Culture or Expertise: Creativity, Preference, and Formal Attributes of Interior Design by Americans and Koreans

REFERENCES

• Amabile, T. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.
   Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
   Google Scholar
• Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2007). Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia, 45(10), 2191–2200. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnard, S. (1992). Interior design creativity: The development and testing of a methodology for the consensual assessment of projects ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
   Google Scholar
• Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8(5), 279–286. doi:10.3758/BF03212593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287–296. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1204_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, J. Y. (2013). Process of aesthetic education in design studio: A layperson’s acculturation to the architecture and design community. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 30(4), 328–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
   Google Scholar
• Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA). (2017). Professional standards 2017. Retrieved from https://accredit-id.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/II.-Professional-Standards-2017.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2008). Elements of a universal aesthetic of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 155–161. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.155
   Google Scholar
• Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. (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, 9(4), 333–344. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80013-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenman, R. (1990). Creativity, preference for complexity, and physical and mental illness. Creativity Research Journal, 3(3), 231–236. doi:10.1080/10400419009534355
   Google Scholar
• Eisenman, R., & Robinson, N. (1967). Complexity-simplicity, creativity, intelligence, and other correlates. The Journal of Psychology, 67(2), 331–334. doi:10.1080/00223980.1967.10544937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galati, F. (2015). Complexity of judgment: What makes possible the convergence of expert and nonexpert ratings in assessing creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 24–30. doi:10.1080/10400419.2015.992667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford, R., Hine, D., Muller-Clemm, W., & Shaw, K. (2002). Why architects and laypersons judge buildings differently: Cognitive properties and physical bases. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19(2), 131–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Puerto, G., Munar, E., Acedo, C., & Gomila, A. (2013). Is the human initial preference for rounded shapes universal? Preliminary results of an ongoing cross-cultural research. Perception ECVP Abstract Supplement, 42, 102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Puerto, G., Munar, E., & Nadal, M. (2015). Preference for curvature: A historical and conceptual framework. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(712), 1–8. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ham, T. Y., & Guerin, D. A. (2004). A cross‐cultural comparison of preference for visual attributes in interior environments: America and China. Journal of Interior Design, 30(1), 37–50. doi:10.1111/j.1939-1668.2004.tb00398.x
   Google Scholar
• Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Wieringen, P. C. (2003). ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111–124. doi:10.1348/000712603762842147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160–180. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsiao, K. A., & Chen, L. L. (2006). Fundamental dimensions of affective responses to product shapes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(6), 553–564. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2005.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung, W. K., & Chen, L. L. (2012). Effects of novelty and its dimensions on aesthetic preference in product design. International Journal of Design, 6(2), 81–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 171–178. doi:10.1080/10400410802059929
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leder, H., & Carbon, C. C. (2005). Dimensions in appreciation of car interior design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(5), 603–618. doi:10.1002/acp.1088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung, W., & Zimmerman, M. (2016, January 25). 2016 Top 100 Giants Research: Growth. Interior Design. Retrieved from http://www.interiordesign.net/articles/11458-2016-top-100-giants-research-growth/
   Google Scholar
• MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. New York, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Martindale, C. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5(1), 49–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martindale, C. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2005). The adaptable mind in design: Relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2–3), 155–166. doi:10.1080/10400419.2005.9651476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently… and why. New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Orfi, N., Terpenny, J., & Sahin-Sariisik, A. (2011). Harnessing product complexity: Step 1—Establishing product complexity dimensions and indicators. The Engineering Economist, 56(1), 59–79. doi:10.1080/0013791X.2010.549935
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandir, M., & Knight, J. (2006). Homepage aesthetics: The search for preference factors and the challenges of subjectivity. Interacting with Computers, 18(6), 1351–1370. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2006.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, N. K., Pae, J. Y., & Meneely, J. (2010). Cultural preferences in hotel guestroom lighting design. Journal of Interior Design, 36(1), 21–34. doi:10.1111/j.1939-1668.2010.01046.x
   Google Scholar
• Rapoport, A. (1969). House form and culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Repace, J. L., & Lowrey, A. H. (1980). Indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke, and public health. Science, 208(4443), 464–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (1988). Creativity research: Originality, utility, and integration. Creativity Research Journal, 1(1), 1–7. doi:10.1080/10400418809534283
   Google Scholar
• Scott, S. C. (1993). Visual attributes related to preference in interior environments. Journal of Interior Design, 18(1–2), 7–16. doi:10.1111/j.1939-1668.1993.tb00067.x
   Google Scholar
• Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33–53. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), 25–42. doi:10.2190/EM.27.1.b
   Google Scholar
• Stamps, I. I. I., A. E. (2002). Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of General Psychology, 129(3), 300–320. doi:10.1080/00221300209602100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., … Skov, M. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 2), 10446–10453. doi:10.1073/pnas.1301227110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitfield, T. W. A., & Slatter, P. E. (1979). The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 65–76. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb02144.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziv, N., & Keydar, E. (2009). The relationship between creative potential, aesthetic response to music, and musical preferences. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 125–133. doi:10.1080/10400410802633764
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar