Designing courthouses
- Dashboard
- Designing courthouses
Most Recent Score Report
| Questions Correct | Questions Answered | Time Spent | Status | Attempt Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Previous Score Reports
| Questions Correct | Questions Answered | Time Spent | Status | Attempt Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Designing courthouses
Array
(
[passage] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 559760
[post_author] => 12815
[post_date] => 2025-01-02 10:34:56
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-01-02 15:34:56
[post_content] => Practice Passage (Question 1-3)
*This passage is the property of Khan Academy and has been reformatted into an AAMC-style interface in their entirety by MedLife Mastery. MedLife Mastery does not endorse and is not an affiliate of Khan Academy.
In a recent study, psychologist Anne Maass investigated the effects of courthouse architecture on the psychological well-being and cognitive processes of potential users. Specifically, she compared two courthouses located in Padova, Italy: the old courthouse, located in a former convent originally built in 1345, and the new courthouse, built in 1991 and designed by Gino Valle, an internationally known architect. Although serving or having served the same purpose, the two buildings have completely different styles—one is an old building with a rather residential look, warm colors, large windows, and a large wooden door, the other a massive, gray, semi-circular building, with narrow windows, and an entrance enclosed between two huge walls.
When study participants were asked to imagine themselves accompanying a friend to the courthouse, they reported greater discomfort and stress when anticipating a trial in the modern building. However, contrary to predictions, this was true only when they were already familiar with the two buildings. It is possible that photographs reduced the actual impact of the architectural design, although this would contradict prior research by architect Gavin Stamp showing that distortions due to photographic presentation have negligible effects on preference. Another possibility for participants’ greater discomfort when imagining going to the new courthouse is that those with prior experience may have been exposed to the building from multiple angles, whereas unfamiliar participants received information only about the building’s facade.
It is important to note that participants did not generally dislike the new building. From the standpoint of general aesthetic distinctions such as beauty versus ugliness, no differences emerged between the two buildings; if anything, the new building was seen by the participants as slightly more attractive. The data suggest that participants responded more to the intimidating nature of the building than to its beauty.
The most important result of Maass’s research is that courthouse architecture was found to affect the estimated likelihood of conviction. Participants were more pessimistic about the trial outcome when they imagined entering the new building than when they imagined entering the old one. (This occurred regardless of whether participants had any prior familiarity with the respective buildings.) It remains unclear exactly which architectural features are responsible for the observed shift in likelihood of conviction estimates. The modern building differs in so many dimensions (size, color, shape, building materials, age, and so on) from the old building that it is impossible to isolate their individual impact. Also, it may be the interaction of features that creates the overall impression of the building as intimidating.
How exactly do architectural features affect social-cognitive processes such as likelihood estimates? One possibility is that design features affect the emotional well-being or mood of the user which, in turn, biases his or her thought processes. For example, the architectural characteristics of the new courthouse seem to have made hypothetical users feel anxious and tense, and a bad mood has been shown to induce negative thoughts and expectations. However, building type affected perceived likelihood of conviction also for those participants who showed no enhanced discomfort in reaction to the new building.
Another and more plausible possibility is that the design features of the new courthouse activated specific thoughts and mental associations related to conviction. For example, some participants spontaneously commented that the new building has greater resemblance to a prison than to a courthouse; others mentioned that the two high walls enclosing the entrance give the impression that those who enter the building are already convicted.
Adapted from A. Maass, “Intimidating Buildings: Can courthouse architecture affect perceived likelihood of conviction?” Environment and Behavior. ©2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.
[post_title] => Designing courthouses
[post_excerpt] =>
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => designing-courthouses
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-01-02 11:40:15
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-01-02 16:40:15
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://medlifemastery.com/?post_type=passage&p=559760
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => passage
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[questions] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 578908434
[question] => According to Maass, people’s reactions to the two buildings were independent of:
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 1
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question, which means that it wants you to understand the central theme or idea and be able to figure out what specific words or phrases mean within that context. It is important to identify specific parts of the passage such as the thesis, example, and counterexample.
In the second sentence of the third paragraph, Maass writes that “From the standpoint of general aesthetic distinctions such as beauty versus ugliness, no differences emerged between the two buildings; if anything, the new building was seen by the participants as slightly more attractive. The data suggest that participants responded more to the intimidating nature of the building than to its beauty” (paragraph 3). The reaction that individuals were having was not based upon their assessment of the building’s beauty, in other words it was independent of this variable (option A). The passage states that people reported “greater discomfort and stress when anticipating a trial in the modern building… when they were already familiar with the two buildings”. This suggests that knowing the history of the buildings could be influencing reactions, and no argument is made that knowledge of the history of the buildings did not influence reactions (option B). The passage indicates that people’s reaction to the building is unlikely to have been independent of size (option C), in fact, it may have contributed to the reaction by creating “the overall impression of the building as intimidating” (paragraph 4). There is limited information in the passage about peer influence. People are asked to imagine themselves accompanying a friend to the courthouse, but based on the passage, it’s unclear if people’s reactions were dependent or independent of their peers (option D).
Thus, option A is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. whether or not they considered the buildings to be attractive.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. what they knew of the history of the buildings.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. the relative size of the buildings.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. the influence of their peers.
)
)
)
[1] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 3873426850
[question] => In the passage, the author justifies rejecting the emotional-mood-as-mediator explanation with which of these reasons:
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 2
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Reasoning Within the Text” question, which means that it wants you to explore the key idea, claim, or theme that is being expressed in a passage. You will have to evaluate the soundness of an argument, the reasonableness of its conclusions, and/or the appropriateness of its generalizations. It is crucial to carefully examine the strengths and weaknesses of the key ideas based on the information given.
In the last sentence of the fifth paragraph, the author notes that, “building type affected perceived likelihood of conviction also for those participants who showed no enhanced discomfort in reaction to the new building” (paragraph 5). In other words, the findings were similar for individuals with and without negative emotions (option B). There is no information in the passage to support the idea that we believe that emotions do not influence our expectations nearly as much as we think they do (option A). The author does not discuss the absence of data about participant mood before and after they imagined entering the courthouse (option C), nor the absence of data comparing participants who actually entered the building versus those that only imagined entering (option D).
Thus, option B is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. emotions do not influence our expectations nearly as much as we think they do.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. participants without negative emotions were affected in the same way as those with negative emotions.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. the study did not measure and compare the participants’ moods before and after their imagined entry into the courthouse.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. the study did not compare the mood of those entering the new building with the mood of those who imagined entering the new building.
)
)
)
[2] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 83407773
[question] => Which of the following examples is most consistent with Maass’s suggestion that the architectural design features can affect perceptions by activating “specific thoughts and mental associations” (final paragraph)?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 1
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Reasoning Beyond the Text” question, which means that it wants you to either apply or extrapolate the ideas in the passage to new situations or to assess how new information would impact the ideas presented in the passage. It is important to understand the assumptions underlying the article, and how new information may or may not shift the central thesis.
The suggestion that design features can activate specific thoughts relevant to the building’s purpose without directly impacting the functionality of the building, is best supported by the example of a bank that has gold décor, colors, and accents that suggest financial stability and wealth. This decor, although not directly affecting the use of the building for banking, primes thoughts and mental associations related to the primary purpose of a bank which then could affect its perception and popularity (option A). The lack of several important design features that can affect the user experience, such as the lack of a drive-through design for carwashes (option B), or the lack of a play area at a restaurant (option C), could affect popularity more directly because the building design is less suited for its use by the consumer. Bad produce is not an architectural design feature of a grocery store (option D).
Thus, option A is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. A popular bank has décor, colors, and accents suggestive of gold.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. An unpopular car wash does not have a drive-through design.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. A popular restaurant has a children’s play area outside.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. An unpopular grocery store has bad produce.
)
)
)
)
[total_question] => 3
[correct_answers] => Array
(
[559760|1] => A
[559760|2] => B
[559760|3] => A
)
[hide_display_feedback_settings] =>
[hide_solutions] =>
)