man Environment
Interaction: Evaluations and Applications, the State of Art in
Environmental 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: An
Examination 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 of
the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design, New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
[19] C. Martindale & K. Moore (1988), Priming, Prototypicality
and Preference, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, Vol. 14, No. 4.
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) 131
[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: The
Ohio 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: Some
Preliminary Comparisons of High versus Popular Residential
Architecture and Public versus Architect Judgments of Same,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9.
[25] L. Groat & C. Despres (1991), The Significance of
Architectural 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 Development
Research, Taipei: Shtabook.
[27] A.M. Mead & J.P. McLauglin (1992), The Roles of
Handedness and Stimulus Asymmetry in Aesthetics
Preference, Brain and Cognition, Vol. 20, No. 2.
[28] S.C. Scott (1993), Visual Attributes related to Preference in
Interior Environment, Journal of Interior Design Education
and Research, Vol. 18, No. 1 and 2.
[29] S.F. Feagin (1995), Beauty. In R. Audi (Ed.), The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University 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 the
Integration 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: Oxford
University Press.
[33] A.E. Stamps (2000), Psychology and the Aesthetics of the
Built Environment, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[34] R. Gifford, W.H. Donald, M-C. Werner, J.R. DArcy & T.S.
Kelly (2000), Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model
Approach 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. 6364
[36] P.T. Han (2004), Aesthetics by Pao-Teh Han, Taipei: Linking
Publishing.
[37] I.S. Hsieh (2005), The Environmental Preference Factors of
the Interior Space: An Example of Residential Dining Rooms,
Masters Thesis, Department of Interior Design, Chung Yuan
Christian University.
[38] Japanese Society of Commercial Space Designers (2005),
2005 JCD Design Award, Tokyo, Japan: Japanese Society of
Commercial Space Designers.
[39] C.J. Hsu (2005), The Preference Factors of Formal Aesthetic
in Commercial Space: An Example of Clothing Stores,
Masters 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, Masters 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 Contemporary
Architecture 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 its
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 TID
Gold Award of Interior Design Award 2007, Taipei: Chinese
Society of Interior Designers, Taipei. (in Chinese)
[47] Japanese Society of Commercial Space Designers (2007),
2007 JCD Design Award, Tokyo, Japan: Japanese Society of
Commercial Space Designers.
[48] I.Y. Chen (2007), The Visual Preference of Primary School
Space: Students of Third Grader or Higher as Example,
Masters Thesis, Department of Interior Design, Chung Yuan
Christian University.
[49] B. I & Y.C. Lin (2008), The Trend of Empirical Studies of
Aesthetics 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,
Masters Thesis, Department of Interior Design, Chung Yuan
Christian University.
Shih-Yung, Liu. Assistant Professor,
Department of Interior, Chung Yuan
Christian University
Ph.D Program in Design, Chung Yuan
Christian University. Academic Specialty:
Interior Design, Environmental Behavior,
Post-occupancy Evaluation, Interior Design
Professional Competence. He teaches Interior
Design, Research Data Analysis Methods,
Project Management and Evaluation, Design Management and
Residence Research for Elderly. Professional Experiences: Deputy
CEO, iiDesignCenter, Chung Yuan Christian University, Executive
Director, Association of Taiwan Interior and Space Design,
Director, Chinese Society of Interior Designers, Member, Asia
Pacific Space Designers Alliance, Member, International Federation
of Interior Architects/Designers, Design Consultant, Fine Arts
Association of Miaoli County, Executive Editor, Taiwan Interior
Design.