Datos de estímulo único versus datos de elección preferencial en estudios sobre calidad ambiental

  1. Arce Fernández, Constantino
  2. Rodríguez González, María Soledad
  3. García Mira, Ricardo
  4. Real Deus, José Eulogio
Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 1996

Volume: 8

Issue: 3

Pages: 533-541

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Los estudios sobre calidad ambiental resultan de gran interés en el estudio de las relaciones individuo-entorno. Sin embargo, las diferencias teóricas y metodológicas existentes entre los distintos investigadores han dificultado el progreso en el conocimiento de este fenómeno. Una de las principales diferencias entre los distintos estudios reside en el formato de respuesta utilizado por los sujetos para evaluar el entorno. Nuestra investigación compara los resultados obtenidos en evaluaciones de la calidad ambiental efectuadas con dos técnicas diferentes: el diferencial semántico y las clasificaciones de preferencias. Los resultados obtenidos muestran la existencia de claras diferencias entre las soluciones proporcionadas por el análisis de ambos tipos de datos.

Bibliographic References

  • Arabie, P., Carroll, J.D. y DeSarbo, W.S. (1987). Three-way Scaling and Clustering. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Arabie, P. y Maschmeyer, C. (1988). Some current models for the perception and judgment of risk. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 300-329.
  • Arce, C. (1993). Escalamiento Multidimensional. Una Técnica Multivariante para el Análisis de Datos de Proximidad y Preferencia. Barcelona: PPU.
  • Bernáldez, F. G., Gallardo, D. y Abelló, R. P. (1987). Children’s landscape Preferences: From rejection to attraction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7, 169-176.
  • Canter, D. (1983). The purpositive evaluation of places. A facet approach. Environment and Behavior, 15, 659-698.
  • Canter, D. y Craik, K. H. (1981). Environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1, 1-11.
  • Carp, F. M. y Carp, A. (1982). Perceived environmental quality of neighborhoods: Development of assessment scales and their relation to age and gender. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 295-312.
  • Carroll, J.D. (1972). Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. En R.N. Shepard, A.K. Romney, & S. Nerlove (Eds.): Multidimensional scaling: Theory and Applications in the Social Sciences, Volume I: Theory (pp. 105-155). New York: Seminaar Press.
  • Carroll, J.D. (1980). Models and methods for multidimensional analysis of preferential choice (or other dominance) data. En E.D. Lantermann, & H. Feger (Eds.): Similarity and Choice (pp. 234-289). Vienna: Hans Huber.
  • Carroll, J.D. y Arabie, P. (1980). Multidimensional scaling. En M.R. Rosensweig, & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 607-649). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
  • Chang, J.J. y Carroll, J.D. (1969). How to use MDPREF, a computer program for multidimensional analysis of preference data. Murray Hill, NJ: AT&T Bell Laboratories.
  • Coombs, C. H. (1964). A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley.
  • Craik, K. H. (1971). The assessment of places. En P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in Psychological Assessment (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
  • Craik, K. H. (1981). Comment on “The psychological representation of molar physical environments” by Ward and Russell. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 158-162.
  • Craik, K. H. y Feimer, N. R. (1987). Environmental assessment. En D. Stokols e I. Altman (Eds.): Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 891-918). New York: Wiley.
  • Daniel, T. C. e Ittelson, W. H. (1981). conditions for environmental perception research: Comment on “The psychological representation of molar physical environments” by Ward and Russell. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 153-157.
  • Gifford, R. (1987). Environmental Psychology. Principles and Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect and cognition. Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3-32.
  • Kaplan, S. (1988). Where cognition and affect meet: A theoretical analysis of preference. En J. L. Nasar (Ed.): Environmental Aesthetics. Theory, Research and Applications (pp. 56-63). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kruskal, J.B. (1964a). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27.
  • Kruskal, J.B. (1964b). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29, 115-129.
  • Kruskal, J.B. y Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Lodge, M. (1981). Magnitude Scaling. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-025. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.
  • Mandel, D. R. (1978). Metodological approaches to Environmental Psychology. En P. A. Bell, J. D. Fisher & R. J. Loomis (Eds.): Environmental Psychology (pp. 373-406). Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
  • Mehrabian, A. y Russell, J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. y Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  • Russell, J. A. (1988). Affective appraisals of environments. En J. L. Nasar (Ed.): Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications (pp. 120-129). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Russell, J. A. y Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and the Environment. En D. Stokols e I. Altman (Eds.): Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 245-279). New York: Wiley.
  • Russell, J. A. y Ward, L. M. (1981). On the psychological reality of environental meaning: reply to Daniel and Ittelson. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 163-168.
  • Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M. y Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: A Factor Analysis Study. Environment and Behavior, 13, 259-288.
  • Shepard, R. N. (1962). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distances function. Psychometrika (I & II), 27, 125-139, 219-246.
  • Smith, S. M. (1990). PC-MDS. Multidimensional Statistics Package. User´s Manual. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
  • Stevens, S. S. y Galanter, E. (1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377-411.
  • Stevens, S. S. y Guirao, M. (1963). Subjective scaling of length and area and the matching of length to hardness and brightness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 60-67.
  • Stokols, D. (1983). Theoretical directions of Environment and Behavior Research. Environment and Behavior, 15, 259-272.
  • Ward, L. M. y Russell, J. A. (1981b). The psychological representation of molar physical environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 110, 121-156.
Data source: Dialnet