- Email: [email protected]
INTERACTIVE WAY-FINDING: MAP STYLE AND EFFECTIVENESS
Journal of Environmental Psychology (1997) 17, 99–110 1997 Academic Press Limited
0272-4944/97/020099+12$25·00/0
Journalof
ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY INTERACTIVE WAY-FINDING: MAP STYLE AND EFFECTIVENESS
ANN SLOAN DEVLIN AND JASON BERNSTEIN Connecticut College, New London, CT, U.S.A.
Abstract To evaluate the effectiveness of three map variables on simulated way-finding ability in a 2 by 2 by 2 design (color vs black & white; high vs low level of detail; and labels in a legend vs labels adjacent to landmarks), 43 males and 43 females were randomly assigned to one of these eight different map conditions. Using a touch screen monitor for all aspects of the study, participants were instructed to study first a map, then locate a number of landmarks on their map and indicate which paths to follow when proceeding to a specified destination. Participants in map conditions with landmarks identified by number and labeled in a legend (legend condition) took significantly longer than those in conditions where the landmark names were listed at the site of the landmarks themselves (labels intact condition) to locate one of the specified landmarks. Males were faster than females to indicate which paths to follow for the simulated mapping task and reported significantly less frustration performing the way-finding tasks than did females. Left-handers made significantly fewer errors than right-handers in indicating which paths to follow on the simulated way-finding task. Implications for map and kiosk designers are discussed. 1997 Academic Press Limited
Introduction
navigation grow in availability (Haavind, 1985), it is important to investigate how to present effecWithin psychology and other disciplines, the study tively dynamic information. The Etak system for of way-finding, or how humans navigate from an auto navigation compares the vehicle’s movements origin to a destination, has produced a variety of with stored map data and rotates the map to keep approaches. The advent of computer-based formats the road at the top of the screen (rather than for way-finding has stimulated research about the pointing North). The rotational aspect of the Etak effectiveness of navigational information that is system points to the importance of such factors as presented via computer simulation and interactive map alignment in way-finding. Maps misaligned to means (Smith et al., 1982; Golledge et al., 1985; the environment are likely to cause errors O’Neill, 1986, 1992; Weisman et al., 1987; Gopal et (Rossano & Warren, 1989; Warren et al., 1990; al., 1989; Devlin & Bernstein, 1995). From both a 1992; Warren & Scott, 1993; Warren 1994). Levine theoretical and practical standpoint, there is con- (Levine, 1982; Levine et al., 1984) has also demoncern with the comparability of map versus real-time strated that you-are-here maps are not always as environmental experiences as a form of environ- helpful as they might be, as they are often mismental learning. For example, Thorndyke and placed and misaligned. Despite such problems, peoHayes-Roth (1982) compared subjects who actually ple view maps as efficacious and select them as walked through an environment and those who desirable information sources when traveling to studied maps. Those with the real world task made new destinations (Devlin & Bernstein, 1995). more accurate route estimates, while those who Within the context of way-finding mediated by studied maps made more accurate survey esti- the dynamic display of information, the presenmates, including Euclidean distances and the rela- tation of the visual display merits particular attentive positions of locations. With experience, the real- tion. One question that has received little attention time navigators were hypothesized to acquire the in research is the role of stylistic factors in the map survey knowledge that map learners possessed. display itself. Among the variables of concern to any As such way-finding aids as video maps for auto map-maker are the use of color, level of detail repps970045
100
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
resented, and location of map information (i.e. labels). When we examine the literature in search of guidelines about these kinds of stylistic variables, some general directions emerge (Robinson, 1952): legibility varies with type styles; the contrast of dark on light background is more legible than the reverse; italics are difficult to read; perceptibility of print increases with increasing thickness to a point and then declines; the use of color is complicated and poorly understood. Southworth and Southworth (1982) have suggested that unsuccessful maps present too much information; that prominent landmarks should also have prominence in the map; and that color used for merely decorative purposes can distract or confuse. While such advice is helpful, the specificity of this information is limited. More precision about the use of such factors as color and extent and placement of labeling is necessary. The need for empirically-based guidelines has been recognized as a priority (Robinson, 1982). Potentially useful information comes from research on statistical graphics (Cleveland & McGill, 1985, 1987). Cleveland and McGill have ranked what they call elementary codes (e.g. position along a common scale) in terms of subjects’ accuracy to make judgments using these codes. Cartographers recognize the need to provide a research base for their decisions (Robinson, 1982), most of which seem to be based on tradition and intuition. For 150 years, distinct rules concerning type placement spread among topographers and cartographers by word of mouth (Imhof, 1975, p. 128).
It is also the case that information processing research (e.g. memory of function) in which maps may be used as stimuli often use displays that may not be realistic or representative of actual maps (Tversky & Schiano, 1989), furthering the need for the field of cartography to generate an empirical base. Some of the guidelines for map layout have reflected Gestalt principles (e.g. Dent, 1972) and psychophysics (e.g. Spence, 1990; Spence & Lewandowsky, 1991) while others have described map and graph interpretation in information processing terms (Simkin & Hastie, 1987; Kosslyn, 1989, 1994). The increasing use of computer simulation of navigational information raises the important question of how much data should be presented and the form such information should take. The present study focuses specifically on three variables: colorcoding; level of detail; and label placement. Color coding The use of color to transmit information in maps
and graphs has a mixed reputation. The ability of color to add information in color displays comes from its potential contribution to clarity, offering a range of possibilities for differentiation (Robinson et al., 1984). Much of what we know about the use of color comes from work in statistical graphics (e.g. Cuff, 1973), where color has been called the ‘most efficient dimension for the labeling of information in visual displays’ (Smallman & Boynton, 1990). Colors that are well segregated (differentiated) in color space increase the number of colors that can be used for differentiation in a given display. While the use of color has potential benefits, color has been called a complex symbol for map use (Monmonier & Schnell, 1988), potentially distracting and confusing (Southworth & Southworth, 1982). Further, a visually attractive map is not necessarily easy to use (Monmonier & Schnell, 1988). In a study where subjects were asked to understand a display about a computer-based telephone line testing system, color did not contribute significantly to subjects’ performance (Tullis, 1981). The effects of color coding seem to depend on the experimental conditions (Tullis, 1981), with search tasks enhanced (e.g., Carter, 1982; Lewandowsky & Spence, 1989) and identification tasks going either way. Searches are faster when there is a significant contrast between what you seek (the target) and the background colors (Morgalia et al., 1989). What seems consistent is that people like color displays better than those in black and white (Tullis, 1981). More empirical guidelines about the use of color have come from work in statistical graphics than from research in cartography, and it is difficult to know about the extension of the work in graphics to cartography. In one study involving maps (Garland et al., 1979), the effectiveness of color and street detail on a city bus map for trip planning performance was examined. The study used four different map types [color and black & white official transit maps (1&2); black & white stick route and major street and route maps (3&4)]. In the Garland et al. study, 11 different colors were used to indicate 26 separately labeled routes. The authors reported that elimination of small street detail is helpful in the absence of color coding on the map, as there were more errors in the black and white version of the official transit map than in either the color version or the black and white major streets and routes version. They suggested that considerable money can be saved without much loss of usefulness by using black and white maps with a reduced level of street detail. Research in education has been more positive about the potential contribution of color
Wayfinding and Map Style
and has indicated that color-enhanced materials can facilitate recall of maps and traditional text (Hall & Sidio-Hall, 1994). There is a role for the use of color in maps, but the extent to which it parallels the role in statistical graphics applications is unknown. Level of detail While greater detail may add realism to a visual display, it does not necessarily affect functional variables (i.e. the ability to make judgments based on the information). For example, Kaplan et al. (1974) demonstrated that subjects could base judgments on the information presented in architectural models with limited detail and argue that simplification of the display has a number of benefits, from increasing generality to reducing information processing demand. In the Kaplan et al. (1974) study, models of high- or low-detail housing developments were presented to subjects in a between-groups design. The high detail model had facade and landscaping details such as windows and contour lines. Subjects rated the housing development models in terms of functional aspects (e.g. how satisfactory they would be for privacy) and concluded that the simple model was as useful as the more detailed one in making these kinds of judgments. When subjects viewed pictures of the actual housing development on which the models were based, participants in both high- and low-detail conditions reported that the model that they had seen was an adequate representation of the actual development. Tufte (1983) is another author who argues for simplification in visual displays as does Arnheim who stated that ‘A map containing a maximum of detail makes it almost impossible to grasp the essential elements.’ (Arnheim, 1976, p. 9).
Label placement Research supporting the conjoint retention hypothesis, an extension of Paivio’s dual coding theory (1986), suggests that label information on the map is better recalled when it is presented at appropriate positions, rather than in a separate list of labels (Schwartz & Kulhavy, 1981; Kulhavy et al., 1989). This result agrees with the conjoint retention hypothesis as an extension of Paivio’s dual coding theory (Paivio, 1986). The theory proposes that spatial/perceptual information and linguistic/verbal information are coded separately but that the codes
101
lead to connected representations that can be used simultaneously when retrieval cues are provided for each (Kulhavy et al., 1993a, b; Webb et al., 1994). In a study by Kulhavy et al. (1989) verbal material was integrated with the spatial map information (map condition) or presented on the left side of the page (list condition). The participants in the map condition recalled more information than those in the list condition. The authors conclude that: The economy with which the intact map can be represented in working memory allows a wider search to proceed in a manner significantly more effective than when subjects attempt to use list-presented items in the same fashion (p. 303).
Thus, when labels are included within the spatial structure of a map itself, they are coded as part of an intact unit, facilitating a faster search process on the basis of a more economical memory representation. Kuo (1996) reported that participants in a condition where labels were placed directly on buildings on a campus map learned more from the map than those who used a map where the labels were adjacent to the buildings. In a study using graphs it was demonstrated that placing labels directly to the right on the graph function (Milroy & Poulton, 1978) resulted in faster judgments (although not fewer errors) than conditions where the key was on the graph field below the functions or inserted below the graph in the location of the figure caption. This results parallels the advice of Imhof (1975) about the position of labels on maps: generally above and to the right of the item. Two additional questions in the present study were the roles of gender differences and handedness. In the performance of certain spatial tasks, most consistently mental rotation, men are consistently better than are women (Harris, 1981; Corballis, 1982; Halpern, 1986; Sanders & Soares, 1986; Hyde, 1990; Masters & Sanders, 1993). Women tend to be slower and less accurate in doing mental rotation tasks (e.g. Blough & Slavin, 1987; Bryden et al., 1990: Birenbaum et al., 1994). The issue of slower reaction times of women and the potential effect of cautiousness on their performance has led some authors to question whether mental rotation differences might be an effect of time limits, but differences of the same strength have been found both with and without time limits (Resnick, 1993). Differences between men and women also often appear in way-finding tasks (McGuiness & Sparks, 1983; Miller & Santoni, 1986; Ward, Newcombe & Overton, 1986; Holding & Holding, 1989; Aubrey & Dobbs, 1990; Holding,
102
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
1992; Galea & Kimura, 1993; Devlin & Bernstein, 1995). While there are studies reporting no such differences (Cousins et al., 1983; Kirasic et al., 1984; Taylor & Tversky, 1992), the main evidence supports the direction of difference, although additional research is needed to understand the parameters within which such gender differences in way-finding occur. In research by Galea and Kimura (1993), males were superior at route-learning and on a composite Euclidean measure, while females recalled more landmarks, even when visual item memory recall, a process reported to be superior in females, was controlled. In a study of computer simulated way-finding using a touch-screen monitor (Devlin & Bernstein, 1995), males made significantly fewer errors than females, were significantly more confident that they could find their way, and generally preferred the use of visual-spatial cues to verbal information more than did women. Independent of gender, participants in two map conditions were significantly more confident that they could find their way in the computer simulation test task than participants in conditions with photographic and written direction stimuli. Regarding handedness, the right hemisphere dominance of left-handers has been hypothesized to mean greater creativity (Burke et al., 1989). The handedness of students and faculty members at a large architecture program was noted over a sixyear period, with more left-handers enrolled in the program (21%) than expected according to the proportion in the general population, proportionately more left-handers than right-handers graduating from the program, and four times as many lefthanded faculty members as compared to expectation (Peterson & Lansky, 1977). Greater creativity of left-handers has been reported among youngsters as well as adults (Stewart & Clayson, 1980; Newland, 1981). Greater creativity is suggested by higher performance for left-handers in mental rotation studies (Porac & Coren, 1981; Coren, 1993), a skill that requires visualization, presumably an asset in using maps. Map readers are required to change perspective and orientation when moving from map study to real-time navigation. Similarly, success at mentally rotating an object involves turning the object “in your head,” a change of orientation and perspective. It might also be noted that there is a small difference between men and women in the percentage likely to be left-handed, with men 4% more likely than women to be left-handed (Coren, 1993). The present study builds on the research by
FIGURE 1.
Computer kiosk.
Devlin and Bernstein (1995) employing computerbased way-finding methodology and on earlier research about the possible efficiency of colorcoding, level of detail, and label location in map use. The study involves three map variables (color, level of detail, and label position), with two levels of each of these variables. Participants in the study, conducted entirely with a touch screen computer monitor, were instructed to study a map and then perform certain tasks, including locating a number of landmarks on the map and indicating what path to follow a reach a specific destination. The latency to touch the screen for each of the tasks and the number of errors made in selecting the paths to the destination were the primary dependent variables. The hypotheses were that map conditions employing color, high detail and labels placed adjacent to landmarks (intact map) produce superior simulated way-finding performance. The dearth of literature about the effect of color and detail specifically in map use made the formulation of strong hypotheses difficult, but color and greater detail were hypothesized to contribute to performance by creating a visual display with greater realism and differentiation. The advantage of the intact label display was predicted by previous research in statistical graphics. Based on the literature, it was further hypothesized that men and left-handers would be faster and
Wayfinding and Map Style
103
make fewer errors in the simulated way-finding tasks than would women and right-handers.
Method Participants Students and visitors to the college student center who passed by the computer kiosk (see Figure 1) and were intrigued by the ‘attract loop’ and ultimately completed the experiment were the study participants. Only individuals who had never visited Mystic Seaport or had not done the experiment before (people like to stay and use the touch-screen monitor more than once) were included in the analyses. Of the 99 of 402 individuals who met those criteria, 13 more were eliminated either because their latency scores were 99 seconds (the default value), indicating a computer problem, or their error score for a given test screen exceeded the number of arrow choices, indicating either a lack of engagement in the task or a computer problem. The final sample consisted of 86 individuals. The 86 participants, 43 males and 43 females, ranged in age from under 10 to over 60. The majority were college-age students (almost 90% were 16–25 years of age). Participants were first asked to touch the screen to provide background information about themselves. This included sex, handedness (left or right), age (11 categories ranging from under 10 to over 60), degree of comfort using a touch-screen kiosk (ranging from 1= extremely comfortable to 5=not at all comfortable), whether they had previously visited Mystic Seaport (from never to five or more times); and whether they had done the experiment before (some people liked to try more than once). Map design One of the motivations for the current research involved discussions with personnel at Mystic Seaport about the efficacy of their visitors’ map. The 1994 map used by the Seaport is essentially a black and white version with identifying labels keyed by numbers that appear adjacent to the pictograms of Seaport landmarks. Over the years, the Seaport has used a variety of other map formats, including one based on regions coded by colors and very little detail. No systematic evaluation of the maps has been conducted by the Seaport. Seaport personnel expressed an interest in examining such variables as level of detail, location of identifying information,
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 3.
High-detail intact map.
High-detail keyed-by-numbers map.
and use of color vs black and white. The study addresses some of these issues within a computerbased framework. The base map for the study was created from an earlier color version of the current visitors’ map of Mystic Seaport, scanned in to the computer, and modified to create the eight versions used in this study. Subjects who decided to participate were randomly assigned to one of eight map conditions, created from a 2 (color vs black & white) by 2 (high vs low detail) by 2 (labels adjacent to landmarks vs landmarks keyed by number with labels in a legend) map layouts (see Figures 2–4 for examples). Level of detail. The high detail condition included more details of the same basic framework, with Seaport buildings presented in perspective, landscaping included for the Seaport grounds, shading on the paths, and more ships included in the harbor. Color. The color version of the map differed from
104
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
FIGURE 4.
Low-detail intact map.
the black and white version in using a limited palette of colors to create a realistic visual display; light blue water, dark red roofs for the buildings and shades of green for the landscaping. Label position. One version (labels intact) placed the landmark names immediately adjacent to the building or attraction itself; the other version identified these landmarks by an adjacent number with the label placed in a key in the harbor and grounds areas. Instruments The primary instruments for this study were an IBM model 70 computer with an IBM Personal System/2 Touch Display color monitor. The software program was IBM-authored AVC (Audio Visual Connection). The Touch Display color monitor and software system were provided by Lexitech, a multimedia interactive communications company. The basic format for the experiment was: (1) obtain background information about participants; (2) expose them to one of eight maps; and (3) ‘test’ their way-finding ability by asking them to indicate the paths to take to a specified destination. All aspects of the experiment were conducted using the touch-screen monitor. Procedure The Touch Display monitor was housed in a kiosk placed in against a wall in a heavily traveled corridor of the campus student center. The monitor displayed an ‘attract loop’ with a picture of Mystic Seaport followed by a screen explaining that the purpose of the project was to understand the useful-
ness of different kinds of maps in getting from a starting point to a particular destination. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions by a programming variable. The map they were assigned was used on all map exposures for a given experimental condition. The first screen stated: ‘We will now simulate a trip to Mystic Seaport. We will ask you to look at a Mystic Seaport map, locate several buildings, and simulate a walk to a destination.’ To continue, participants pressed a screen ‘button’. The next screen presented the first mapping tasks: ‘You will now be shown a map of Mystic Seaport. Please examine the map quickly and touch Visitor Services by the Main Entrance as soon as you see it.’ Participants then touched the button labeled ‘I’m ready’ to begin the task. When the Visitors Center on the map was touched, a red circle appeared to indicate success. The time elapsed to locate the landmark was recorded by the computer. If the location was not located within 99 seconds, a default condition returned the program to its initial loop. Participants next saw: ‘You have heard about a gallery talk and are interested in attending. It is now 11:15, so you need to find out where and when the gallery talk takes place.’ A screen then appeared with the information concerning the gallery talk. The next screen again presented the Seaport Map preceded by the following instructions: ‘You will now be shown the Mystic Seaport Map again. Please examine the map quickly and touch the Schaefer Building as soon as you see it.’ Again participants pressed an ‘I’m ready’ screen button. When the Schaefer Building was located by a press, a red circle again appeared to indicate correct identification (see Figure 5). A default loop of 99 seconds was employed for this screen as well. Next, a screen appeared that delineated the path to follow from the Visitor’s Center (start) to the Schaefer Building (goal) with the following script: ‘Once again, you will see the map of Mystic Seaport. This time a red line will be drawn on it showing a path from Visitor Services to the Schaefer Building. For 30 seconds, view the map and try to remember the path.’ (see Figure 6). This screen was followed by an assessment of how confident the participants were that they could find their way from the entrance to the Schaefer Building (on a scale where 1=extremely confident to 5= not at all confident). Participants were then told: ‘You will now see a series of pictures leading from Visitor Services to the Schaefer Building. On each picture touch the
Wayfinding and Map Style
FIGURE 5.
Circle highlighting Schaefer Building correctly identified.
105
photograph presented from two to four arrows (using computer graphics), one of which was the ‘correct’ path response. If an incorrect arrow was selected, a screen appeared that stated: ‘That is not the way the map suggested. Please touch the screen to try again.’ After the test was completed, participants responded to a screen question: ‘How useful was the map information in helping you to find your way?’ on a scale where 1=extremely helpful to 5=not at all helpful) followed by a screen that asked them rate their frustration during performance of the task (1= not at all frustrating to 5=extremely frustrating). The next screen asked ‘What kinds of information do you prefer when trying to get from one place to another? Press all that apply. Press DONE when you are finished.’ The screen offered the following options: Maps, Written Directions, Visual Tour of Route, Verbal Directions. Dependent variables were the time to locate and press two landmarks: Visitor Services and the Schaefer Building; number of errors made in the tour path test, the latency to press the first arrow for each of the 14 test screens summed across screens, the degree of confidence they expressed in being able to find their way, and their degree of frustration in performing the tasks.
Results FIGURE 6.
Line tracing path from Visitors Services to the Schaefer Building.
FIGURE 7.
One of 14 arrow selection screens presenting directional choices.
blue arrow that will lead you toward the Schaefer Building following the path shown previously on the map.’ When the ‘I’m ready’ button was pressed, a series of 14 screens followed (see Figure 7). Each
To evaluate the effect of map type on the number of errors, latencies to press the Visitor’s Center and the Schaefer Building, and to touch the test arrows summed across the 14 test screens, a 2 (color vs black & white) by 2 (level of detail) by 2 (labels vs numbers) multivariate analysis of variance was run. There was a main effect for the location of the labels factor, Wilks Lambda=0·671, F(4,75)=9·19, p <0·001. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) indicated an effect on the latency to locate the Schaefer Building, F(1,78)=25·72, p<0·001. The means revealed that participants who viewed maps with the labels immediately adjacent to the landmarks were significantly faster (M=11·89 s, S.D.= 7·72, n=47), than those who saw maps with landmarks keyed by number (M=17·12 s, S.D.=9·10, n= 39) (see Table 1). Another MANOVA was run to evaluate the effect of handedness and sex on the same dependent variables. The MANOVA revealed an effect of handedness, Wilks=0·870, F(4,79)=2·96, p=0·025. Univariate analyses revealed a significant effect on errors, F(1,82)=5·21, p=0·025. Left-handers made signifi-
106
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein TABLE 1 Means and standard deviations of latency to locate the Schaefer building across map conditions Low Detail
Color Black & White
High Detail
Labels
Numbers
Labels
Numbers
13·40 (8·45) (n=10) 10·25 (4·79) (n=12)
14·21 (7·02) (n=14) 23·75 (12·04) (n=8)
6·29 (2·56) (n=7) 11·56 (6·90) (n=18)
14·80 (6·92) (n=10) 22·71 (8·52) (n=7)
cantly fewer errors (M=3·00) than right-handers (M=4·22). While not significant, the analyses of total time across screens (p<0·07) and time to touch the Schaefer Building (p<0·07) were in the predicted direction. In both cases, left handers were faster. Six males and 12 females were self-reported left-handers while 37 males and 31 females were self-reported right-handers. While the analysis for sex was not significant, Wilks Lambda=0·903, F(4,79)=2·13, p=0·085, an a priori hypothesis that males would outperform females argued for examining the univariate analyses. The univariate analyses indicated a main effect on summed time taken to make a first touch of an arrow across screens, F(1,82)=5·24, p=0·025. Females took significantly longer (M=64·04 s) than males (M=56·63 s). A second set of MANOVAs was run to evaluate effects on the dependent variables of comfort using the kiosk touch screen computer, confidence in being able to find their way, helpfulness of the map, and degree of frustration during tasks performance. There were no significant differences of the three map factors (color vs black & white, level of detail, and labels/numbers). These dependent variables were then used in a MANOVA with sex and handedness as the independent variables. The effect of sex was significant, Wilks Lambda=0·880, F(4,79)= 2·70, p=0·05. The subsequent univariate analyses revealed a main effect on degree of frustration, F(1,82)=10·40, p<0·005. Men reported the task to be less frustrating (M=2·51) than women (M=3·26) on a scale where 1=not at all frustrating to 5= extremely frustrating. There was no difference between men and women in their preferences for the different types of information sources (map, written directions, visual tour of the route, and verbal directions). The order of preference for the combined sample was map (69·8% ), written directions (53·5%), visual tour of the route (32·6%) and verbal directions (27·9%). Participants could select as many sources as they desired, and there was no difference between men and women in the number of cue sources selected. The most popu-
lar source combination, endorsed by 22·1%, was map plus written instructions; followed by map alone (18·6%), the only other selection over 10%. These results parallel those of Devlin and Bernstein (1995). Computed correlations indicated that participants’ comfort using the computer kiosk was positively correlated with their confidence in finding their way (r=0·29, p<0·01). The degree of frustration in performing the experimental tasks was positively correlated with way-finding confidence (r=0·30, p< 0·01), i.e. lower frustration with higher confidence and with the error score (r=0·22, p<0·05), indicating a relationship between lower frustration and fewer errors. Rated helpfulness of the map was positively correlated with frustration level, i.e. greater helpfulness with lower frustration (r=0·35, p<0·01). Finally, the error score was positively correlated with how helpful they judged the map to be (r=0·34, p<0·01), i.e. fewer errors with greater map helpfulness.
Discussion The results indicate some support for the role of map style variables, gender and handedness in wayfinding. The location of identifier labels affected the way-finding performance speed with which participants were able to locate the goal site (Schaefer Building). Thus, conditions involving the number key as a basis for identifying landmarks appear to be less efficient than conditions where the labels are integrated with landmark information. It may be that a map with numbers requires additional steps in order to identify a particular landmark. There is a first search for a particular site name keyed to a number and then a search for the number’s location on the map. The finding of positive evidence of maplabel integration supports the hypothesis of Kulhavy and colleagues about conjoint retention (Kulhavy et al., 1989, 1993a, b). The greater economy with which the intact map with focused atten-
Wayfinding and Map Style
tion to landmarks can be stored and retrieved presumably facilitates a faster search than for maps with the labels keyed separately by number. There was no difference due to map style conditions in the Visitors Services location task; since this landmark or function was centrally located the participants might have used an already familiar schema for the location of such a central function (Wood, 1973), thinking to themselves that: ‘it should be right out front. . .one of the first things you see.’ The fact that there were no significant effects of level of detail and color suggests that detail and color that contribute to realism may not make a significant difference in terms of simulated way-finding performance. These results are reminiscent of the Garland et al. (1979) findings that reducing the level of detail in the absence of color did not significantly reduce the usefulness of city bus maps. One is reminded of the cautions of Southworth and Southworth (1982) that too much information and color used merely as decoration are hallmarks of unsuccessful and confusing maps. In this case, color and additional detail were not detrimental to performance; rather, those features simply did not enhance performance. While the role of color in this study was not decorative, it did not serve a direct way-finding function, i.e. routes were not differentiated by color. But as subjects prefer color to black and white displays (Tullis, 1981), more research is needed to define the ways in which color in maps may be helpful. While map preference per se was not assessed in this study, no one map style was rated as more helpful or contributing to greater way-finding confidence than any other. Further, the lack of effect of detail in this study is reminiscent of Kaplan et al. (1974) where low-detail architectural models performed as well as high-detail models for functional judgments. Consistent with earlier research (Galea & Kimura, 1993) that females took longer to reach criterion and made more errors, some gender differences appeared in this study. Specifically, females took longer on average than did males to touch the way-finding test screens (summed across screens) and reported more frustration in completing the experiment that did males. However, unlike the findings of Devlin and Bernstein (1995), males and females did not differ in their preference for cue sources in acquiring information when traveling to a new destination. Blough and Slavin (1987) have suggested that women have a bias toward accuracy in making visual-spatial judgments and therefore may be more cautious and slower in the kinds of tasks assessed in this study.
107
Finally, as hypothesized, left-handers made significantly fewer errors than did right-handers in selecting path arrows. This finding is consistent with the work of Coren (1993) on the superior mental rotation of left-handers. In a sense, participants may take their stored map representation and then transform it into an operational response (choosing a particular path arrow). Presumably these lefthanders are more skilled in mentally manipulating objects, perhaps leading to superior performance as they transform their survey map knowledge into an environmental response. Limits to generality in this study include the lack of randomness of the participant pool as well as the restriction of the goal task to one site (the Schaefer Building). While study participants were randomly assigned to condition, they self-selected to participate. The location of the kiosk in a college student center leading to a high percentage of student-aged participants also limits the generality of the findings. Further, because the Schaefer Building appeared rather late in the numerical list of sites (no. 45), and was not counterbalanced by a goal appearing early in the list, it is not known whether the advantage of the labels intact condition would emerge if locations that varied in placement on the map were assessed. From a research standpoint, the computer-based interactive touch-screen monitor is a double-edged sword. It is extremely efficient in collecting participant data. In this study, over 400 people tried the system in just 3–4 days. It also reduces the pressure subjects may feel to meet experimenter performance expectations (i.e. ‘to get it right’). However, because subjects are ‘on their own’ there is no guarantee that experimental instructions will be followed. For example, despite including one screen that asked subjects to make sure no one watched over their shoulder while doing the experiment, people could (and some did) cluster together to look at what was occurring. Also, without an experimenter present to encourage taking the project seriously, there is no assurance that subjects worked rapidly.
Implications In the Garland et al. (1979) study, it was the level of street detail (the focus of the map) that was manipulated in assessing the relative contribution of color and black and white arrays in way-finding. In the present study, only miscellaneous information was varied in the high vs low detail conditions. Varying this kind of additional information
108
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
does not seem to affect the way-finding variables assessed in this study. Rather, it seems that presenting locations keyed by number, requiring additional steps in locating a particular site, may impede the speed of that process. Designers of maps for tourist attractions may want to consider incorporating label names within the body of the map to the extent it is possible. It also seems that people prefer a map plus written directions when venturing to a new destination. Creators of information kiosks that are proliferating might be well advised to provide both these sources of information in the paper print-outs that often accompany these kiosks.
Acknowledgements The authors want to thank Alexander Richardson, President of Lexitech, Inc., for his generous donation of hardware; the Center for Arts and Technology at Connecticut College for its internship support; and Stuart Parnes, Director of Exhibitions and Interpretive Programs at Mystic Seaport, for his cooperation.
Note Correspondence and reprint requests to Ann Sloan Devlin, Department of Psychology, Connecticut College, New London, CT 06320, U.S.A.
References Arnheim, R. (1976). The perception of maps. The American Cartographer 3, 5–10. Aubrey, J. B. &, Dobbs, A. R. (1990). Age and sex differences in the mental realignment of maps. Experimental Aging Research 16, 133–139. Birenbaum, M., Kelly, A. E. &, Levi-Keren, M. (1994). Stimulus features and sex difference in mental rotation performance. Intelligence 19, 51–64. Blough, P. M. &, Slavin, L. K. (1987). Reaction time assessments of gender differences in visual-spatial performance. Perception and Psychophysics 41, 276–281. Bryden, M. P.,, George, J. &, Inch, R. (1990). Sex differences and the role of figural complexity in determining the rate of mental rotation. Perceptual and Manual Skills 70, 467–477. Burke, B. F.,, Chrisler, J. C. &, Devlin, A. S. (1989). The creative thinking, environmental frustration, and self-concept of left- and right-handers. Creativity Research Journal 2, 279–285. Carter, R. C. (1982). Visual search with color. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8, 127–136. Cleveland, W. S. &, McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science 229, 828–833. Cleveland, W. S. &, McGill, R. (1987). Graphical perception: The visual decoding of quantitative information on graphical displays of data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 150, Series A, Part 3, 192–229. Corballis, M. C. (1982). Mental rotation: anatomy of a paradigm. In M. Potegal, Ed., Spatial abilities: Development and Physiological Foundations. New York: Academic Press, 173–198. Coren, S. (1993). The Left-hander Syndrome: The Causes and Consequences of Left-handedness. NY: Vintage. Cousins, J. H.,, Siegel, A. W. &, Maxwell, S. E. (1983). Way finding and cognitive mapping in large-scale environments: A test of a developmental model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 35, 1–20. Cuff, D. J. (1973). Colour on temperature maps. The Cartographic Journal 10, 17–21. Dent, B. D. (1972). Visual organization and thematic map communication. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 62, 25–38. Devlin, A. S. &, Bernstein, J. (1995). Interactive wayfinding: Use of cues by men and women. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 23–38. Galea, L. A. &, Kimura, D. (1993). Sex differences in route-learning. Personality & Individual Differences 14, 53–65. Garland, H. C.,, Haynes, J. J. &, Grubb, G. C. (1979). Transit map color coding and street detail effects on trip planning performance. Environment and Behavior 11, 162–184. Golledge, R. G.,, Smith, T. R.,, Pellegrino, J. W.,, Doherty, S. E. &, Marshall, S. P. (1985). A conceptual model and empirical analysis of children’s acquisition of spatial knowledge. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5, 125–152. Gopal, S., Klatzky, R. L. &, Smith, T. R. (1989). Navigator: a psychologically based model of environmental learning through navigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9, 309–331. Haavind, R. C. (1985). Etak: navigating cars with video displays. High Technology 5, 10–11. Hall, R. H. &, Sidio-Hall, M. A. (1994). The effect of color enhancement on knowledge map processing. Journal of Experimental Education 62, 209–217. Halpern, D. F. (1986). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Harris, L. J. (1981). Sex-related variations in spatial skill. In L. S. Liben, A. H. Patterson & N. Newcombe, (Eds), Spatial Representation and Behavior Across the Life Span. New York: Academic Press, 83–125. Holding, C. S. (1992). Clusters and reference points in cognitive representations of the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, 45–55. Holding, C. S. &, Holding, D. H. (1989). Acquisition of route network knowledge by males and females. The Journal of General Psychology 116, 29–41. Hyde, J. S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of gender differences. Signs 16, 55–73. Imhof, E. (1975). Positioning names on maps. The American Cartographer 2, 128–144.
Wayfinding and Map Style Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. &, Deardorff, H. L. (1974). The perception and evaluation of a simulated environment. Man–Environment Systems 4, 191–192. Kirasic, K. C.,, Allen, G. L. &, Siegel, A. W. (1984). Expression of configurational knowledge of large-scale environments: Student’s performance of cognitive tasks. Environment and Behavior 16, 687–712. Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology 3, 185–226. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of graph design. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company. Kulhavy, R. W.,, Caterino, L. C. &, Melchiori, F. (1989). Spatially cued retrieval of sentences. The Journal of General Psychology 116, 297–304. Kulhavy, R. W.,, Stock, W. A.,, Verdi, M. P. &, Rittschof, K. A. Savenye, N. (1993a). Why maps improve memory for text: the influence of structural information on working memory operation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 5, 375–392. Kulhavy, R. W.,, Stock, W. A.,, Woodard, K. A. &, Haygood, R. C. (1993b). Comparing elaboration and dual coding theories: the case of maps and text. American Journal of Psychology 106, 483–498. Kuo, F. (1996). The visual design of maps: facilitating spatial learning through simple format changes (Abstract). In J. L. Nasar & B. B. Brown, Eds., Public and Private Places: Proceedings of the 27th Environmental Design Research Association. Edmond, OK: EDRA, 233. Leiser, D. &, Zilbertshatz, A. (1989). The traveller: A computational model of spatial network learning. Environment and Behavior 21, 435–463. Levine, M. (1982). You-are-here-maps: Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior 14, 221–237. Levine, M., Marchon, I. &, Hanley, G. (1984). The placement and misplacement of you-are-here maps. Environment and Behavior 16, 139–157. Lewandowsky, S. &, Spence, I. (1989). Discriminating strata in scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 84, 682–688. Masters, M. S. &, Sanders, B. (1993). Is the gender difference in mental rotation disappearing? Behavior Genetics 23, 337–341. McGuinness, D. &, Sparks, J. (1983). Cognitive style and cognitive maps: sex differences in representations of a familiar terrain. Journal of Mental Imagery 7, 91–100. Miller, L. K. &, Santoni, V. (1986). Sex differences in spatial abilities: Strategic and experiential correlates. Acta Psychologica 62, 225–235. Milroy, R. &, Poulton, E. C. (1978). Labelling graphs for improved reading speed. Ergonomics 21, 55–61. Monmonier, M. & Schnell, G. A. (1988). Map Appreciation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Moraglia, G., Maloney, K. P.,, Fekete, E. M. &, Al-Basi, K. (1989). Visual search along the colour dimension. Canadian Journal of Psychology 43, 1–12. Newland, G. A. (1981). Differences between left and righthanders on a measure of creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills 53, 787–792. O’Neill, M. J. (1986). Effects of computer simulated environmental variables on wayfinding accuracy. In J. Wineman, R. Barnes & C. Zimring, Eds, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Environmental
109
Design Research Association. Atlanta, GA: EDRA, 55–63. O’Neill, M. J. (1992). Effects of familiarity and plan complexity on wayfinding in simulated buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, 319–327. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Peterson, J. M. &, Lansky, L. M. (1977). Left-handedness among architects: Partial replication and some new data. Perceptual and Motor Skills 45, 1216–1218. Porac, C. & Coren, S. (1981). Lateral Preferences and Human Behavior. NY: Springer-Verlag. Resnick, S. M. (1993). Sex differences in mental rotations: an effect of time limits? Brain and Cognition 21, 71–79. Robinson, A. H. (1952). The Look of Maps: An Examination of Cartographic Design. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Robinson, A. H. (1982). A program of research to aid cartographic design. The American Cartographer 9, 25–29. Robinson, A. H., Sale, R. D., Morrison, J. L. & Muehrcke, P. C. (1984). (5th Edn.). Elements of Cartography. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rossano, M. J. &, Warren, D. H. (1989). Misaligned maps lead to predictable errors. Perception 18, 215–229. Sanders, B. &, Soares, M. P. (1986). Sexual maturation and spatial ability in college students. Developmental Psychology 22, 199–203. Schwartz, N. H. &, Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Map features and the recall of discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology 6, 151–158. Simkin, D. &, Hastie, R. (1987). An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82, 454–465. Smallman, H. S. & Boynton, R. M. (1990). Segregation of basic colors in an information display. Journal of the Optical Society of America, Part A, 7, 1985–1994. Smith, T. R., Pellegrino, J. W., Golledge, R. G. (1982). Computational process modeling of spatial cognition and behaviour. Geographical Analysis 14, 305–325. Southworth, M. & Southworth, S. (1982). Maps: A Visual Survey and Design Guide. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Spence, I. (1990). Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16, 683–692. Spence, I. &, Lewandowsky, S. (1991). Displaying proportions and percentages. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5, 61–77. Stewart, C. A. &, Clayson, D. (1980). A note on change in creativity in handedness over a maturational time period. Journal of Psychology 104, 39–42. Taylor, H. A. &, Tversky, B. (1992). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 261–292 . Thorndyke, P. W. &, Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology 14, 560–589. Tullis, T. S. (1981). An evaluation of alphanumeric, graphic, and color information displays. Human Factors 23, 541–550. Tufte, E. R. (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. Tversky, B. &, Schiano, D. J. (1989). Perceptual and con-
110
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
ceptual factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118, 387–398. Ward, S. L.,, Newcombe, N. &, Overton, W. F. (1986). Turn left at the church, or three miles north: A study of direction giving and sex differences. Environment and Behavior 18, 192–213. Warren, D. H. (1994). Self-localization on plan and oblique maps. Environment and Behavior 26, 71–98. Warren, D. H.,, Rossano, M. J. &, Wear, T. D. (1990). Perception of map–environment correspondence: the roles of features and alignment. Ecological Psychology 2, 131–150. Warren, D. H. &, Scott, T. E. (1993). Map alignment in traveling multisegment routes. Environment and Behavior 25, 643–666. Warren, D. H.,, Scott, T. E. &, Medley, C. (1992). Finding
locations in the environment: The map as mediator. Perception 21, 671–689. Webb, J. M.,, Saltz, E. D.,, McCarthy, M. T. &, Kealy, W. A. (1994). Conjoint influence of maps and auded prose on children’s retrieval of instruction. Journal of Experimental Education 62, 195–208. Weisman, G. D., O’Neill, M. J. & Doll, C. (1987). Computer graphic simulation of wayfinding in a public environment: A validation study. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Ottawa: Canada, 74–80. Wood, D. (1973). I Don’t Want To, But I Will. The Genesis of Geographic Knowledge: A Real-time Developmental Study of Adolescent Images of Novel Environments. Worcester, MA: The Clark University Cartographic Laboratory.
0272-4944/97/020099+12$25·00/0
Journalof
ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY INTERACTIVE WAY-FINDING: MAP STYLE AND EFFECTIVENESS
ANN SLOAN DEVLIN AND JASON BERNSTEIN Connecticut College, New London, CT, U.S.A.
Abstract To evaluate the effectiveness of three map variables on simulated way-finding ability in a 2 by 2 by 2 design (color vs black & white; high vs low level of detail; and labels in a legend vs labels adjacent to landmarks), 43 males and 43 females were randomly assigned to one of these eight different map conditions. Using a touch screen monitor for all aspects of the study, participants were instructed to study first a map, then locate a number of landmarks on their map and indicate which paths to follow when proceeding to a specified destination. Participants in map conditions with landmarks identified by number and labeled in a legend (legend condition) took significantly longer than those in conditions where the landmark names were listed at the site of the landmarks themselves (labels intact condition) to locate one of the specified landmarks. Males were faster than females to indicate which paths to follow for the simulated mapping task and reported significantly less frustration performing the way-finding tasks than did females. Left-handers made significantly fewer errors than right-handers in indicating which paths to follow on the simulated way-finding task. Implications for map and kiosk designers are discussed. 1997 Academic Press Limited
Introduction
navigation grow in availability (Haavind, 1985), it is important to investigate how to present effecWithin psychology and other disciplines, the study tively dynamic information. The Etak system for of way-finding, or how humans navigate from an auto navigation compares the vehicle’s movements origin to a destination, has produced a variety of with stored map data and rotates the map to keep approaches. The advent of computer-based formats the road at the top of the screen (rather than for way-finding has stimulated research about the pointing North). The rotational aspect of the Etak effectiveness of navigational information that is system points to the importance of such factors as presented via computer simulation and interactive map alignment in way-finding. Maps misaligned to means (Smith et al., 1982; Golledge et al., 1985; the environment are likely to cause errors O’Neill, 1986, 1992; Weisman et al., 1987; Gopal et (Rossano & Warren, 1989; Warren et al., 1990; al., 1989; Devlin & Bernstein, 1995). From both a 1992; Warren & Scott, 1993; Warren 1994). Levine theoretical and practical standpoint, there is con- (Levine, 1982; Levine et al., 1984) has also demoncern with the comparability of map versus real-time strated that you-are-here maps are not always as environmental experiences as a form of environ- helpful as they might be, as they are often mismental learning. For example, Thorndyke and placed and misaligned. Despite such problems, peoHayes-Roth (1982) compared subjects who actually ple view maps as efficacious and select them as walked through an environment and those who desirable information sources when traveling to studied maps. Those with the real world task made new destinations (Devlin & Bernstein, 1995). more accurate route estimates, while those who Within the context of way-finding mediated by studied maps made more accurate survey esti- the dynamic display of information, the presenmates, including Euclidean distances and the rela- tation of the visual display merits particular attentive positions of locations. With experience, the real- tion. One question that has received little attention time navigators were hypothesized to acquire the in research is the role of stylistic factors in the map survey knowledge that map learners possessed. display itself. Among the variables of concern to any As such way-finding aids as video maps for auto map-maker are the use of color, level of detail repps970045
100
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
resented, and location of map information (i.e. labels). When we examine the literature in search of guidelines about these kinds of stylistic variables, some general directions emerge (Robinson, 1952): legibility varies with type styles; the contrast of dark on light background is more legible than the reverse; italics are difficult to read; perceptibility of print increases with increasing thickness to a point and then declines; the use of color is complicated and poorly understood. Southworth and Southworth (1982) have suggested that unsuccessful maps present too much information; that prominent landmarks should also have prominence in the map; and that color used for merely decorative purposes can distract or confuse. While such advice is helpful, the specificity of this information is limited. More precision about the use of such factors as color and extent and placement of labeling is necessary. The need for empirically-based guidelines has been recognized as a priority (Robinson, 1982). Potentially useful information comes from research on statistical graphics (Cleveland & McGill, 1985, 1987). Cleveland and McGill have ranked what they call elementary codes (e.g. position along a common scale) in terms of subjects’ accuracy to make judgments using these codes. Cartographers recognize the need to provide a research base for their decisions (Robinson, 1982), most of which seem to be based on tradition and intuition. For 150 years, distinct rules concerning type placement spread among topographers and cartographers by word of mouth (Imhof, 1975, p. 128).
It is also the case that information processing research (e.g. memory of function) in which maps may be used as stimuli often use displays that may not be realistic or representative of actual maps (Tversky & Schiano, 1989), furthering the need for the field of cartography to generate an empirical base. Some of the guidelines for map layout have reflected Gestalt principles (e.g. Dent, 1972) and psychophysics (e.g. Spence, 1990; Spence & Lewandowsky, 1991) while others have described map and graph interpretation in information processing terms (Simkin & Hastie, 1987; Kosslyn, 1989, 1994). The increasing use of computer simulation of navigational information raises the important question of how much data should be presented and the form such information should take. The present study focuses specifically on three variables: colorcoding; level of detail; and label placement. Color coding The use of color to transmit information in maps
and graphs has a mixed reputation. The ability of color to add information in color displays comes from its potential contribution to clarity, offering a range of possibilities for differentiation (Robinson et al., 1984). Much of what we know about the use of color comes from work in statistical graphics (e.g. Cuff, 1973), where color has been called the ‘most efficient dimension for the labeling of information in visual displays’ (Smallman & Boynton, 1990). Colors that are well segregated (differentiated) in color space increase the number of colors that can be used for differentiation in a given display. While the use of color has potential benefits, color has been called a complex symbol for map use (Monmonier & Schnell, 1988), potentially distracting and confusing (Southworth & Southworth, 1982). Further, a visually attractive map is not necessarily easy to use (Monmonier & Schnell, 1988). In a study where subjects were asked to understand a display about a computer-based telephone line testing system, color did not contribute significantly to subjects’ performance (Tullis, 1981). The effects of color coding seem to depend on the experimental conditions (Tullis, 1981), with search tasks enhanced (e.g., Carter, 1982; Lewandowsky & Spence, 1989) and identification tasks going either way. Searches are faster when there is a significant contrast between what you seek (the target) and the background colors (Morgalia et al., 1989). What seems consistent is that people like color displays better than those in black and white (Tullis, 1981). More empirical guidelines about the use of color have come from work in statistical graphics than from research in cartography, and it is difficult to know about the extension of the work in graphics to cartography. In one study involving maps (Garland et al., 1979), the effectiveness of color and street detail on a city bus map for trip planning performance was examined. The study used four different map types [color and black & white official transit maps (1&2); black & white stick route and major street and route maps (3&4)]. In the Garland et al. study, 11 different colors were used to indicate 26 separately labeled routes. The authors reported that elimination of small street detail is helpful in the absence of color coding on the map, as there were more errors in the black and white version of the official transit map than in either the color version or the black and white major streets and routes version. They suggested that considerable money can be saved without much loss of usefulness by using black and white maps with a reduced level of street detail. Research in education has been more positive about the potential contribution of color
Wayfinding and Map Style
and has indicated that color-enhanced materials can facilitate recall of maps and traditional text (Hall & Sidio-Hall, 1994). There is a role for the use of color in maps, but the extent to which it parallels the role in statistical graphics applications is unknown. Level of detail While greater detail may add realism to a visual display, it does not necessarily affect functional variables (i.e. the ability to make judgments based on the information). For example, Kaplan et al. (1974) demonstrated that subjects could base judgments on the information presented in architectural models with limited detail and argue that simplification of the display has a number of benefits, from increasing generality to reducing information processing demand. In the Kaplan et al. (1974) study, models of high- or low-detail housing developments were presented to subjects in a between-groups design. The high detail model had facade and landscaping details such as windows and contour lines. Subjects rated the housing development models in terms of functional aspects (e.g. how satisfactory they would be for privacy) and concluded that the simple model was as useful as the more detailed one in making these kinds of judgments. When subjects viewed pictures of the actual housing development on which the models were based, participants in both high- and low-detail conditions reported that the model that they had seen was an adequate representation of the actual development. Tufte (1983) is another author who argues for simplification in visual displays as does Arnheim who stated that ‘A map containing a maximum of detail makes it almost impossible to grasp the essential elements.’ (Arnheim, 1976, p. 9).
Label placement Research supporting the conjoint retention hypothesis, an extension of Paivio’s dual coding theory (1986), suggests that label information on the map is better recalled when it is presented at appropriate positions, rather than in a separate list of labels (Schwartz & Kulhavy, 1981; Kulhavy et al., 1989). This result agrees with the conjoint retention hypothesis as an extension of Paivio’s dual coding theory (Paivio, 1986). The theory proposes that spatial/perceptual information and linguistic/verbal information are coded separately but that the codes
101
lead to connected representations that can be used simultaneously when retrieval cues are provided for each (Kulhavy et al., 1993a, b; Webb et al., 1994). In a study by Kulhavy et al. (1989) verbal material was integrated with the spatial map information (map condition) or presented on the left side of the page (list condition). The participants in the map condition recalled more information than those in the list condition. The authors conclude that: The economy with which the intact map can be represented in working memory allows a wider search to proceed in a manner significantly more effective than when subjects attempt to use list-presented items in the same fashion (p. 303).
Thus, when labels are included within the spatial structure of a map itself, they are coded as part of an intact unit, facilitating a faster search process on the basis of a more economical memory representation. Kuo (1996) reported that participants in a condition where labels were placed directly on buildings on a campus map learned more from the map than those who used a map where the labels were adjacent to the buildings. In a study using graphs it was demonstrated that placing labels directly to the right on the graph function (Milroy & Poulton, 1978) resulted in faster judgments (although not fewer errors) than conditions where the key was on the graph field below the functions or inserted below the graph in the location of the figure caption. This results parallels the advice of Imhof (1975) about the position of labels on maps: generally above and to the right of the item. Two additional questions in the present study were the roles of gender differences and handedness. In the performance of certain spatial tasks, most consistently mental rotation, men are consistently better than are women (Harris, 1981; Corballis, 1982; Halpern, 1986; Sanders & Soares, 1986; Hyde, 1990; Masters & Sanders, 1993). Women tend to be slower and less accurate in doing mental rotation tasks (e.g. Blough & Slavin, 1987; Bryden et al., 1990: Birenbaum et al., 1994). The issue of slower reaction times of women and the potential effect of cautiousness on their performance has led some authors to question whether mental rotation differences might be an effect of time limits, but differences of the same strength have been found both with and without time limits (Resnick, 1993). Differences between men and women also often appear in way-finding tasks (McGuiness & Sparks, 1983; Miller & Santoni, 1986; Ward, Newcombe & Overton, 1986; Holding & Holding, 1989; Aubrey & Dobbs, 1990; Holding,
102
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
1992; Galea & Kimura, 1993; Devlin & Bernstein, 1995). While there are studies reporting no such differences (Cousins et al., 1983; Kirasic et al., 1984; Taylor & Tversky, 1992), the main evidence supports the direction of difference, although additional research is needed to understand the parameters within which such gender differences in way-finding occur. In research by Galea and Kimura (1993), males were superior at route-learning and on a composite Euclidean measure, while females recalled more landmarks, even when visual item memory recall, a process reported to be superior in females, was controlled. In a study of computer simulated way-finding using a touch-screen monitor (Devlin & Bernstein, 1995), males made significantly fewer errors than females, were significantly more confident that they could find their way, and generally preferred the use of visual-spatial cues to verbal information more than did women. Independent of gender, participants in two map conditions were significantly more confident that they could find their way in the computer simulation test task than participants in conditions with photographic and written direction stimuli. Regarding handedness, the right hemisphere dominance of left-handers has been hypothesized to mean greater creativity (Burke et al., 1989). The handedness of students and faculty members at a large architecture program was noted over a sixyear period, with more left-handers enrolled in the program (21%) than expected according to the proportion in the general population, proportionately more left-handers than right-handers graduating from the program, and four times as many lefthanded faculty members as compared to expectation (Peterson & Lansky, 1977). Greater creativity of left-handers has been reported among youngsters as well as adults (Stewart & Clayson, 1980; Newland, 1981). Greater creativity is suggested by higher performance for left-handers in mental rotation studies (Porac & Coren, 1981; Coren, 1993), a skill that requires visualization, presumably an asset in using maps. Map readers are required to change perspective and orientation when moving from map study to real-time navigation. Similarly, success at mentally rotating an object involves turning the object “in your head,” a change of orientation and perspective. It might also be noted that there is a small difference between men and women in the percentage likely to be left-handed, with men 4% more likely than women to be left-handed (Coren, 1993). The present study builds on the research by
FIGURE 1.
Computer kiosk.
Devlin and Bernstein (1995) employing computerbased way-finding methodology and on earlier research about the possible efficiency of colorcoding, level of detail, and label location in map use. The study involves three map variables (color, level of detail, and label position), with two levels of each of these variables. Participants in the study, conducted entirely with a touch screen computer monitor, were instructed to study a map and then perform certain tasks, including locating a number of landmarks on the map and indicating what path to follow a reach a specific destination. The latency to touch the screen for each of the tasks and the number of errors made in selecting the paths to the destination were the primary dependent variables. The hypotheses were that map conditions employing color, high detail and labels placed adjacent to landmarks (intact map) produce superior simulated way-finding performance. The dearth of literature about the effect of color and detail specifically in map use made the formulation of strong hypotheses difficult, but color and greater detail were hypothesized to contribute to performance by creating a visual display with greater realism and differentiation. The advantage of the intact label display was predicted by previous research in statistical graphics. Based on the literature, it was further hypothesized that men and left-handers would be faster and
Wayfinding and Map Style
103
make fewer errors in the simulated way-finding tasks than would women and right-handers.
Method Participants Students and visitors to the college student center who passed by the computer kiosk (see Figure 1) and were intrigued by the ‘attract loop’ and ultimately completed the experiment were the study participants. Only individuals who had never visited Mystic Seaport or had not done the experiment before (people like to stay and use the touch-screen monitor more than once) were included in the analyses. Of the 99 of 402 individuals who met those criteria, 13 more were eliminated either because their latency scores were 99 seconds (the default value), indicating a computer problem, or their error score for a given test screen exceeded the number of arrow choices, indicating either a lack of engagement in the task or a computer problem. The final sample consisted of 86 individuals. The 86 participants, 43 males and 43 females, ranged in age from under 10 to over 60. The majority were college-age students (almost 90% were 16–25 years of age). Participants were first asked to touch the screen to provide background information about themselves. This included sex, handedness (left or right), age (11 categories ranging from under 10 to over 60), degree of comfort using a touch-screen kiosk (ranging from 1= extremely comfortable to 5=not at all comfortable), whether they had previously visited Mystic Seaport (from never to five or more times); and whether they had done the experiment before (some people liked to try more than once). Map design One of the motivations for the current research involved discussions with personnel at Mystic Seaport about the efficacy of their visitors’ map. The 1994 map used by the Seaport is essentially a black and white version with identifying labels keyed by numbers that appear adjacent to the pictograms of Seaport landmarks. Over the years, the Seaport has used a variety of other map formats, including one based on regions coded by colors and very little detail. No systematic evaluation of the maps has been conducted by the Seaport. Seaport personnel expressed an interest in examining such variables as level of detail, location of identifying information,
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 3.
High-detail intact map.
High-detail keyed-by-numbers map.
and use of color vs black and white. The study addresses some of these issues within a computerbased framework. The base map for the study was created from an earlier color version of the current visitors’ map of Mystic Seaport, scanned in to the computer, and modified to create the eight versions used in this study. Subjects who decided to participate were randomly assigned to one of eight map conditions, created from a 2 (color vs black & white) by 2 (high vs low detail) by 2 (labels adjacent to landmarks vs landmarks keyed by number with labels in a legend) map layouts (see Figures 2–4 for examples). Level of detail. The high detail condition included more details of the same basic framework, with Seaport buildings presented in perspective, landscaping included for the Seaport grounds, shading on the paths, and more ships included in the harbor. Color. The color version of the map differed from
104
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
FIGURE 4.
Low-detail intact map.
the black and white version in using a limited palette of colors to create a realistic visual display; light blue water, dark red roofs for the buildings and shades of green for the landscaping. Label position. One version (labels intact) placed the landmark names immediately adjacent to the building or attraction itself; the other version identified these landmarks by an adjacent number with the label placed in a key in the harbor and grounds areas. Instruments The primary instruments for this study were an IBM model 70 computer with an IBM Personal System/2 Touch Display color monitor. The software program was IBM-authored AVC (Audio Visual Connection). The Touch Display color monitor and software system were provided by Lexitech, a multimedia interactive communications company. The basic format for the experiment was: (1) obtain background information about participants; (2) expose them to one of eight maps; and (3) ‘test’ their way-finding ability by asking them to indicate the paths to take to a specified destination. All aspects of the experiment were conducted using the touch-screen monitor. Procedure The Touch Display monitor was housed in a kiosk placed in against a wall in a heavily traveled corridor of the campus student center. The monitor displayed an ‘attract loop’ with a picture of Mystic Seaport followed by a screen explaining that the purpose of the project was to understand the useful-
ness of different kinds of maps in getting from a starting point to a particular destination. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions by a programming variable. The map they were assigned was used on all map exposures for a given experimental condition. The first screen stated: ‘We will now simulate a trip to Mystic Seaport. We will ask you to look at a Mystic Seaport map, locate several buildings, and simulate a walk to a destination.’ To continue, participants pressed a screen ‘button’. The next screen presented the first mapping tasks: ‘You will now be shown a map of Mystic Seaport. Please examine the map quickly and touch Visitor Services by the Main Entrance as soon as you see it.’ Participants then touched the button labeled ‘I’m ready’ to begin the task. When the Visitors Center on the map was touched, a red circle appeared to indicate success. The time elapsed to locate the landmark was recorded by the computer. If the location was not located within 99 seconds, a default condition returned the program to its initial loop. Participants next saw: ‘You have heard about a gallery talk and are interested in attending. It is now 11:15, so you need to find out where and when the gallery talk takes place.’ A screen then appeared with the information concerning the gallery talk. The next screen again presented the Seaport Map preceded by the following instructions: ‘You will now be shown the Mystic Seaport Map again. Please examine the map quickly and touch the Schaefer Building as soon as you see it.’ Again participants pressed an ‘I’m ready’ screen button. When the Schaefer Building was located by a press, a red circle again appeared to indicate correct identification (see Figure 5). A default loop of 99 seconds was employed for this screen as well. Next, a screen appeared that delineated the path to follow from the Visitor’s Center (start) to the Schaefer Building (goal) with the following script: ‘Once again, you will see the map of Mystic Seaport. This time a red line will be drawn on it showing a path from Visitor Services to the Schaefer Building. For 30 seconds, view the map and try to remember the path.’ (see Figure 6). This screen was followed by an assessment of how confident the participants were that they could find their way from the entrance to the Schaefer Building (on a scale where 1=extremely confident to 5= not at all confident). Participants were then told: ‘You will now see a series of pictures leading from Visitor Services to the Schaefer Building. On each picture touch the
Wayfinding and Map Style
FIGURE 5.
Circle highlighting Schaefer Building correctly identified.
105
photograph presented from two to four arrows (using computer graphics), one of which was the ‘correct’ path response. If an incorrect arrow was selected, a screen appeared that stated: ‘That is not the way the map suggested. Please touch the screen to try again.’ After the test was completed, participants responded to a screen question: ‘How useful was the map information in helping you to find your way?’ on a scale where 1=extremely helpful to 5=not at all helpful) followed by a screen that asked them rate their frustration during performance of the task (1= not at all frustrating to 5=extremely frustrating). The next screen asked ‘What kinds of information do you prefer when trying to get from one place to another? Press all that apply. Press DONE when you are finished.’ The screen offered the following options: Maps, Written Directions, Visual Tour of Route, Verbal Directions. Dependent variables were the time to locate and press two landmarks: Visitor Services and the Schaefer Building; number of errors made in the tour path test, the latency to press the first arrow for each of the 14 test screens summed across screens, the degree of confidence they expressed in being able to find their way, and their degree of frustration in performing the tasks.
Results FIGURE 6.
Line tracing path from Visitors Services to the Schaefer Building.
FIGURE 7.
One of 14 arrow selection screens presenting directional choices.
blue arrow that will lead you toward the Schaefer Building following the path shown previously on the map.’ When the ‘I’m ready’ button was pressed, a series of 14 screens followed (see Figure 7). Each
To evaluate the effect of map type on the number of errors, latencies to press the Visitor’s Center and the Schaefer Building, and to touch the test arrows summed across the 14 test screens, a 2 (color vs black & white) by 2 (level of detail) by 2 (labels vs numbers) multivariate analysis of variance was run. There was a main effect for the location of the labels factor, Wilks Lambda=0·671, F(4,75)=9·19, p <0·001. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) indicated an effect on the latency to locate the Schaefer Building, F(1,78)=25·72, p<0·001. The means revealed that participants who viewed maps with the labels immediately adjacent to the landmarks were significantly faster (M=11·89 s, S.D.= 7·72, n=47), than those who saw maps with landmarks keyed by number (M=17·12 s, S.D.=9·10, n= 39) (see Table 1). Another MANOVA was run to evaluate the effect of handedness and sex on the same dependent variables. The MANOVA revealed an effect of handedness, Wilks=0·870, F(4,79)=2·96, p=0·025. Univariate analyses revealed a significant effect on errors, F(1,82)=5·21, p=0·025. Left-handers made signifi-
106
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein TABLE 1 Means and standard deviations of latency to locate the Schaefer building across map conditions Low Detail
Color Black & White
High Detail
Labels
Numbers
Labels
Numbers
13·40 (8·45) (n=10) 10·25 (4·79) (n=12)
14·21 (7·02) (n=14) 23·75 (12·04) (n=8)
6·29 (2·56) (n=7) 11·56 (6·90) (n=18)
14·80 (6·92) (n=10) 22·71 (8·52) (n=7)
cantly fewer errors (M=3·00) than right-handers (M=4·22). While not significant, the analyses of total time across screens (p<0·07) and time to touch the Schaefer Building (p<0·07) were in the predicted direction. In both cases, left handers were faster. Six males and 12 females were self-reported left-handers while 37 males and 31 females were self-reported right-handers. While the analysis for sex was not significant, Wilks Lambda=0·903, F(4,79)=2·13, p=0·085, an a priori hypothesis that males would outperform females argued for examining the univariate analyses. The univariate analyses indicated a main effect on summed time taken to make a first touch of an arrow across screens, F(1,82)=5·24, p=0·025. Females took significantly longer (M=64·04 s) than males (M=56·63 s). A second set of MANOVAs was run to evaluate effects on the dependent variables of comfort using the kiosk touch screen computer, confidence in being able to find their way, helpfulness of the map, and degree of frustration during tasks performance. There were no significant differences of the three map factors (color vs black & white, level of detail, and labels/numbers). These dependent variables were then used in a MANOVA with sex and handedness as the independent variables. The effect of sex was significant, Wilks Lambda=0·880, F(4,79)= 2·70, p=0·05. The subsequent univariate analyses revealed a main effect on degree of frustration, F(1,82)=10·40, p<0·005. Men reported the task to be less frustrating (M=2·51) than women (M=3·26) on a scale where 1=not at all frustrating to 5= extremely frustrating. There was no difference between men and women in their preferences for the different types of information sources (map, written directions, visual tour of the route, and verbal directions). The order of preference for the combined sample was map (69·8% ), written directions (53·5%), visual tour of the route (32·6%) and verbal directions (27·9%). Participants could select as many sources as they desired, and there was no difference between men and women in the number of cue sources selected. The most popu-
lar source combination, endorsed by 22·1%, was map plus written instructions; followed by map alone (18·6%), the only other selection over 10%. These results parallel those of Devlin and Bernstein (1995). Computed correlations indicated that participants’ comfort using the computer kiosk was positively correlated with their confidence in finding their way (r=0·29, p<0·01). The degree of frustration in performing the experimental tasks was positively correlated with way-finding confidence (r=0·30, p< 0·01), i.e. lower frustration with higher confidence and with the error score (r=0·22, p<0·05), indicating a relationship between lower frustration and fewer errors. Rated helpfulness of the map was positively correlated with frustration level, i.e. greater helpfulness with lower frustration (r=0·35, p<0·01). Finally, the error score was positively correlated with how helpful they judged the map to be (r=0·34, p<0·01), i.e. fewer errors with greater map helpfulness.
Discussion The results indicate some support for the role of map style variables, gender and handedness in wayfinding. The location of identifier labels affected the way-finding performance speed with which participants were able to locate the goal site (Schaefer Building). Thus, conditions involving the number key as a basis for identifying landmarks appear to be less efficient than conditions where the labels are integrated with landmark information. It may be that a map with numbers requires additional steps in order to identify a particular landmark. There is a first search for a particular site name keyed to a number and then a search for the number’s location on the map. The finding of positive evidence of maplabel integration supports the hypothesis of Kulhavy and colleagues about conjoint retention (Kulhavy et al., 1989, 1993a, b). The greater economy with which the intact map with focused atten-
Wayfinding and Map Style
tion to landmarks can be stored and retrieved presumably facilitates a faster search than for maps with the labels keyed separately by number. There was no difference due to map style conditions in the Visitors Services location task; since this landmark or function was centrally located the participants might have used an already familiar schema for the location of such a central function (Wood, 1973), thinking to themselves that: ‘it should be right out front. . .one of the first things you see.’ The fact that there were no significant effects of level of detail and color suggests that detail and color that contribute to realism may not make a significant difference in terms of simulated way-finding performance. These results are reminiscent of the Garland et al. (1979) findings that reducing the level of detail in the absence of color did not significantly reduce the usefulness of city bus maps. One is reminded of the cautions of Southworth and Southworth (1982) that too much information and color used merely as decoration are hallmarks of unsuccessful and confusing maps. In this case, color and additional detail were not detrimental to performance; rather, those features simply did not enhance performance. While the role of color in this study was not decorative, it did not serve a direct way-finding function, i.e. routes were not differentiated by color. But as subjects prefer color to black and white displays (Tullis, 1981), more research is needed to define the ways in which color in maps may be helpful. While map preference per se was not assessed in this study, no one map style was rated as more helpful or contributing to greater way-finding confidence than any other. Further, the lack of effect of detail in this study is reminiscent of Kaplan et al. (1974) where low-detail architectural models performed as well as high-detail models for functional judgments. Consistent with earlier research (Galea & Kimura, 1993) that females took longer to reach criterion and made more errors, some gender differences appeared in this study. Specifically, females took longer on average than did males to touch the way-finding test screens (summed across screens) and reported more frustration in completing the experiment that did males. However, unlike the findings of Devlin and Bernstein (1995), males and females did not differ in their preference for cue sources in acquiring information when traveling to a new destination. Blough and Slavin (1987) have suggested that women have a bias toward accuracy in making visual-spatial judgments and therefore may be more cautious and slower in the kinds of tasks assessed in this study.
107
Finally, as hypothesized, left-handers made significantly fewer errors than did right-handers in selecting path arrows. This finding is consistent with the work of Coren (1993) on the superior mental rotation of left-handers. In a sense, participants may take their stored map representation and then transform it into an operational response (choosing a particular path arrow). Presumably these lefthanders are more skilled in mentally manipulating objects, perhaps leading to superior performance as they transform their survey map knowledge into an environmental response. Limits to generality in this study include the lack of randomness of the participant pool as well as the restriction of the goal task to one site (the Schaefer Building). While study participants were randomly assigned to condition, they self-selected to participate. The location of the kiosk in a college student center leading to a high percentage of student-aged participants also limits the generality of the findings. Further, because the Schaefer Building appeared rather late in the numerical list of sites (no. 45), and was not counterbalanced by a goal appearing early in the list, it is not known whether the advantage of the labels intact condition would emerge if locations that varied in placement on the map were assessed. From a research standpoint, the computer-based interactive touch-screen monitor is a double-edged sword. It is extremely efficient in collecting participant data. In this study, over 400 people tried the system in just 3–4 days. It also reduces the pressure subjects may feel to meet experimenter performance expectations (i.e. ‘to get it right’). However, because subjects are ‘on their own’ there is no guarantee that experimental instructions will be followed. For example, despite including one screen that asked subjects to make sure no one watched over their shoulder while doing the experiment, people could (and some did) cluster together to look at what was occurring. Also, without an experimenter present to encourage taking the project seriously, there is no assurance that subjects worked rapidly.
Implications In the Garland et al. (1979) study, it was the level of street detail (the focus of the map) that was manipulated in assessing the relative contribution of color and black and white arrays in way-finding. In the present study, only miscellaneous information was varied in the high vs low detail conditions. Varying this kind of additional information
108
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
does not seem to affect the way-finding variables assessed in this study. Rather, it seems that presenting locations keyed by number, requiring additional steps in locating a particular site, may impede the speed of that process. Designers of maps for tourist attractions may want to consider incorporating label names within the body of the map to the extent it is possible. It also seems that people prefer a map plus written directions when venturing to a new destination. Creators of information kiosks that are proliferating might be well advised to provide both these sources of information in the paper print-outs that often accompany these kiosks.
Acknowledgements The authors want to thank Alexander Richardson, President of Lexitech, Inc., for his generous donation of hardware; the Center for Arts and Technology at Connecticut College for its internship support; and Stuart Parnes, Director of Exhibitions and Interpretive Programs at Mystic Seaport, for his cooperation.
Note Correspondence and reprint requests to Ann Sloan Devlin, Department of Psychology, Connecticut College, New London, CT 06320, U.S.A.
References Arnheim, R. (1976). The perception of maps. The American Cartographer 3, 5–10. Aubrey, J. B. &, Dobbs, A. R. (1990). Age and sex differences in the mental realignment of maps. Experimental Aging Research 16, 133–139. Birenbaum, M., Kelly, A. E. &, Levi-Keren, M. (1994). Stimulus features and sex difference in mental rotation performance. Intelligence 19, 51–64. Blough, P. M. &, Slavin, L. K. (1987). Reaction time assessments of gender differences in visual-spatial performance. Perception and Psychophysics 41, 276–281. Bryden, M. P.,, George, J. &, Inch, R. (1990). Sex differences and the role of figural complexity in determining the rate of mental rotation. Perceptual and Manual Skills 70, 467–477. Burke, B. F.,, Chrisler, J. C. &, Devlin, A. S. (1989). The creative thinking, environmental frustration, and self-concept of left- and right-handers. Creativity Research Journal 2, 279–285. Carter, R. C. (1982). Visual search with color. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8, 127–136. Cleveland, W. S. &, McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science 229, 828–833. Cleveland, W. S. &, McGill, R. (1987). Graphical perception: The visual decoding of quantitative information on graphical displays of data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 150, Series A, Part 3, 192–229. Corballis, M. C. (1982). Mental rotation: anatomy of a paradigm. In M. Potegal, Ed., Spatial abilities: Development and Physiological Foundations. New York: Academic Press, 173–198. Coren, S. (1993). The Left-hander Syndrome: The Causes and Consequences of Left-handedness. NY: Vintage. Cousins, J. H.,, Siegel, A. W. &, Maxwell, S. E. (1983). Way finding and cognitive mapping in large-scale environments: A test of a developmental model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 35, 1–20. Cuff, D. J. (1973). Colour on temperature maps. The Cartographic Journal 10, 17–21. Dent, B. D. (1972). Visual organization and thematic map communication. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 62, 25–38. Devlin, A. S. &, Bernstein, J. (1995). Interactive wayfinding: Use of cues by men and women. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 23–38. Galea, L. A. &, Kimura, D. (1993). Sex differences in route-learning. Personality & Individual Differences 14, 53–65. Garland, H. C.,, Haynes, J. J. &, Grubb, G. C. (1979). Transit map color coding and street detail effects on trip planning performance. Environment and Behavior 11, 162–184. Golledge, R. G.,, Smith, T. R.,, Pellegrino, J. W.,, Doherty, S. E. &, Marshall, S. P. (1985). A conceptual model and empirical analysis of children’s acquisition of spatial knowledge. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5, 125–152. Gopal, S., Klatzky, R. L. &, Smith, T. R. (1989). Navigator: a psychologically based model of environmental learning through navigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9, 309–331. Haavind, R. C. (1985). Etak: navigating cars with video displays. High Technology 5, 10–11. Hall, R. H. &, Sidio-Hall, M. A. (1994). The effect of color enhancement on knowledge map processing. Journal of Experimental Education 62, 209–217. Halpern, D. F. (1986). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Harris, L. J. (1981). Sex-related variations in spatial skill. In L. S. Liben, A. H. Patterson & N. Newcombe, (Eds), Spatial Representation and Behavior Across the Life Span. New York: Academic Press, 83–125. Holding, C. S. (1992). Clusters and reference points in cognitive representations of the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, 45–55. Holding, C. S. &, Holding, D. H. (1989). Acquisition of route network knowledge by males and females. The Journal of General Psychology 116, 29–41. Hyde, J. S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of gender differences. Signs 16, 55–73. Imhof, E. (1975). Positioning names on maps. The American Cartographer 2, 128–144.
Wayfinding and Map Style Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. &, Deardorff, H. L. (1974). The perception and evaluation of a simulated environment. Man–Environment Systems 4, 191–192. Kirasic, K. C.,, Allen, G. L. &, Siegel, A. W. (1984). Expression of configurational knowledge of large-scale environments: Student’s performance of cognitive tasks. Environment and Behavior 16, 687–712. Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology 3, 185–226. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of graph design. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company. Kulhavy, R. W.,, Caterino, L. C. &, Melchiori, F. (1989). Spatially cued retrieval of sentences. The Journal of General Psychology 116, 297–304. Kulhavy, R. W.,, Stock, W. A.,, Verdi, M. P. &, Rittschof, K. A. Savenye, N. (1993a). Why maps improve memory for text: the influence of structural information on working memory operation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 5, 375–392. Kulhavy, R. W.,, Stock, W. A.,, Woodard, K. A. &, Haygood, R. C. (1993b). Comparing elaboration and dual coding theories: the case of maps and text. American Journal of Psychology 106, 483–498. Kuo, F. (1996). The visual design of maps: facilitating spatial learning through simple format changes (Abstract). In J. L. Nasar & B. B. Brown, Eds., Public and Private Places: Proceedings of the 27th Environmental Design Research Association. Edmond, OK: EDRA, 233. Leiser, D. &, Zilbertshatz, A. (1989). The traveller: A computational model of spatial network learning. Environment and Behavior 21, 435–463. Levine, M. (1982). You-are-here-maps: Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior 14, 221–237. Levine, M., Marchon, I. &, Hanley, G. (1984). The placement and misplacement of you-are-here maps. Environment and Behavior 16, 139–157. Lewandowsky, S. &, Spence, I. (1989). Discriminating strata in scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 84, 682–688. Masters, M. S. &, Sanders, B. (1993). Is the gender difference in mental rotation disappearing? Behavior Genetics 23, 337–341. McGuinness, D. &, Sparks, J. (1983). Cognitive style and cognitive maps: sex differences in representations of a familiar terrain. Journal of Mental Imagery 7, 91–100. Miller, L. K. &, Santoni, V. (1986). Sex differences in spatial abilities: Strategic and experiential correlates. Acta Psychologica 62, 225–235. Milroy, R. &, Poulton, E. C. (1978). Labelling graphs for improved reading speed. Ergonomics 21, 55–61. Monmonier, M. & Schnell, G. A. (1988). Map Appreciation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Moraglia, G., Maloney, K. P.,, Fekete, E. M. &, Al-Basi, K. (1989). Visual search along the colour dimension. Canadian Journal of Psychology 43, 1–12. Newland, G. A. (1981). Differences between left and righthanders on a measure of creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills 53, 787–792. O’Neill, M. J. (1986). Effects of computer simulated environmental variables on wayfinding accuracy. In J. Wineman, R. Barnes & C. Zimring, Eds, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Environmental
109
Design Research Association. Atlanta, GA: EDRA, 55–63. O’Neill, M. J. (1992). Effects of familiarity and plan complexity on wayfinding in simulated buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, 319–327. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Peterson, J. M. &, Lansky, L. M. (1977). Left-handedness among architects: Partial replication and some new data. Perceptual and Motor Skills 45, 1216–1218. Porac, C. & Coren, S. (1981). Lateral Preferences and Human Behavior. NY: Springer-Verlag. Resnick, S. M. (1993). Sex differences in mental rotations: an effect of time limits? Brain and Cognition 21, 71–79. Robinson, A. H. (1952). The Look of Maps: An Examination of Cartographic Design. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Robinson, A. H. (1982). A program of research to aid cartographic design. The American Cartographer 9, 25–29. Robinson, A. H., Sale, R. D., Morrison, J. L. & Muehrcke, P. C. (1984). (5th Edn.). Elements of Cartography. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rossano, M. J. &, Warren, D. H. (1989). Misaligned maps lead to predictable errors. Perception 18, 215–229. Sanders, B. &, Soares, M. P. (1986). Sexual maturation and spatial ability in college students. Developmental Psychology 22, 199–203. Schwartz, N. H. &, Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Map features and the recall of discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology 6, 151–158. Simkin, D. &, Hastie, R. (1987). An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82, 454–465. Smallman, H. S. & Boynton, R. M. (1990). Segregation of basic colors in an information display. Journal of the Optical Society of America, Part A, 7, 1985–1994. Smith, T. R., Pellegrino, J. W., Golledge, R. G. (1982). Computational process modeling of spatial cognition and behaviour. Geographical Analysis 14, 305–325. Southworth, M. & Southworth, S. (1982). Maps: A Visual Survey and Design Guide. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Spence, I. (1990). Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16, 683–692. Spence, I. &, Lewandowsky, S. (1991). Displaying proportions and percentages. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5, 61–77. Stewart, C. A. &, Clayson, D. (1980). A note on change in creativity in handedness over a maturational time period. Journal of Psychology 104, 39–42. Taylor, H. A. &, Tversky, B. (1992). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 261–292 . Thorndyke, P. W. &, Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology 14, 560–589. Tullis, T. S. (1981). An evaluation of alphanumeric, graphic, and color information displays. Human Factors 23, 541–550. Tufte, E. R. (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. Tversky, B. &, Schiano, D. J. (1989). Perceptual and con-
110
A. S. Devlin and J. Bernstein
ceptual factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118, 387–398. Ward, S. L.,, Newcombe, N. &, Overton, W. F. (1986). Turn left at the church, or three miles north: A study of direction giving and sex differences. Environment and Behavior 18, 192–213. Warren, D. H. (1994). Self-localization on plan and oblique maps. Environment and Behavior 26, 71–98. Warren, D. H.,, Rossano, M. J. &, Wear, T. D. (1990). Perception of map–environment correspondence: the roles of features and alignment. Ecological Psychology 2, 131–150. Warren, D. H. &, Scott, T. E. (1993). Map alignment in traveling multisegment routes. Environment and Behavior 25, 643–666. Warren, D. H.,, Scott, T. E. &, Medley, C. (1992). Finding
locations in the environment: The map as mediator. Perception 21, 671–689. Webb, J. M.,, Saltz, E. D.,, McCarthy, M. T. &, Kealy, W. A. (1994). Conjoint influence of maps and auded prose on children’s retrieval of instruction. Journal of Experimental Education 62, 195–208. Weisman, G. D., O’Neill, M. J. & Doll, C. (1987). Computer graphic simulation of wayfinding in a public environment: A validation study. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Ottawa: Canada, 74–80. Wood, D. (1973). I Don’t Want To, But I Will. The Genesis of Geographic Knowledge: A Real-time Developmental Study of Adolescent Images of Novel Environments. Worcester, MA: The Clark University Cartographic Laboratory.