Next Article in Journal
Towards Automatic Points of Interest Matching
Next Article in Special Issue
Multi-Scale Representation of Ocean Flow Fields Based on Feature Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Geographical Structural Features of the WeChat Social Networks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Relief Shading Techniques Applied to Landforms
Open AccessEditor’s ChoiceArticle

Affective Communication of Map Symbols: A Semantic Differential Analysis

Department of Geodesy and Geoinformation, Research Division Cartography, TU Wien—Vienna University of Technology, 1040 Vienna, Austria
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9(5), 289; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9050289
Received: 20 March 2020 / Revised: 19 April 2020 / Accepted: 22 April 2020 / Published: 1 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geovisualization and Map Design)
Maps enable us to relate to spatial phenomena and events from viewpoints far beyond direct experience. By employing signs and symbols, maps communicate about near as well as distant geospatial phenomena, events, objects, or ideas. Besides acting as identifiers, map signs and symbols may, however, not only denote but also connote. While most cartographic research has focused on the denoting character of visual variables, research from related disciplines stresses the importance of connotative qualities on affect, cognition, and behavior. Hence, this research focused on the connotative character of map symbols by empirically assessing the affective qualities of shape stimuli. In three stimulus conditions of cartographic and non-cartographic contexts, affective responses towards a set of eight shape stimuli were assessed by employing a semantic differential technique. Overall findings showed that shape symbols lead to, at times, highly distinctive affective responses. Findings further suggest two particular stimulus clusters of affective qualities that prevailed over all stimulus conditions, i.e., a cluster of asymmetric stimuli and a cluster of symmetric stimuli. Between the intersection of psychology, cartography, and semiotics, this paper outlines theoretical perspectives on cartographic semiotics, discusses empirical findings, and addresses implications for future research. View Full-Text
Keywords: visual communication; affect; cartography; semiotics; symbolization; abstract symbols visual communication; affect; cartography; semiotics; symbolization; abstract symbols
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Klettner, S. Affective Communication of Map Symbols: A Semantic Differential Analysis. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 289. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9050289

AMA Style

Klettner S. Affective Communication of Map Symbols: A Semantic Differential Analysis. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2020; 9(5):289. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9050289

Chicago/Turabian Style

Klettner, Silvia. 2020. "Affective Communication of Map Symbols: A Semantic Differential Analysis" ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 9, no. 5: 289. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9050289

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop