Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability
Introduction
Environmental spatial abilities are involved in everyday tasks such as finding one's way in the environment and learning the layout of a building or city. Typical tasks used to assess these abilities include recognition of scenes from a learned environment, retracing routes taken, sketching a map of the environment, route distance estimates, and pointing to nonvisible landmarks in the environment (see Evans, 1980, Gärling & Golledge, 1987, Liben et al., 1981, Spencer et al., 1989 for reviews). Individuals differ considerably in their abilities to perform such tasks. However, although environmental tasks have been studied extensively from developmental and experimental perspectives, there has been relatively little research on individual differences in environmental spatial cognition.
One approach to examining individual differences in environmental spatial cognition is to consider how they are related to psychometric tests of spatial ability. These psychometric tests include tasks such as mental rotation of shapes, solving mazes, and finding hidden figures Carroll, 1993, Eliot & Smith, 1983, Lohman, 1988, McGee, 1979. They involve imagining the manipulation of visual forms in small-scale space rather than imagining one's own changing location and orientation in large-scale space. Research to date suggests that psychometric measures of spatial ability are only weak predictors of environmental spatial tasks Allen et al., 1996, Bryant, 1982, Bryant, 1991, Goldin & Thorndyke, 1982, Lorenz & Neisser, 1986, Pearson & Ialongo, 1986. Correlations are typically nonsignificant and rarely exceed .3. In factor analysis studies, pencil-and-paper psychometric measures load on different factors than do measures of environmental spatial ability Allen et al., 1996, Pearson & Ialongo, 1986.
Self-report measures have proved to be a more promising approach to predicting environmental spatial ability. Such a measure was first introduced by Kozlowski and Bryant (1977). These authors simply asked people to rate on a seven- or nine-point scale “How good is your sense of direction (SOD)?” In two experiments, students were told to imagine that they were at a specific location on their campus and to point to various other campus landmarks. The correlations between the pointing error and the self-report item were .49 and .51 for the two experiments, respectively. In a third experiment, participants were classified as having good or poor SOD on the basis of the self-report question and were led through an underground tunnel system. Their task was to point back to the entrance of the tunnel from the end of the route. After four learning trials, the difference in pointing error between the two groups was 30°, in favor of the good SOD participants.
Several subsequent studies have reported high correlations between a single-item self-report measure and the performance of environmental spatial tasks Montello & Pick, 1993, Prestopnik & Roskos-Ewoldson, 2000, Sholl, 1988, Sholl et al., 2000. Other researchers Bryant, 1982, Bryant, 1991, Lorenz & Neisser, 1986, Takeuchi, 1992, Vandenberg et al., 1985 developed self-report scales containing multiple items (e.g., “How well do you judge distances?” and “How good are you at inventing new routes?”) and found similar correlations with measures of environmental spatial abilities. For example, Bryant (1982) found a correlation of −.63 between a self-report scale and an average error in pointing to landmarks from an imagined position in a familiar environment. Like the objective environmental task measures, self-report measures are only weakly related to psychometric paper-and-pencil spatial tests Bryant, 1982, Sholl, 1988, Takeuchi, 1992.
Although there is strong support for the correlation of self-report SOD with measures of environmental spatial cognition, there is not complete consistency with respect to this issue. For example, Thorndyke and Goldin (1981) identified people as good and poor cognitive mappers on the basis of tasks such as estimation of distance and direction to landmarks in their local environment. They also administered a “spatial style” questionnaire consisting largely of items similar to those in self-report SOD scales. The questionnaire did not differentiate the good and poor cognitive mappers. Furthermore, Takeuchi (1992) failed to find strong correlations between two self-report factors (“understanding of direction” and “memory for places”) and ability to point to landmarks in a familiar environment. Streeter and Vitello (1986) found that a SOD question did not cluster with other questions about map and navigational abilities.
One likely reason for the discrepancies between studies is that researchers have not been consistent in how they measured self-report SOD. Some have used a single item, whereas others have used multi-item scales. Moreover, there is little consistency regarding which items are included in multi-item scales, and researchers often do not even report the items, making comparisons across studies impossible. There is a need for a standardized self-report SOD scale, which can be used by different researchers and can allow comparisons across studies.
Another likely reason for inconsistencies across studies is that different measures of environmental spatial cognition have been used. They have sometimes assessed existing spatial knowledge (such as knowledge of the neighborhood in which a person lives) and sometimes assessed the ability to learn the layout of a new environment. Some studies have measured learning from direct navigation and others have measured learning from maps. Different tasks have been used to assess environmental knowledge, for example, making directional estimates or distance estimates in the environment. Rather than asking whether self-report SOD is related to environmental spatial ability, we believe the appropriate question is to ask which types of knowledge and which spatial tasks are more or less related to self-report SOD.
An important distinction among spatial tasks may be the scale of space at which they are carried out. Montello (1993) and Montello and Golledge (1999) have proposed that because our perceptual-motor systems interact differently with space at different scales, there may be multiple psychological systems for processing spatial information at these different scales (see also Ittelson, 1973, Mandler, 1983). For example, figural space is small in scale relative to the body and is external to the individual. It includes both the flat pictorial space and the space of small manipulable objects. Most existing psychometric tests of spatial ability are at this scale of space. Vista space is projectively as large or larger than the body but can be visually apprehended from a single place without appreciable locomotion. It is the space of single rooms, town squares, small valleys, and horizons. Environmental space is large in scale relative to the body and “contains” the individual. It includes the spaces of buildings, neighborhoods, and cities and typically requires locomotion for its apprehension. Gigantic space (e.g., states, countries, and planets) is larger again and cannot be apprehended from direct locomotion experience. This scale of space is typically apprehended by viewing maps, representations that are themselves figural spaces.
We propose that self-report SOD primarily reflects ability to carry out tasks characteristic of the environmental scale of space. This scale of space is typically apprehended by locomotion and requires one to integrate a sequence of views that change with one's own motion in order to build up spatial knowledge and orient in the environment. We therefore predict that self-report SOD will be most highly correlated with tasks that measure knowledge acquired by direct navigation in environmental spaces. Consistent with this view, tasks that have been found to correlate with self-report SOD include learning a novel environment by walking through it (Montello & Pick, 1993) and measures of orientation in college campuses Bryant, 1982, Kozlowski & Bryant, 1977, Sholl, 1988, which are typically learned primarily by navigating.2
We also propose that self-report SOD is more highly correlated with measures that depend on a configural or survey representation. Consistent with this view, most previous research showing correlations with self-report SOD has examined its relation to ability to point to unseen locations in an environment Bryant, 1982, Kozlowski & Bryant, 1977, Montello & Pick, 1993, Sholl, 1988, Sholl et al., 2000. This task depends on a representation of the spatial configuration of the environment, in contrast with tasks such as scene recognition, which can be accomplished with only visual memory of landmarks, or route retracing, which can be accomplished with only a very simple (perhaps verbal) representation of the sequence and location of turns made on the route.
Finally, a distinction can also be made between pointing to unseen locations from one's current perspective in an environment and pointing from a different (imagined) perspective in the environment. Sholl (1988) found that SOD was related to ability to point to unseen landmarks from an imagined perspective but not from one's current perspective. She concluded that self-report SOD is primarily related to the ability to mentally align egocentric and environmental reference frames. This hypothesis is further examined in the current study.
One goal of these studies was to develop a standardized self-report scale of environmental spatial skills, which we call the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction Scale (SBSOD). In Study 1, we developed the content of the SBSOD and assessed its internal consistency. In Study 2, we assessed its test–retest reliability. A second goal was to study the relation between the SBSOD and measures of spatial cognition at different scales and based on different types of learning experiences. The relation of the SBSOD to these measures also establishes its validity. In Study 3, we examined the relation of SBSOD with pointing to landmarks in environments at different scales. In Study 4, we examined its relation to a blindfolded updating task. In Study 5, we examined the relation of SBSOD with environmental learning from different media. In a final study, we examined its correlation with pointing to landmarks at different scales, in environments that were learned via different media, and the effects of order of administration of the scale and criterion measures.
Section snippets
Participants
Forty-one undergraduate students (20 female and 21 male) enrolled in an introductory geography class at the University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB) participated.
Materials
The scale consisted of 27 items (see Appendix A) taken from previous self-report scales Bryant, 1991, Kozlowski & Bryant, 1977, Lorenz & Neisser, 1986, Thorndyke & Goldin, 1981 and from statements made by students in a pilot study in which we asked students in a cognitive psychology class to simply list experiences and abilities
Method
Sixty-one undergraduate students (41 female, 20 male) enrolled in an undergraduate psychology class at the UCSB participated voluntarily. Participants were administered the 15-item SBSOD, shown in Appendix B. The SBSOD was administered to all participants on two different occasions during an introductory cognitive psychology class. The second administration followed the first by 40 days.
Results and discussion
The correlation between scores on the two administrations of the scale (test–retest reliability) was .91. The
Study 3: self-report SOD and pointing to landmarks at different scales
This study assessed the relation of SBSOD to pointing accuracy at different scales of space. Students were asked to point to objects within a room on a college campus (vista space) and to campus landmarks outside the room (environmental space). The campus landmarks were familiar landmarks that the students had probably learned primarily by navigating on the campus. Pointing to these landmarks from within the room required the participants to update their orientation with respect to the
Study 4: self-report SOD and blindfolded updating
The purpose of this experiment was to assess the correlation of the SBSOD and ability to update location while blindfolded. Participants were lead on paths in an open field while blindfolded and at the end of each path were asked to point back to their starting location. Although this task was carried out in an open field (vista space), it required (blindfolded) participants to integrate their motion on the basis of proprioceptive (kinesthetic and vestibular) cues to remain oriented to the
Study 5: self-report SOD and learning environments from different media
The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation of self-report SOD with learning via different media, different measures of the knowledge acquired, and paper-and-pencil tests of spatial ability. First, we examined the relation of SBSOD with learning via three different media: direct experience navigating in an environment, viewing a videotape of a route through an environment, and navigating a desktop virtual environment (VE). We have proposed that self-report SOD is most highly
Study 6: self-report SOD as related to scale of space and administration order
We have proposed that a task should correlate with self-report SOD to the degree that it involves environmental knowledge acquired directly. That is, a task that depends solely on directly acquired environmental knowledge or that requires map knowledge to be coordinated with environmental knowledge should correlate more with SOD than a task that depends solely on knowledge acquired from a map. We addressed this question in Study 6 by measuring the correlation of SBSOD with knowledge of the
General discussion
These studies demonstrate that the SBSOD scale is a useful instrument for measuring the construct of self-report SOD. Large coefficient α's for the scale indicate a high level of internal consistency, and test–retest reliability is also high. An examination of the items that loaded on the SOD factor suggests that when people rate their SOD as “good” or “poor,” they are basing their judgments on environmental tasks such as wayfinding, remaining oriented in an environment, learning layouts, using
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the financial assistance of The Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences (award DASW01-K-0014). We thank Michael Provenza and Lance Rushing for help with data collection and processing and Rebecca Zwick for comments on a previous draft of this paper.
References (36)
- et al.
Predicting environmental learning from spatial abilities: an indirect route
Intelligence
(1996) - et al.
The relationship between spatial ability and environmental knowledge
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(1986) - et al.
The relations among wayfinding strategy use, sense of direction, sex, familiarity, and wayfinding ability
Journal of Environmental Psychology
(2000) Personality correlates of sense of direction and geographic orientation
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1982)Geographical/spatial orientation ability within real-world and simulated large-scale environments
Multivariate Behavioral Research
(1991)Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytical studies
(1993)- et al.
An international directory of spatial tests
(1983) Environmental cognition
Psychological Bulletin
(1980)- et al.
Environmental perception and cognition
- et al.
Simulating navigation for spatial knowledge acquisition
Human Factors
(1982)
Environment perception and contemporary perceptual theory
Sense of direction, spatial orientation, and cognitive maps
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge
Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: assessment of path integration ability
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Cited by (706)
Real-time continuous perceived uncertainty annotation for spatial navigation studies in buildings
2024, Journal of Building EngineeringThe role of place attachment and spatial anxiety in environmental knowledge
2024, Journal of Environmental PsychologyDoes viewing an environment without occluders improve spatial learning of a large-scale virtual environment?
2023, Journal of Environmental PsychologyHow is GPS used? Understanding navigation system use and its relation to spatial ability
2024, Cognitive Research: Principles and ImplicationsStress affects navigation strategies in immersive virtual reality
2024, Scientific Reports
- 1
Also corresponding author.