Perceptual Evaluation of the Mosque Facades of Different Periods: Preference, Complexity, Impressiveness, and Stimulative

It was aimed in this study to determine the effects on the perceptual evaluations of participants for the design differences of mosque facades that were shaped according to periods, countries and architectural trends within the geographical boundaries where the Islamic religion spread. With this purpose, 100 participants treated in 3 groups (Seljukid period, Ottoman period and Turkish Republic Period) were evaluated with the semantic differentiation scale, which covered the variables of preference, complexity, impressiveness and stimulative of the facade visuals of 16 different mosques. In conclusion, the data obtained on the mosque visuals, which were used in the survey study, showed that there was a statistically significant differences among the variables of complexity, preference, impressiveness and stimulative and it was determined that there was a reverse U-shaped relationship between the variables of preference and complexity in the evaluation of mosque. Then, to examine the effect of age, gender and education level on participants evaluations of the mosque visuals, the one-way analysis of variance was applied. Accordingly, it was determined that the male participants displayed a more negative approach compared to female, middle-aged participants (36-50 years of age) compared to young participants (22-35 years of age), participants with higher education compared to participants with secondary education. According to results; the Ottoman period mosques were more complex compared to the others, they were preferenced more and found to be even more effective and stimulating.

Farklı Dönem Cami Cephelerinin Algısal Değerlendirilmesi: Karmaşıklık, Beğeni, Etkileyicilik ve Uyarıcılık

Bu çalışmada, ülkelere, mimari akımlara ve dönemlere göre farklı olarak yapılmış cami cephelerinin insanlar tarafından nasıl algılandığının irdelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda, Osmanlı, Selçuklu ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi olmak üzere 3 farklı gruba ayrılan 16 adet cami cephe görseli, 100 kişi tarafından anket yolu ile analiz edilmiştir. Anketlerde karmaşıklık, beğeni, etkileyicilik ve uyarıcılık olarak seçilen dört farklı sıfat çifti beş basamaklı anlamsal farklılaşma ölçeği ile değerlendirilmiştir. Yapılan analizlerle seçilen değişkenler arasındaki farklılıkların istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışmada cami görselleri üzerinden elde edilen verilerin karmaşıklık, beğeni, etkileyicilik ve uyarıcılık gibi kavramlar arasındaki ilişkisi tespit edilmiş ve beğeni ile karmaşıklık arasında ters U şekilli bir ilişkinin olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışmada yaş, cinsiyet ve eğitim düzeyi gibi sosyal faktörlerin cami algısında ne ölçüde etken olduğunu saptamak için tek yönlü varyans analizi yapılmıştır. Analizlere göre erkek katılımcıların kadınlara göre camilerin algısal değerlendirmesinde daha seçici ya da eleştirel oldukları tespit edilirken, orta yaş (36-50 arası) katılımcıların genç (22-35 arası) katılımcılara göre daha eleştirel olduğu görülmüştür. Benzer şekilde eğitim seviyesinin artması da cami değerlendirmesinde seçiciliği artırmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre, Osmanlı dönemi camilerinin diğer dönemlere ait camilere göre daha kompleks olduğu görülmüş buna rağmen daha çok beğenilmiş ve etkileyici bulunmuştur.

PDF

___

Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C. & Kilicoglu, O. (2009). “Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house facades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. No.1, pp. 124-132.

Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C. & Saylan, A. (2010). “Users’ evaluations of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness”, Open House International, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 57-65.

Akalin-Baskaya, A. & Yildirim, K. (2007). “Design of circulation axes in densely-used polyclinic waiting halls”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42, pp. 1743–1751.

Arslan, H.D. & Ceylan M. (2012). “Judging Primary School Classroom Spaces Via ANN Model”, Gazi University Journal of Science, Vol. 25, No. 1, 245-256.

Aydıntan, E. (2001). “An Experimental Study On Effect of Surface Coating Materials to Indoor Perception”, Karadeniz Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, MSc Thesis, Trabzon, Turkey.

Ayyıldız, A. (2000). “Sensory-Cognitive-Emotional Process of Human-Environment Dialectic Environmental Perception-ITmeaning”, Istanbul Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, MSc Thesis, Istanbul.

Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi. Y. (1988). “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, pp. 74-94.

Başkaya, A., Dinç, P., Aybar, U. & Karakaşlı, M. (2003). “A Test on Formation of Spatial Image: The Main Entrance Hall of Education Block of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Gazi University”, Journal of Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Gazi University, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 79-94.

Başkaya, A., Yıldırım, K. & Muslu, M. S. (2005). “Functional and Perceptual Quality of Polyclinic Waiting Halls: Ankara Ibni Sina Hospital Polyclinic”, Journal of Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Gazi University, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 53-68.

Baytin, Ç. (1994). “An Approach to Historic Environment in New Building Case, In a Practical Model for Istanbul Example”, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, Istanbul Technical University, PhD Thesis, Istanbul Turkey.

Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the new experimental aesthetics. New York: Wiley.

Berlyne, D. E. (1977). The new experimental aesthetics and environmental psychology. In P. Suedfeld, J. A.

Biaggio, M. K. & Supplee, K. A. (1983). “Dimensions of aesthetic perception”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 114, pp. 29-35.

Bosma, H., Marmot M.G., Hemingway H., Nicholson A.C., Brunner E. & Stansfield S.A. (1997). “Low job control and risk of coronary heart disease in Whitehall II (prospective cohort) study”, BMJ, Vol. 314, pp. 558–565.

Brown, G. & Gifford, R. (2001). “Architects Predict Lay Evaluations Of Large Contemporary Buildings:Whose Conceptual Properties?”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 93-99.

Capanoglu, A. (2014). “The Impact of User Preferences Using in Living Room Styles Within Dwellings”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Gazi University.

Crozier, J.B. (1974). Verbal and explorotary responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level.

Daroff, K., & Rappoport, J. E. (1992). “Elements of a typical office facility. In J. E. Rappoport, R. F. Cushman, & K. Daroff (Eds.)”, Office planning and design desk reference. Wiley Inter-Science.

Day, L. L. (1992). “Placemaking by design: Fitting a large new building into a historic district”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 326-346.

Devlin, K. & Nasar, J.L. (1989). “The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of “high” versus “popular” residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 333-344.

Devlin, K. (1990). “An examination of architectural inter-pretation: architects versus non-architects”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 7, pp. 235-244.

Dinç, P. (2009). “Gender (in) difference in private offices: A holistic approach for assessing satisfaction and personalization”, Journal of Environmental Phscology, Vol. 29,No. 1, pp. 53-62.

Dube, L. & Morgan, M.S. (1996). “Trend effects and gender differences in retrospective judgments of consumption emotions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23: pp.156-162.

Dunn, J. V. & Hayes, M. V. (2000). “Social Inequality, Population Health, and Housing: A Study of two Vancouver Neighborhoods”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 563- 587.

Erdoğan, E., Akalın A., Yıldırım K., & Erdoğan A. (2010). “Aesthetic Differences between Freshmen and Pre-architects”, Gazi University Journal of Science, Vol. 23, No.4, pp.501-509.

Erdoğan, E., Akalın A., Yıldırım K., & Erdoğan A. (2010). “Students’ evaluations of different architectural styles”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 875–881.

Evans, G. W. (2003). “The Built Environment and Mental Health, Journal of Urban Health”, Bulletin of the New York Academy Medicine, Vol. 80, No. 4, pp. 536-555.

Frewald, D. B. (1989). “Preferences for older buildings: A psychological approach to architectural design”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.

Füeg, F. (1981). Elements of Architecture, (Translated by Kazmaoğlu, M) No. 39, pp. 28-32, YEM Publication, İstanbul.

Gifford, R., (1980). “Judgements of the built environment as a function of individual differences and context”, Journal of Man-Environment Relations, Vol. 1, pp. 22-31.

Gifford, R., Hine D. W., Müler-Clemm, W., Reynolds,nD. J. & Shaw, K. T. (2000). “Decoding Modern Architecture: A Lens Model Approach for Understanding the Aesthetic Differences of Architects and Laypersons”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 168-187.

Gifford, R., Hine, D. W., Clemm, W. M. & Shaw, K. T. (2002). “Why Architects and Laypersons Judge Buildings Differently: Cognitive Properties and Physical Bases”, Journal of Architectureal and Planning Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 131-148.

Grewal D, Krishnan R, Baker J and Borin N. (1988). “The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.74, pp. 331-352.

Groat, L. (1982), “Meaning in post-modern architecture: anexamination using the multiple sorting task”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 3-22.

Hershberger, R. G. (1969). A study of meaning and architecture. In J. L. Nasar, (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175-194.

Hershberger, R. G. & Cass, R. (1974). Predicting user re-sponses to buildings. In J. L. Nasar, (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195-211.

Herzog, T. R., & Gale, T. A. (1996) “Preference for urban buildings as a function of age and nature context”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 44-72.

Herzog, T. R., & Shier, R. L. (2000). “Complexity, age, and building preference”. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 32, pp.557–575.

Holbrook, M. and Schindler, R., (1994). “Age, Sex, and Attitude toward the Past as Predictors of Consumers’ Aesthetic Tastes for Cultural Products”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, 412-22.

Hubbard, P. (1994). “Professional vs lay tastes in design controlöan empirical investigation” Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 9, pp.271-287.

Imamoglu, C. (2000). “Complexity, preference and familiarity: architecture and nonarchitecture Turkish students’ assessments of traditional and modern house facades”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol.20, pp.5–16.

Joyce, M. L. & Lambert, D. R. (1996). “Memories of the Way Stores Were and Retail Store Image”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 24, pp. 24-33.

Kaplan, R.M. & Saccuzzo, D.P. (2009). Psychological Testing Principles, Applications, and Issues. 7th Edition. (Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth).

Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. & Wendt, J.S. (1972). “Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material”. Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 354-356.

Kobayash, K. & Sato, M. (1992). “Type Ia Supernova Progenitors, Environmental Effects and Cosmic Supernova Effects”, Type Ia Supernova: Theory & Cosmology, pp. 63-89.

Krupinski, E., & Locher, P. (1988). “Skin conductance and aesthetic evaluative responses to non representational works of art varying in symmetry”, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, Vol. 26, pp. 355-358.

Küller, R. (2002). “The Influence of Light on Circarhythms in Humans”, Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science, Vol. 21, pp. 87–91.

Küller, R., Ballal, S., Laike, T., Mikellides, M. & Tonello, G. (2006). “The Impact of Light and Colour on Psychological Mood: A Cross-Cultural Study of İndoor Work Environments”, Ergonomics, Vol. 49, No. 14, pp. 1496- 1507.

Michelson, W. (1976). Man and his urban environment. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Nasar, J. L. (1983). “Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes: a study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 15, pp.589–614.

Nasar, J. L. (1989). “Symbolic meaning of house style”, Environment and Behavior, 21, 235-257.

Nicki, R. M., Lee, P. L., & Moss, V. (1981). “Ambiguity, cubist works of art, and preference” Acta Psychologica, Vol. 49, pp. 27-41.

Noguchi, H. & Sakaguchi, T. (1999). “Effect of Illuminance and Color Temperature on Lowering of Physiological Activity”, Applied Human Science, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 117-123.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Phillips K. & Russell J. (2011). “The Relationship between Youth Identity and Spatial Perception within the Context of Religious Architecture in Northern Ireland”, The International Journal of the Constructed Environment, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 97- 114.

Purcell, T. (1995). “Experiencing American and Australian highand popular-style houses”. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 27, pp. 771-800.

Royse, D.C. (1969). Social inferences via environmental cues. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Stamps, A.E, & Nassar J.L, (1997), “Design Review and Public Preferences: Effects of Geographic Loaction, Public Consencues, Sensation Seeking and Architectural Styles”, Journal of Environmental Psycholgy, Vol.17, pp.11-32.

Stamps, A. E. (2003). Advances in visual diversity and entropy. Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design, Vol. 30, pp.449–463.

Stamps, A. E., III. (1991). Public preferences for high rise buildings: Stylistic and demographic effects, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 72, pp. 839-844.

Stamps, A. E., III. (1994). “Formal and nonformal stimulus factors in environmental reference”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 79, pp.3-9.

Stamps, A. E., III. (2002). “Entropy, visual diversity, and preference”, The Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 129, pp. 300- 320.

Şenyiğit Ö., (2010).”An approach to the assessment of formal and semantic expression tool that front; Investigation of Facades in Mesrutiyet and Halaskargazi Streets in Istanbul”, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, Yıldız Technical University, PhD Thesis, Istanbul Turkey.

Tsunetsugu, Y., Miyazaki, Y. & Sato, H. (2005). “Visual Effects of Interior Design in Actual-Size Living Rooms on Physiological Reponses”, Building and Environment, Vol. 40, pp. 1341- 1346.

Wethman, C., (1968). “The social meaning of the physical environment”. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Widmar, R. (1984). “Preferences for multiple-family housing: Some implications for public participation”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 1, pp. 245-260.

Wilson, M. A. (1996). “The socialization of architectural preference”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 33- 44.

Wilson, M. A. & Canter, D. V. (1990). “The development of central concepts during rofessional training. An example of a multivariate model of the concept of architectural style”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 39, pp. 431-455.

Wohlwill, J. F. (1968). “Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity”, Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 4, pp.307–312.

Wohlwill,J. F.(1975). “Children’sresponsestomeaningful pictures varying in diversity: exploration time vs. preference”, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Vol. 20, pp.341–351.

Yamaner, F. (2001). “Evaluation of the Approches Using Colors with Different Function” Selçuk University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, MSc Thesis, Konya, Turkey.

Yıldırım, K. (2005). “The Effect of Differences in Customer Characteristics on the Evaluation of a Store Image”, Journal of Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Gazi University, Vol.. 20, No. 4, pp. 473-481.

Yildirim, K., Başkaya (Akalın), A. & Hidayetoğlu, M. L. (2007a). “Effects of Indoor Color on Mood and Cognitive Performance”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42, No. 9, pp. 3233-3240.

Yıldırım, K., Hidayetoglu, M. L. & Şen, A. (2007b). “The Effect of Differences in Architectural Forms of Cafe/Patisseries on Users’ Perceptual and Behavioral Performance”, Gazi University Journal of Polytechnic, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 295-301.

Yildirim, K., Hidayetoglu, M.L. & Capanoglu, A. (2011). “Effects of interior colors on mood and preference: Comparisons of two living rooms”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 112, No. 2, pp. 509-524.

Yildirim, K., Ayalp, N., Aktas, G.G. & Hidayetoglu, M.L. (2014). “Consumer perceptions and functional evaluations of cash desk types in the clothing retail context”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 542-552.

Yildirim, K., Cagatay, K. & Hidayetoglu, M.L. (2015). “The effect of age, gender and education level on customer evaluations of retail furniture store atmospheric attributes”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Number 8, pp. 712-726.

Zülkadiroğlu D. (2013). “Evaluation of Effect of Architectural Facade Representations on User Perception”, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, Istanbul Culture University, MSc Thesis, Istanbul Turkey.