Content uploaded by Francesco Ruotolo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francesco Ruotolo on May 03, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
The effects of familiarity and gender on spatial representation
Tina Iachini
*
, Francesco Ruotolo, Gennaro Ruggiero
Department of Psychology, Second University of Naples, Via Vivaldi 43, 81100 Caserta, Italy
article info
Article history:
Available online 24 July 2008
Keywords:
Egocentric/allocentric representations
Large-scale environment
Gender differences
Familiarity
abstract
This paper reports a study of how familiarity and gender may influence the frames of reference used in
memory to represent a real-world regularly shaped environment. Familiar and unfamiliar participants
learned the locations of three triads of buildings by walking on a path which encircled each triad. Then
they were shown with maps reproducing these triads at five different orientations (from 0
to 180
) and
had to judge whether each triad represented correctly the relative positions between the buildings.
Results showed that unfamiliar participants performed better when the orientation of triads was closer
to the learning perspective (0
and 45
) and corresponded to front rather than to back positions. Instead,
familiar participants showed a facilitation for triads oriented along orthogonal axes (0
–180
,90
) and no
difference between front and back positions. These findings suggested that locations of unfamiliar
buildings were mentally represented in terms of egocentric frames of reference; instead, allocentric
frames of reference defined by the environment were used when the environment was familiar. Finally,
males were more accurate and faster than females, and this difference was particularly evident in
participants unfamiliar with the environment.
Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Humans use two fundamental classes of frames of reference to
represent spatial information: egocentric and allocentric (e.g.
Kosslyn, 1994; Marr, 1982; O’Keefe & Nadel, 1978; Paillard,1991), as
originally proposed by Piaget and Inhelder (1967). Egocentric
frames of reference are determined by the position of the viewer in
space and egocentric spatial representations maintain the viewing
perspective. Consequently, later access to stored spatial informa-
tion depends on how it has been coded in relation to the body
position. These representations are often defined as orientation-
specific or orientation-dependent (Roskos-Ewoldsen, McNamara,
Carr, & Shelton, 1998; Waller, Montello, Richardson, & Hegarty,
2002). Alternatively, frames of reference may be independent of the
viewer’s position and centered on external elements such as
objects and features of the environment (McNamara, Rump, &
Werner, 2003; Mou & McNamara, 2002; Shelton & McNamara,
2001). Stored spatial information in this latter case is not affected
by the egocentric perspective in which it was originally acquired.
For this reason, allocentric spatial representations are often called
orientation-independent or orientation-free (e.g. Rieser, 1989;
Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 1998; Waller et al., 2002).
When an egocentric representation is formed, it is easier to
retrieve spatial information from experienced perspectives than
from new perspectives, and processes of mental rotation are
presumably needed to compare these perspectives (Boer, 1991;
Easton & Sholl, 1995; Hintzman, O’Dell, & Arndt, 1981; Huttenlocher
& Presson, 1973; Iachini & Logie, 2003; Rieser, 1989; Roskos-
Ewoldsen et al., 1998). Instead, if stored spatial information is
organized allocentrically, then later access is less sensitive to the
discrepancy between the old and the new perspectives (e.g. Rieser,
1989) and is facilitated from perspectives aligned with environ-
mental axes (see McNamara et al., 2003).
In the literature about spatial memory many studies have
investigated which factors lead spatial information to be stored in
egocentric or allocentric ways. In their pivotal study, Evans and
Pezdek (1980) compared participants who were familiar or
unfamiliar with the University campus of San Bernardino. They
examined spatial knowledge about buildings of the campus and
U.S.A. states to see whether they were processed similarly to the
visual stimuli typically used in mental rotation studies (e.g. Shepard
& Metzler, 1971). Unfamiliar participants learned the environment
through a map, whereas familiar participants relied on their long-
term experience with the environment. All participants were pre-
sented with maps reproducing triads of locations and had to judge
whether each triad represented correctly the reciprocal relations
between the locations. The triads were rotated of various degrees,
from 0 to 180. Evans and Pezdek (1980) found orientation effects
only for states, but not for familiar buildings. However, when
*Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 0823 274789; fax: þ39 0823 323000.
E-mail address: santa.iachini@unina2.it (T. Iachini).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep
0272-4944/$ – see front matter Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.07.001
Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 227–234
Author's personal copy
buildings were unfamiliar, orientation effects occurred again. These
results suggested that learning spatial relationships from maps
produces orientation-dependent representations. On the contrary,
when spatial information is achieved directly from the real envi-
ronment, we experience this environment from several viewpoints
which may result in orientation-independent representations.
However, the authors recognized that it was difficult to disentangle
whether familiarity per se or way of learning spatial information
produced the pattern of results.
Following Evans and Pezdek (1980), several studies have
compared more closely maps and navigable spaces. Presson and
Hazelrigg (1984) focused on primary learning, that is locomotor
and/or visual exploration of the environment, and on secondary
learning, that is achievement of spatial information by means of
maps. They found orientation effects after learning a map but not
a path. In a subsequent research, Presson, DeLange, and Hazelrigg
(1987) found that when participants experienced only one
orientation while walking blindfolded, the derived spatial
representation was orientation-specific; on the contrary, when
they experienced multiple orientations, it was orientation-free. The
same authors (Presson, DeLange, & Hazelrigg, 1989) also examined
the size of space and found orientation effects only after learning
small maps and short paths but not large maps and long paths.
Overall, these early findings would indicate that mental spatial
representations of navigable spaces, even within the size of a room,
are represented according to allocentric frames of reference.
However, subsequent evidence has shown that egocentric frames of
reference may also be used (Christou & Bu
¨lthoff, 1999; Diwadkar &
McNamara, 1997; Easton & Sholl, 1995; Richardson, Montello, &
Hegarty, 1999; Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 1998; Shelton & McNamara,
1997, 2001; Sholl & Nolin,1997; Waller et al., 2002). In particular, an
allocentric coding would be favored when individuals are aware of
the relationship between their body and the surrounding envi-
ronment (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 1998; Waller et al., 2002) and
when the spatial array is regular (Easton & Sholl, 1995).
In sum, it is not yet clear whether navigable spaces learned by
direct exploration are represented on the basis of egocentric or
allocentric frames of reference. Furthermore, the laboratory-based
studies reproduced in a simplified way what usually happens in
ecological contexts. The typical experimental setting consisted of
three segments forming four-point paths (maximum extent
44 m, see for example Presson et al., 1989; Roskos-Ewoldsen
et al., 1998) or of six objects (e.g. Rieser, 1989). The experimental
situations were often static or participants were only permitted
a restricted range of movements. This lack of ecological validity
leads us to take with caution the generalization of results from
room-sized settings to real and complex environments (Siegel,
Kirasic, & Kail, 1979). Accordingly, little is known about the role of
egocentric and allocentric frames of reference in learning and
remembering large-scale outdoor environments.
One factor which has not received sufficient attention in
previous studies is that spatial representations of the environment
may change as a result of experience. With increasing familiarity,
knowledge of the environment becomes more detailed, accurate
and integrated, that is more map-like (Bryant, 1982; Golledge &
Spector, 1978; Hart & Moore, 1973). Hart and Moore (1973) dis-
cussed the progression from egocentric to allocentric frames of
reference, from landmark to route and survey types of represen-
tation. On this basis, Siegel and White (1975) proposed a model of
development of spatial knowledge which develops along three
stages: landmark, route and survey. A landmark representation is
based on the visual salience or the subjective importance of land-
marks, without knowing their relative spatial relations. A route
representation is based on the knowledge of the routes connecting
landmarks, in their sequential order. It embodies the spatial rela-
tions between locations as seen from a first-person egocentric
perspective. A survey representation is a global, integrated,
complete and map-like representation of the environment. It
implies the knowledge of the relative positions and distances
between places regardless of the person’s position, thus allowing
for flexible behaviors. This model has been extended to the
development by adults of knowledge of the environment. Just as
achild, the adult would progress through the same three stages as
knowledge of the environment improves (Golledge, Smith,
Pellegrino, Doherty, & Marshall, 1985).
Several studies with adults give support to this view, but others
have highlighted that in natural settings different types of spatial
knowledge may be acquired (see also Lindberg & Ga
¨rling, 1982;
McDonald & Pellegrino, 1993). For example, Moeser (1988) found
that student nurses who had worked for two years in a complex
and irregularly shaped building had poor configurational knowl-
edge of this building. Instead, Ga
¨rling and colleagues (Ga
¨rling,
Lindberg, Carreiras, & Bo
¨o
¨k, 1986) reported that the presence of
a regular street greed favored the acquisition of the allocentric
spatial relations between places in the city of Umeå, Sweden. The
features of the environment, then, can make a difference. However,
even within the same environment large individual differences in
spatial knowledge may emerge (e.g. Hirtle & Hudson, 1991;
Kozlowski & Bryant,1977; Montello & Pick, 1993), and those due to
gender are among the most important (e.g. Lawton,1996; Montello,
Lovelace, Golledge, & Self, 1999; Schmitz, 1999). These consider-
ations imply that both the characteristics of the environment, such
as the degree of regularity, and the characteristics of individuals,
such as familiarity and gender, should be taken into account. In this
research we tried to study complementarily these factors and their
reciprocal interactions.
1.1. Spatial representations and familiarity with the environment
Thorndyke and Hayes-Roth (1982) compared familiar partici-
pants who had learned the layout of a building from direct explo-
ration and unfamiliar participants who learned the same layout
from a map. The unfamiliar group was worse in pointing to
locations within the building from different positions than the
familiar group but was equally accurate in estimating straight-line
and route distances, whereas the familiar group was better at
estimating route than straight-line distances. The results were
interpreted as evidence that spatial representations become more
allocentric with increasing experience.
In Iachini and Logie (2003) participants had to learn the
locations of several buildings in an unfamiliar environment, the
University campus of Aberdeen (Scotland), by walking on paths
around these buildings. Then, they had to recognize their
positions on a three-dimensional map by observing each building
from different perspectives set at viewpoints between 0
and
180
from a starting position. The results showed a clear effect of
the angular discrepancy between the original and the new
perspectives, and thus suggested that the spatial representation
was egocentric.
Still two experiments compared performances of participants
with different degrees of familiarity with a University campus on
a distance (Foley & Cohen, 1984) and a distance and direction
(Kirasic, Allen, & Siegel, 1984) estimation task. Students who had at
least one year of experience with their University campus revealed
a more abstract and flexible spatial map than students who were
less familiar (Kirasic et al., 1984). Similarly, Foley and Cohen (1984)
showed that first year students used a perspective-dependent
strategy and were less accurate in distance estimates with respect
to fourth year students who instead used a more abstract and map-
like representation.
Furthermore, Prestopnik and Roskos-Ewoldsen (2000) showed
that participants who reported to be more familiar with an
T. Iachini et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 227–234228
Author's personal copy
environment were more accurate on a mental wayfinding task than
those who were less familiar.
These results, as well as the finding that students familiar with
the campus did not show orientation effects (Evans & Pezdek,
1980), could be interpreted as consistent with the developmental
model. However, some studies have shown that the regularity and
the geometry of outdoor environments may influence the accessi-
bility of stored views of that environment.
Werner and Schmidt (1999) asked student residents of Go
¨ttin-
gen (Germany) to imagine themselves at the intersection of two
major streets, facing in various directions, and then to identify
landmarks in cued directions. Landmarks in front of the partici-
pants’ imagined headings were identified faster and more accu-
rately than those behind. This facilitating effect also occurred when
the imagined heading was parallel to one of the major streets.
These results suggested that participants used both allocentric
reference frames, based on salient environmental characteristics,
and egocentric reference frames to represent their familiar
environment.
McNamara and colleagues (2003) asked participants to learn the
locations of eight objects in an unfamiliar city park by walking
along paths that encircled the Parthenon, a replica of the Parthenon
in Athens, Greece. The paths could be either aligned or misaligned
with the Parthenon. After the learning phase, participants had to
point to target objects from several imagined vantage points and
perspectives. The results showed that errors and latency increased
with departure from the original learning perspective, and that
some positions were facilitated: those aligned with the 0
–180
and 90
–270
axes, corresponding to the legs of the path aligned
with the Parthenon. These results indicated that the environment
was represented by means of geocentric (i.e. allocentric) frames of
reference anchored on salient environmental axes but selected on
the basis of egocentric experience.
1.2. Gender differences in spatial cognition
The majority of studies about gender differences have involved
paper-and-pencil spatial tasks. Extensive meta-analyses have
shown that on average males perform better than females in some
spatial tasks, especially those involving mental rotation processes
(Linn & Petersen, 1985; Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995).
Studies settled in ecological contexts or about knowledge of
real-life environments are less frequent (e.g. Lawton, Charleston, &
Zieles, 1996; Montello et al., 1999; Prestopnik & Roskos-Ewoldsen,
2000; Schmitz, 1999). In most cases, only small differences between
males and females on their knowledge of distances and directions
between familiar places were found (e.g. Ga
¨rling, Bo
¨o
¨k, & Ergezen,
1982; Kirasic et al.,1984; Kitchin, 1996). However, females reported
more landmarks and fewer routes than males in drawing maps of
a familiar campus (McGuinness & Sparks, 1983).
A more apparent male advantage emerges in studies about
unfamiliar environments, particularly when learned bylocomotion.
Female participants were less accurate than male participants in
pointing to landmarks (Bryant, 1982; Holding & Holding, 1989;
Lawton, 1996) and to the starting point of a route (Lawton et al.,
1996; Montello et al.,1999; Silverman et al., 2000). However, some
studies did not find differences in pointing (Golledge, Ruggles,
Pellegrino, & Gale, 1993; Montello & Pick, 1993; Sadalla & Montello,
1989) or in distance accuracy between landmarks (Kirasic et al.,
1984; Postma, Jager, Kessels, Koppenshaar, & van Honk, 2004)orin
both (Golledge, Dougherty, & Bell, 1995).
Galea and Kimura (1993) found a female advantage in the recall
of landmarks learned from a fictitious city map, whereas males
were better in the assessment of the straight-line directions
between landmarks. Consistently, males reported that they pref-
erably rely on cardinal directions and metric estimates, while
females prefer landmark-based information (Dabbs, Chang, Strong,
& Milun, 1998; Freundschuh, Mark, Gopal, Gould, & Couclelis, 1990;
Lawton, 1994, 1996; Miller & Santoni, 1986; Ward, Newcombe, &
Overton, 1986).
A study by Silverman and colleagues (2000) suggests an inter-
esting link between wayfinding ability and mental rotation. After
learning a path in a real wooded area, participants had to point
arrows to the starting position and to reproduce the shortest way
from the ending to the starting position. Males were significantly
more accurate in both tasks and this wayfinding ability correlated
positively with mental rotation. According to the authors, both
abilities would be enabled by the capacity to maintain a unified
mental representation of space, that is a survey view of space. A
significant correlation between mental rotation and perspective-
taking ability has been also reported by Pazzaglia and De Beni
(2006).
It has often been suggested in the literature that gender differ-
ences are, at least partially, due to a preference for using different
spatial strategies along the ‘‘route vs survey’’ dimension (e.g.
Iachini, Sergi, Ruggiero, & Gnisci, 2005; Lawton, 1994, 1996;
Montello et al., 1999; Prestopnik & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2000;
Schmitz, 1999; but see Brown, Lahar, & Mosley, 1998). Females
would rely more on a route strategy based on landmarks and on
left–right turns, whereas males would prefer a survey strategy
based on the geometric configuration of the whole environment
with embedded directions and distances (e.g. Lawton, 1994, 1996;
Montello et al., 1999; Prestopnik & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2000;
Schmitz, 1999).
1.3. Overview of the research
In this research we want to verify whether the mental spatial
representation of a large-scale outdoor environment becomes more
allocentric as aresult of extensive experience, in line with the
developmental model (Siegel & White, 1975). Bearing in mind how
important the features of the environment are, we chose a regular
environment characterized by two main streets forming a T-
junction. This should favor the selection of allocentric frames of
reference (McNamara et al., 2003; Werner & Schmidt, 1999).
However, the possible preference for route strategies in females
and survey strategies in males could interact with the other factors
and lead to a male advantage (Bryant,1982; Lawton,1996; Montello
et al., 1999).
The setting of the experiment was a wide pedestrian area
comprising 11 buildings, called area F, in the administrative district
of the city of Naples (Italy). We aimed at replicating the experiment
carried out by Evans and Pezdek (1980) who compared directly
participants who were familiar and unfamiliar with the same
setting. Our familiar group comprised people who had worked in
area F at least for one year and therefore had an extensive experi-
ence with the environment. Unfamiliar participants had never been
there before the experiment. In order to avoid the confounding
between the way of learning spatial information and the degree of
familiarity that made it difficult to interpret the results in Evans and
Pezdek (1980), unfamiliar participants had to experience the
environment by visual locomotion. As a further control to avoid the
possibility of spurious factors due to procedural differences,
familiar participants were submitted to the same learning proce-
dure. Finally, all participants had to judge whether the relative
spatial positions between the buildings of each triad presented on
maps were accurate. The triads could be rotated of various degrees
from 0 to 180. This was broadly the procedure adopted by Evans
and Pezdek (1980).
If increasing experience with the environment leads to a tran-
sition from an egocentric to a more allocentric representation, then
different patterns of errors and latency in familiar and unfamiliar
T. Iachini et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 227–234 229
Author's personal copy
groups should emerge and this should be verified by a significant
interaction between familiarity and rotation degrees. Further, we
expected a better performance in males than females. However, it is
also possible that gender differences are more evident in unfamiliar
than familiar groups.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Thirty-four participants took part in the experiment: 17 familiar
(8 males and 9 females), whose age ranged from 21 to 32 years,
mean ¼26.64, SD ¼3.38, and 17 unfamiliar (8 males and 9
females), whose age ranged from 21 to 32 years, mean ¼24.41,
SD ¼2.89. Familiar participants worked in several buildings of area
F and were recruited through the intervention of the office of Public
Relations of the Council of Naples. They all accepted to take part in
the experiment on a voluntary basis. Eleven participants out of 17
worked for a call center placed at the 17th floor of building F2, from
five to seven days a week. From their office they could see all the
buildings and the two main streets of the area. The layout of area F
is shown in Fig. 1. Three participants worked as secretaries at
building F6, 5th floor, a five-day week. One participant attended
a two-year master course at building F12, 5th floor, a three-day
week. Finally, there were two waiters who worked at building F11,
10th floor, a six-day week. All familiar participants had worked in
the selected area from 1 to 5 years before testing, mean ¼2.76,
SD ¼1.11. Further, they all crossed the two main streets every day to
reach their workplace and to go out for lunch. Unfamiliar partici-
pants had never been in area F before the experiment. They were
undergraduate students recruited from the Second University of
Naples and members of the general public who volunteered to
participate in the experiment.
2.2. Experimental setting and materials
The main buildings of area F were depicted on a two-
dimensional, black and white map shown in Fig. 1. The adminis-
trative district comprises buildings of different heights (from 5 to
28 floors) grouped in seven areas labeled with letters from A to G.
Each area is separated from the others by streets or gardens and
each building within those areas has a label with the proper letter
and number. On the basis of the map, area F was chosen as setting
for the experiment. This area has a surface of 26.57 m
2
and
comprises 11 buildings. It has a rectangular shape and is charac-
terized by two salient main streets forming a T-junction. Within
this area nine buildings were selected as stimuli on the basis of the
following criteria: they could be circumnavigated without prob-
lems, could form triads of buildings that were all visible from the
same vantage point and allowed participants to follow paths of
homogeneous length around each triad (about 250 m). The nine
buildings (called F1, F2, F5, F6, F7, F8, F11, F12, F13) were combined
in such a way as to produce three triads: triad A ¼F7–F8–F12, triad
B¼F5–F6–F11, triad C ¼F1–F13–F2. Around each triad, one starting
position and one arrival position were marked first on the map and
then in the real environment by marking a black dot on the ground.
The arrival position allowed participants to see the three buildings
at the same time. The path connecting the two positions and cir-
cumnavigating each triad of buildings was first highlighted on the
map and then reproduced in the environment. All the buildings
were located in a pedestrian-only area, far from continuous traffic
noise. The entire setting is shown in Fig. 1.
Relying on the basic map shown in Fig. 1, 30 test maps were
obtained, 10 per each triad. Each of these test maps depicted a triad
of buildings with the proper label clearly visible and any other
information was removed. An example of these maps is shown in
Fig. 2. The size of the maps was 29.7 21.1 cm. They were black and
white, two-dimensional scaled maps with a 1:1000 ratio with the
environment. Each triad was shown in its original orientation (0
)
Fig. 1. The two-dimensional map of area F of the administrative district of the city of
Naples is shown. The triads of buildings are colored with three different grey tonalities.
The black line circumscribing three buildings (F5, F6, F11) gives an example of the path
taken during the learning phase. S ¼starting positi on; A ¼arrival position; T ¼testing
position. The two main streets are highlighted.
Fig. 2. Example of the test maps used for the experiment. The maps on the left show
a triad of buildings (F7, F8, F12) in their correct spatial relations while on the right they
are incorrect. These maps are shown as non-rotated (0) and rotated by 90.
T. Iachini et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 227–234230
Author's personal copy
or could be rotated by 45
,90
,135
and 180
. Further, each triad
was presented either by preserving the actual relative positions
between the buildings (five correct triads) or by altering their
positions (five incorrect triads). Each angular rotation was matched
with all correct and incorrect triads thus obtaining a total of 30 test
maps.
Within an area far from area F, called area G, three more
buildings (G6, G7 and G8) were selected and 10 practice maps
representing these buildings were created for the purpose of
a practice session.
2.3. Procedure
Participants were led to area G of the Administration Center.
Here they read written instructions about the task, which were
then revised orally by the experimenter. Afterwards, a training
session started. Participants had to learn the names and the posi-
tions of three buildings (G6, G7 and G8) located along a route and
subsequently they were shown with 10 maps depicting those
buildings. They had to judge whether each map represented
correctly the relative spatial positions between the three buildings
independently of any other information. If the entire procedure was
clear, participants were blindfolded and conducted to area F where
the experimental session started.
2.3.1. Learning phase
Participants were instructed to memorize as accurately as
possible the names and the locations of buildings that they
encountered as they were guided along the route by the experi-
menter. However, when moving in real environments a wide range
of information is present, for example distinctive architectural
features or colors and patterns and so forth. We attempted to
ensure that performance in the experiment was restricted to the
spatial information about the triads and not on additional contex-
tual information. Specifically, the experimenter emphasized that
participants had to focus on the buildings and their locations as
they were encountered but that they did not need to memorize
other features of the area. Further, participants were blindfolded
before entering area F and when led from one triad to another. Once
arrived at the starting position of each triad, the experimenter
removed the participant’s blindfold and named the first building.
Participants were given 6 s to observe the building and then were
conducted to the next building that was named and observed for
6 s. The procedure was repeated for the third building. After
walking twice the path, participants were led to the arrival position
where they had to observe the three buildings altogether for 20 s.
Afterwards, they were blindfolded and there was a memory check:
they had to name the buildings in their order of occurrence (for
a similar procedure see McNamara et al., 2003). If the memoriza-
tion was accurate, the participant was conducted to the starting
position of the next triad; if not, the learning procedure was
repeated once more. The order of presentation of the triads was
counterbalanced among participants. The learning phase lasted
approximately 30 min.
2.3.2. Testing phase
After the learning phase, participants were blindfolded and
were conducted to a testing position far from area F where the
learned triads could not be seen (this position is shown in Fig. 1).
The testing position corresponded to a low wall (height 1.10 m) and
was the same for all trials. After removing the blindfold, the
experimenter presented each participant with the test maps, one at
a time, for a total of 30 trials. Following a latin square design, all the
different angular sizes (0
,45
,90
,135
and 180
), the triads of
buildings (‘‘A’’ correct and incorrect, ‘‘B’’ correct and incorrect and
‘‘C’’ correct and incorrect) and their order of presentation were
counterbalanced among participants. For each participant, the
maps in their assigned order were arranged and held by a ring
binder. The ring binder was placed on the wall, above a black dot
marked on the ground. Participants stood in front of the ring binder,
with area F behind (see Fig. 1) and the experimenter, standing
beside them, showed the maps. The task was to determine whether
the maps correctly represented the relative spatial positions
between the three buildings, i.e. whether they reproduced the
relative spatial relationships as they were in the real world. Accu-
racy and latency measured the performance. Correct judgments
were scored 1, incorrect 0. Latency was recorded by the experi-
menter via a stopwatch from when participants saw the map until
they gave their judgment. The testing phase was completed in
about 5 min.
3. Results
Analyses were based on 3-way ANOVA for mixed designs with
familiarity (familiar vs unfamiliar) and gender as between-subjects
variables, and rotation degrees (0
,45
,90
,135
,180
) as within-
subjects variable. As dependent variables there were accuracy (that
is mean of correct judgments) and response time (that is mean
latency of correct judgments). The Tukey HSD test was used to
analyze post hoc effects. Effect sizes were also calculated and
expressed by the
h
2
index.
3.1. Accuracy
The ANOVA revealed a main effect of familiarity: F(1,28) ¼6.35,
h
2
¼.18, p¼.017, due to familiar participants (mean ¼.85, SD ¼.19)
being more accurate than unfamiliar ones (mean ¼.74, SD ¼.19). A
main effect of rotational angles also emerged: F(4,112) ¼3.99,
h
2
¼.12, p¼.004. The post hoc test showed that 0
(mean ¼.88)
was more accurate than all 45
,90
and 135
(with at least p<.05).
A significant interaction between familiarity and rotational angles
was found: F(4,112) ¼3.03,
h
2
¼.10, p¼.02. The two groups showed
a different trend: familiar participants were more accurate at 0
,
90
and 180
, whereas in unfamiliar participants accuracy
decreased as much as angular size deviated from 0
(see Fig. 3). The
post hoc analysis showed that this interaction was due to the spatial
judgments for maps rotated by 0
in familiar participants being
more accurate than maps rotated by 90
,135
and 180
in unfa-
miliar participants; further 90
and 180
in familiar participants
0° 45° 90° 135° 180°
ROTATIONAL ANGLES
(
de
g
rees
)
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
ACCURACY (0-1)
FAMILIAR GROUP
UNFAMILIAR GROUP
Fig. 3. Mean of correct judgments of the relative spatial positions between buildings
as a function of rotational angles.
T. Iachini et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 227–234 231
Author's personal copy
were more accurate than 135
in unfamiliar participants (with at
least p<.05). Finally, in familiar participants 0
was significantly
more accurate than 45
, whereas in unfamiliar participants 0
was
more accurate than 90
and 135
(with at least p<.05).
A significant main effect of gender was found: F(1,28) ¼4.33,
h
2
¼.14, p¼.04. This was due to males being more accurate than
females: males ¼.84, SD ¼.15; females ¼.75, SD ¼.18. There was no
significant interaction between gender and familiarity, although
unfamiliar females were less accurate than all other groups: F(1,
28) ¼2.84,
h
2
¼.09, p¼.10. The related means were: familiar,
males ¼.85, SD ¼.14, females ¼.84, SD ¼.14; unfamiliar,
males ¼.82, SD ¼.17, females ¼.63, SD ¼.22. Finally, there was
neither interaction between gender and rotational angles (F<1),
nor 3-way interaction: F(4,112) ¼1.3,
h
2
¼.01, p¼.27.
To test directly the hypothesis that the data were influenced by
an egocentric organization, we compared front and back orienta-
tions. We computed the mean accuracy and latency by collapsing
across 0
and 45
orientations (front) and 135
and 180
orienta-
tions (back), similarly to Werner and Schmidt (1999). The new
factor ‘‘front-back’’ was analyzed by means of a 3-way ANOVA for
mixed designs with familiarity and gender as between variables
and front–back as within variable. In line with previous results, the
ANOVA revealed main effects of familiarity (F(1,29) ¼8.74,
h
2
¼.23,
p¼.006) and gender (F(1,29) ¼9.43,
h
2
¼.24, p¼.004). Further,
front orientations were significantly more accurate than back
orientations: F(1,29) ¼6.44,
h
2
¼.18, p¼.01. However, the front/
back factor interacted with familiarity: F(1,29) ¼4.22,
h
2
¼.13,
p¼.04. The post hoc analysis showed that the interaction was due
to unfamiliar participants performing worse in judging back than
front orientations (p<.01) and worse than familiar participants in
both front and back orientations (with at least p<.05). Instead,
familiar participants were equally good for front and back orien-
tations. The related means were: unfamiliar, front¼.77, SD ¼.20,
back ¼.66, SD ¼.18; familiar, front ¼.84, SD ¼.11, back ¼.83;
SD ¼.12. Finally, a significant interaction between gender and
familiarity emerged: F(1,29) ¼6.61,
h
2
¼.19, p¼.01. The post hoc
analysis showed that it was due to unfamiliar females performing
worse than all other groups (with at least p<.002). More specifi-
cally, there was no gender difference when participants were
familiar, whereas there was a clear male advantage when the
environment was unfamiliar. The related means were: unfamiliar,
males ¼.83, SD ¼.13, females ¼.60, SD ¼.14; familiar, males ¼.85,
SD ¼.13, females ¼.83, SD ¼.11.
3.2. Latency
The ANOVA showed a main effect of familiarity: F(1,25) ¼16.78,
h
2
¼.40, p¼.006. This was due to unfamiliar participants
(mean ¼4.60, SD ¼2.23) being slower than familiar ones
(mean ¼3.27, SD ¼1.37). Females were significantly slower than
males: F(1,25) ¼6.50,
h
2
¼.21, p¼.01. The related means were:
males ¼3.9, SD ¼1.62; females ¼4.4, SD ¼2.15. There was no
significant main effect of rotational angles (F<1). Instead, a signif-
icant interaction between familiarity and rotational angles
emerged: F(4,100) ¼2.57,
h
2
¼.10, p¼.04. As it is illustrated in
Fig. 4, familiar participants were faster at 0
,90
and 180
, exactly
in line with what found in accuracy. On the contrary, unfamiliar
participants were faster at 45
and 135
. The post hoc analysis
showed that the interaction was due to familiar participants being
faster at 0
than unfamiliar participants at 90
,135
and 180
(with
at least p<.05). Further, familiar participants were faster at 180
than unfamiliar participants at 90
. Overall, this pattern of results
confirms the facilitating effect of the 0
/180
and 90
axes in
familiar participants.
As regards gender, a main effect emerged which was due to
males (mean ¼3.52, SD ¼1.70) being faster than females
(mean ¼4.35, SD ¼2.13): F(1,25) ¼6.49,
h
2
¼.21, p¼.02. The
interaction between familiarity and gender approached statistical
significance: F(1,25) ¼3.71,
h
2
¼.13, p¼.06. Unfamiliar females
were slowest than all other groups: unfamiliar, males ¼4.1,
SD ¼1.7, females ¼5.4, SD ¼2.4; familiar, males ¼3.7, SD ¼1.4;
females ¼3.4, SD ¼1.3. Finally, we compared latencies for front and
back orientations. A main effect of familiarity emerged:
F(1,30) ¼8.29,
h
2
¼.22, p¼.007, but neither of gender
F(1,30) ¼2.18,
h
2
¼.07, p¼.15 nor of front/back orientations (F<1).
The interaction between gender and familiarity approached
statistical significance: F(1,30) ¼3.30,
h
2
¼.10, p¼.07. Again,
unfamiliar females were slowest than all other groups.
4. Discussion
In this research we aimed at investigating which frames of
reference, egocentric or allocentric, are used in learning and
remembering large-scale outdoor environments. The rationale
behind the research was that both the characteristics of the envi-
ronment, such as the degree of regularity, and the characteristics of
individuals, such as familiarity and gender, could influence the
selection of the frames of reference. In doing so, we also assessed
whether with increasing familiarity there is a progression from
egocentric to allocentric spatial representations, as suggested by
the developmental model proposed by Siegel and White (1975).
The rigid version of this model would predict a linear progression
whose final end is a configurational, allocentric representation. This
version is challenged by both internal (i.e. individual) and external
(i.e. features of the environment) factors (see McDonald &
Pellegrino, 1993).
The important role of the physical structure of the environment
is highlighted in the theoretical model proposed by McNamara and
collaborators (e.g. McNamara et al., 2003; Mou & McNamara, 2002;
Shelton & McNamara, 2001). According to this theory, learning an
unfamiliar environment implies interpreting its spatial structure in
terms of frames of reference. These frames of reference are selected
on the basis of various cues, such as egocentric experience and
properties of the environment itself. The reference system that is
selected determines the encoding and then the memory of the
environment. This theoretical framework was consistent with the
results obtained in a large-scale unfamiliar environment charac-
terized by a salient building (McNamara et al., 2003). Specifically,
the authors found a facilitation for pointing to positions aligned or
orthogonal with the salient environmental axis, corresponding to
the 0
/180
and 90
/270
orientations. However, this effect
0° 45° 90° 135° 180°
ROTATIONAL ANGLES
(
de
g
rees
)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
LATENCY (SEC)
FAMILIAR GROUP
UNFAMILIAR GROUP
Fig. 4. Mean latency of correct judgments of the relative spatial positions between
buildings as a function of rotational angles.
T. Iachini et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 227–234232
Author's personal copy
occurred in the learning condition (aligned path) that allowed to
experience the salience of the axis. Therefore, this model would
suggest that allocentric properties can be encoded even if the
environment is unfamiliar but highly regular and salient.
We now analyze our results in relation to the two models. The
results showed that the familiar group was faster and more accu-
rate than the unfamiliar group, and males were faster and more
accurate than females. It was also striking that there was a clear
impact of familiarity on the angle of orientation change, as revealed
by the significant interaction. Familiar participants performed
better at 0
,90
and 180
, whereas unfamiliar ones were better to
judge triads that maintained the original learning perspective (0
)
or were rotated by a little amount (45
). Consistently, unfamiliar
participants were better to judge triads corresponding to front
orientations than triads oriented towards the back, whereas no
advantage for front orientations was found in familiar participants
in comparison with back orientations. Further, there was no gender
difference in front/back orientations when participants were
familiar, whereas a male advantage emerged when they were
unfamiliar.
The finding that in unfamiliar participants the spatial perfor-
mance decreased with the angular discrepancy between the orig-
inal and the new orientations, together with the facilitation in
judging front orientations (0
–45
), is a clear index of an egocentric,
body-centered retrieval of spatial information. This result is in line
with previous studies about unfamiliar environments (Evans &
Pezdek, 1980; Iachini & Logie, 2003; Sholl, 1987; Thorndyke &
Hayes-Roth, 1982). Easton and Sholl (1995) also reported a facilita-
tion in indicating front than back positions of the Boston college
campus and this was interpreted as evidence of reliance on an
egocentric representation. Therefore, we should conclude that even
though the environment that served as setting for the experiment
was characterized by high geometrical salience, that was not
sufficient to facilitate the selection of allocentric frames of refer-
ence, as the McNamara’s theory would predict. However, according
to McNamara and colleagues (2003) what matters is how the
physical structure of the environment is experienced and inter-
preted. Since our unfamiliar participants had never been in the
selected area before the experiment and were blindfolded when
walking from one triad to another, they could not fully appreciate
the geometric salience afforded by the two streets. In other words,
it is possible that the learning procedure forced participants to
focus on the reciprocal spatial relations between the buildings to
the detriment of the whole configuration. In such a case, egocentric
frames of reference would be the dominant cues.
As regards familiar large-scale environments, the results in the
literature are still unclear as data in favor either of a view-
independent, allocentric representation (Evans & Pezdek, 1980;
Thorndyke & Hayes-Roth, 1982) or of an egocentric representation
(Easton & Sholl, 1995) or of both kinds of representations (Werner &
Schmidt, 1999) have been reported. Our results showed that
familiar participants were not facilitated when judging front
orientations as compared to back orientations. This would reveal an
underlying unified and integrated spatial representation that
makes it easy to retrieve spatial information from any point in
space, independently of the viewer’s position. From this point of
view, the results are in line with Evans and Pezdek (1980) and
suggest that familiar environments are represented allocentrically.
We wish now to emphasize that according to Evans and Pezdek it
was difficult to ascertain whether their results were due to the way
of learning spatial information or to familiarity per se, due to the
confounding between the two factors. This spurious factor was
controlled in our learning procedure as both familiar and unfa-
miliar participants experienced the environment by direct bodily
exploration. Therefore, our findings can be attributed with no
ambiguity to the amount of previous experience per se.
Familiar participants showed that they were more accurate and
faster for positions corresponding to 0
–180
and 90
. This finding
is clearly different from what found by Evans and Pezdek (1980) as
in their experiment the performance of familiar participants was
not affected by the orientation of test maps. However, we have to
consider that in Evans and Pezdek the locations within each triad
were represented on test maps by dots and verbal labels instead of
two-dimensional, geometrical shapes. Those maps, then, conveyed
spatial information in an abstract and verbal way and this could
have favored the use of a more abstract strategy to solve the task.
Further, we do not know the geometric characteristics of their
setting and the possible influence of regularity and salience cannot
be evaluated. Instead, we can infer that the regularity of our setting
facilitated the spatial judgments for maps rotated by 0
,180
and
90
because these orientations were aligned or orthogonal with
respect to the salient vertical street. The same argument might
explain why the performance was worse at 45
and 135
, corre-
sponding to orientations misaligned with the salient vertical street.
This pattern of results is closely similar to what found by McNamara
and colleagues (2003) in the condition where participants learned
the environment by walking along a path that was aligned with the
Parthenon. Therefore, we should conclude that when people can
fully experience the regularity and the salience of their familiar
environment, an allocentric representation is formed that is
anchored on environmental axes.
However, even within the same regular environment, we found
differences in spatial knowledge due to gender. Our task clearly
involved rotational processes. For this reason, it is not surprising
that a male advantage emerged, in line with previous literature
showing large and consistent effects of this type in tasks requiring
mental rotation and manipulation of visuo-spatial information
(Linn & Petersen, 1985; Voyer et al., 1995). Previous studies
comparing males and females on real-world spatial tasks have
shown that gender differences are minimal when environments are
familiar and much stronger when they are unfamiliar (see Montello
et al., 1999). Our results are consistent with this previous literature
as males performed better than females when the environment
was unfamiliar. Therefore, we did not find evidence supporting
a gender-related preference for route vs survey spatial strategies
which is independent of other individual characteristics (e.g.
Iachini et al., 2005; Lawton, 1994, 1996; Montello et al., 1999;
Prestopnik & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2000; Schmitz, 1999). If such
a preference exists, it seems mainly concerned with the ways of
acquiring spatial information in unfamiliar environments.
However, more studies and different experimental procedures are
needed in order to assess to what extent gender-related prefer-
ences for spatial strategies may affect the spatial representation of
real-world environments.
In conclusion, the results suggest that when the environment is
familiar and is characterized by regular and salient environmental
axes, it is represented in an allocentric way. Instead, when it is
unfamiliar and the salience cannot be fully experienced, an
egocentric representation is preferably formed.
References
Boer, L. C. (1991). Mental rotation in perspective problems. Acta Psychologica, 76,
1–9.
Brown, L. N., Lahar, C. J., & Mosley, J. L. (1998). Age and gender-related differences in
strategy use for route information: a ‘‘map-present’’ direction-giving paradigm.
Environment and Behavior, 30, 123–143.
Bryant, K. J. (1982). Personality correlates of sense of direction and geographic
orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1318–1324.
Christou, C. G., & Bu
¨lthoff, H. H. (1999). View dependence in scene recognition after
active learning. Memory & Cognition, 27, 996–1007.
Dabbs, J. M., Chang, E. L., Strong, R. A., & Milun, R. (1998). Spatial ability, navigation
strategy, and geographic knowledge among men and women. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 19, 89–98.
T. Iachini et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 227–234 233
Author's personal copy
Diwadkar, V. A., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Viewpoint dependence in scene recog-
nition. Psychological Science, 8, 302–307.
Easton, R. D., & Sholl, M. J. (1995). Object-array structure, frames of reference, and
retrieval of spatial knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 21, 483–500.
Evans, G. W., & Pezdek, K. (1980). Cognitive mapping: knowledge of real-world
distance and location information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Learning and Memory, 6, 13–24.
Foley, J. E., & Cohen, A. J. (1984). Working mental representations of the environ-
ment. Environment and Behavior, 16, 713–729.
Freundschuh, S. M., Mark, D. M., Gopal, S., Gould, M. D., & Couclelis, H. (1990).
Verbal directions for wayfinding: implications for navigation and geographic
information and analysis systems. In: Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium on Spatial Data Handling (pp. 478–487). Zurich, Switzerland.
Galea, L. A., & Kimura, D. (1993). Sex differences in route-learning. Personality and
Individual Differences, 14, 53–65.
Ga
¨rling, T., Bo
¨o
¨k, A., & Ergezen, N. (1982). Memory for the spatial layout of the
everyday physical environment: differential rates acquisition of different types
of information. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 23–35.
Ga
¨rling, T., Lindberg, E., Carreiras, M., & Bo
¨o
¨k, A. (1986). Reference systems in
cognitive maps. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 1–18.
Golledge, R. G., Dougherty, V., & Bell, S. (1995). Acquiring spatial knowledge: survey
versus route-based knowledge in unfamiliar environments. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 85, 134–158.
Golledge, R. G., Ruggles, A. J., Pellegrino, J. W., & Gale, N. D. (1993). Integrating route
knowledge in an unfamiliar neighbourhood: along and across route experi-
ments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 293–307.
Golledge, R. G., Smith, T. R., Pellegrino, J. W., Doherty, S., & Marshall, S. P. (1985). A
conceptual model and empirical analysis of children’s acquisition of spatial
knowledge. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 125–152.
Golledge, R. G., & Spector, N. A. (1978). Comprehending the urban environment:
theory and practice. Geographical Analysis, 14, 305–325.
Hart, R. A., & Moore, G. T. (1973). The development of spatial cognition: a review. In
R. Downs, & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environments (pp. 246–288). Chicago:
Aldine.
Hintzman, D. L., O’Dell, C. S., & Arndt, D. R. (1981). Orientation in cognitive maps.
Cognitive Psychology, 13, 149–206.
Hirtle, S. C., & Hudson, J. (1991). Acquisition of spatial knowledge for routes. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 11, 335–345.
Holding, C. S., & Holding, D. H. (1989). Acquisition of route network knowledge by
males and females. Journal of General Psychology, 116, 29–41.
Huttenlocher, J., & Presson, C. C. (1973). Mental rotation and the perspective
problem. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 277–299.
Iachini, T., & Logie, R. H. (2003). The role of perspective in locating position in a real-
world, unfamiliar environment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 715–732.
Iachini, T., Sergi, I., Ruggiero, G., & Gnisci, A. (2005). Gender differences in object
location memory in a real three-dimensional environment. Brain and Cognition,
59, 52–59.
Kirasic, K. C., Allen, G. L., & Siegel, A. W. (1984). Expression of configurational
knowledge of large scale environments. Environment and Behavior, 16, 687–712.
Kitchin, R. M. (1996). Are there sex differences in geographic knowledge and
understanding? The Geographical Journal, 162, 273–286.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kozlowski, L. T., & Bryant, K. J. (1977). Sense of direction, spatial orientation, and
cognitive maps. Journal of Environmental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 3, 590–598.
Lawton, C. A. (1994). Gender differences in way-finding strategies: relationship to
spatial ability and spatial anxiety. Sex Roles, 30, 765–779.
Lawton, C. A. (1996). Strategies for indoor wayfinding: the role of orientation.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 137–145.
Lawton, C. A., Charleston, S. I., & Zieles, A. S. (1996). Individual- and gender-related
differences in indoor wayfinding. Environment and Behavior, 28, 204–219.
Lindberg, E., & Ga
¨rling, T. (1982). Acquisition of locational information about
reference points during locomotion: the role of central information processing.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 207–218.
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differ-
ences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. New York: Freeman.
McDonald, T. P., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1993). Psychological perspectives on spatial
cognition. In T. Ga
¨rling, & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Behavior and environment:
Psychological and geographic approach es.Advances in psychology, Vol. 96
(pp. 47–82). Oxford, England: North-Holland.
McGuinness, D., & Sparks, J. (1983). Cognitive style and cognitive maps: sex
differences in representations of familiar terrain. Journal of Mental Imagery, 7,
91–100.
McNamara, T. P., Rump, B., & Werner, S. (2003). Egocentric and geocentric frames of
reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10,
589–595.
Miller, L. K., & Santoni, V. (1986). Sex differences in spatial abilities: strategic and
experiential correlates. Acta Psychologica, 62, 225–235.
Moeser, S. D. (1988). Cognitive mapping in a complex building. Environment and
Behavior, 20, 21–49.
Montello, D. R., Lovelace, K. L., Golledge, R. G., & Self, C. M. (1999). Sex-related
differences and similarities in geographic and environmental spatial abilities.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89, 515–534.
Montello, D. R., & Pick, H. L. (1993). Integrating knowledge of vertically aligned
large-scale spaces. Environment and Behavior, 25, 457–484.
Mou, W., & McNamara, T. P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28,162–170.
O’Keefe, J., & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Paillard, J. (1991). Brain and space. Oxford: Oxford Science Publications.
Pazzaglia, F., & De Beni, R. (2006). Are people with high and low mental rotation
abilities differently susceptible to the alignment effect? Perception, 35, 369–383.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton.
Langdon F. J. & Lunzer J. L. (Trans.).
Postma, A., Jager, G., Kessels, R. P. C., Koppenshaar, H. P. F., & van Honk, J. (2004). Sex
differences for selective forms of spatial memory. Brain and Cognition, 54,
24–34.
Presson, C. C., DeLange, N., & Hazelrigg, M. D. (1987). Orientation specificity in
kinesthetic spatial learning: the role of multiple orientations. Memory &
Cognition, 15, 225–229.
Presson,C.C.,DeLange,N.,&Hazelrigg,M.D.(1989).Orientationspecificityin
spatial mem ory: what make s a path differe nt from a map of the path?
Journal of Experimental P sychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 15,
887–897.
Presson, C. C., & Hazelrigg, M. D. (1984). Building spatial representations through
primary and secondary learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 10, 716–722.
Prestopnik, J. L., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2000). The relations among wayfinding
strategy use, sense of direction, sex, familiarity, and wayfinding ability. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 20, 177–191.
Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., & Hegarty, M. (1999). Spatial knowledge acqui-
sition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory
& Cognition, 27, 741–750.
Rieser, J. J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of
observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,
15, 1157–1165.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., McNamara, T. P., Carr, W., & Shelton, A. L. (1998). Mental
representations of large and small spatial layouts are orientation dependent.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24,
215–226.
Sadalla, E. K., & Montello, D. R. (1989). Remembering changes in direction. Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 21, 346–363.
Schmitz, S. (1999). Gender differences in acquisition of environmental knowledge
related to wayfinding behavior, spatial anxiety, and self-estimated environ-
mental competencies. Sex Roles, 41, 71–93.
Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psy-
chonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 102–106.
Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2001). Systems of spatial reference in human
memory. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 274–310.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects.
Science, 171, 701–703.
Sholl, M. J. (1987). Cognitive maps as orienting schemata. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 615–628.
Sholl, M. J., & Nolin, T. L. (1997). Orientations specificity in representations of place.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23,
1494–1507.
Siegel, A. W., Kirasic, K. C., & Kail, R. V. (1979). Stalking the elusive cognitive map:
the developmental of children’s representations of geographic space. In
J. F. Wohlwill, & I. Altman (Eds.), Human behavior and environment, Vol. 3.New
York: Plenum.
Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of
large-scale environments. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development
(pp. 37–55). New York: Academic Press.
Silverman, I., Choi, J., Mackewn, A., Fisher, M., Moro, J., & Olshansky, E. (2000).
Evolved mechanisms underlying wayfinding: further studies on the hunter-
gatherer theory of spatial sex differences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21,
201–213.
Thorndyke, P. W., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge
acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560–589.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial
abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 250–270.
Waller, D., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Orientation
specificity and spatial updating of memories for layouts. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 1051–1063.
Ward, S. L., Newcombe, N., & Overton, W. F. (1986). Turn left at the church, or three
miles north. Environment and Behavior, 18, 192–213.
Werner, S., & Schmidt, K. (1999). Environmental reference systems for large scale
spaces. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4, 447–473.
T. Iachini et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 29 (2009) 227–234234
