Hearing the Unheard Voices: What Does My Cognitive Map-design Signify? A Qualitative Case Analysis

Farzaneh Dehghani Anari¹ and Fatemeh Khozei Ravari^2,

¹M.Sc. Student of Architecture, Architecture Group, Islamic Azad University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

²Assistant Professor of Architecture Group, Islamic Azad University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

Cite this paper:
Farzaneh Dehghani Anari and Fatemeh Khozei Ravari. Hearing the Unheard Voices: What Does My Cognitive Map-design Signify? A Qualitative Case Analysis. American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture. 2017; 5(3):85-92. doi: 10.12691/ajcea-5-3-2

Abstract

This post occupancy research is an attempt to analyze the design of an architecture school using a cognitive map tool. Fifty male and female architecture students purposively recruited from Kerman Islamic Azad University to participate in this study. Participants were asked to draw a sketch map depict all places they recall in their faculty and identify them with the names. Following the drawings, a series of interviews were conducted to understand the students’ rationales behind their drawings and to uncover navigational problems of spatial designs. Data were analyzed qualitatively with specific focus on the absence or presence of spaces and their sizes. The qualitative data was supplemented by quantitative data to have a better interpretation of meaning by looking at qualitative data from a quantitative angle. Results showed that the accuracy in drawings significantly increased the longer students spent time in the faculty and the more they got familiar with the places. The analysis of cognitive maps revealed that the absence or presence of some spaces in the sketch maps and their sizes corresponds to the functional importance of spaces, their locations, zoning, accessibility and their size in relation to their functions. Results suggest that men and women did not differ in the accuracy of their cognitive maps. However, for navigation, males used information about directions for navigation, whereas females employed a landmark-based strategy. Architect planners can take advantages of these findings to create distinctively and well used buildings. The results of the study has implication for those who are interested in navigational behaviours of the space users.

Keywords:
cognitive maps subjective samples environmental psychology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Allahyar, N., and Nazari, A. (2012). Potentiality of Vygotsky's sociocultural theory in exploring the role of teacher perceptions, expectations and interaction strategies. WoPaLP, 6, 79-92.
[2]	Tuan, Y.F. (1975). Images and mental maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 65: 205-213.
[3]	Spencer, C., Blades, M. & Morsley, K. (1989). The child in the physical environment, Chicester: Wiley.
[4]	Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1973). Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
[5]	Stephan, P., Jäschke, J. P. M., Oberzaucher, E., & Grammer, K. (October 01, 2014). Sex differences and similarities in urban home ranges and in the accuracy of cognitive maps. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 4.
[6]	Kara, B. (2013). Landscape Design and Cognitive Psychology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 82, 288-291.
[7]	Antes, J.R., McBride, R.B., Collins, J.D. (1988). The effects of a new city traffic route on the cognitive maps of its residents, Environment and Behaviour, 20, 75-91.
[8]	Tversky, B. (2003). Structures of Mental Spaces: How people think about space, Environment and Behaviour, 35, 66-80.
[9]	Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men, Psychological Review, 55, 189-208.
[10]	Silverman I., Choi J., and Peters M. (2007). The hunter-gatherer-theory of sex differences in spatial abilities: Data from 40 countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 261-268.
[11]	Moon, Y., Jo, H.,Kim.,J, & Ryu, J.(2016) Exploring gender differences in spatial orientation ability on representing cognitive map. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2016, 6(2): 91-98.
[12]	O’Laughlin, E. M., & Brubaker, B. S. (1998). Use of landmarks in cognitive mapping: Gender differences in self report versus performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 595-601.
[13]	Li, R. (2014). Why women see differently from the way men see? A review of sex differences in cognition and sports. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 3, 3, 155-162.
[14]	Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
[15]	Portugali, J. (1996). The construction of cognitive maps. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[16]	Silverman, I. & Eals, M. (1992). Sex differences in spatial abilities: Evolutionary theory and data. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. J. M. Barkow, L. Cosmides and Tooby. New York, Oxford Univ. Press.
[17]	Kerst S. M., Howard J. H., and Gugerty L. J. (1987). Judgment accuracy in pair-distance estimation and map sketching. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 185-188.
[18]	Holahan C. J. (1978). Environment and behavior: A dynamic perspective. New York: Plenum Press.