Memorability and Cognitive Errors in Recognizing Graffiti in Urban Environments: Results from a Field Experiment
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-2-163-180
Abstract
The authors of vandalistic alterations to urban environments aim to make their works noticeable to the maximum number of observers in order to draw attention to their statements. However, from the perspective of the “inadvertent observer,” the visibility of unauthorized graffiti as elements of the urban landscape and their cognitive impact are not immediately evident. The objective of this study is to examine the perception of graffiti in the form of images and vandalized texts, focusing on their recognition and memorization by “inadvertent observers” in natural urban settings during a walking route. Participants in the field experiment (29 individuals aged 14 to 59) were asked to walk along a pedestrian route in the city center of Yekaterinburg. The direction of participants’ gaze was tracked using mobile eyetracking glasses. After completing the route, respondents selected unauthorized graffiti (both images and texts) encountered along the way from a set of alternatives presented in a questionnaire. It was found that unauthorized graffiti encountered along the route were most frequently recognized by participants aged 18 to 29, with no significant differences in recognition based on gender. A preference for recognizing images over texts was identified. Familiar and comprehensible graffiti, as well as those addressing atypical (particularly religious) themes, were recognized more readily. Cognitive errors (e.g., memory attribution errors) were linked to the widespread presence of typical graffiti in urban environments.
Supporting agencies: The study is supported by Russian Science Foundation, project number 23-28-01487, https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-01487/
About the Author
O. V. Kruzhkova
Ural State Pedagogical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga V. Kruzhkova, PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Laboratory of Advanced Socio-Environmental Research
Yekaterinburg
References
1. Babikova, M. R. (2024). Cognitive Mechanisms of Graffiti: Compression, Defocusing, and Focusing. Nauchnyi dialog, 13 (8): 171—187. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-8-171-187 (In Russ.).
2. Bloch, S. (2018). Place-Based Elicitation: Interviewing Graffiti Writers at the Scene of the Crime. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 47 (2): 171—198. DOI: 10.1177/0891241616639640.
3. Cahuana, M., Labanda, A., Vite, B., Poma. R. (2024). Urban art traditionally framed in aesthetic aspects, criminalization and vandalism, as a democratic scope in cultural valuation. Centro Sur, 8: 130—144. DOI: 10.37955/cs.v8i3.358.
4. Đukić, N. (2020). Graffiti and urban identity: negative perception of graffiti as an indicator of urban identity crisis. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Post-socialist transformation of the city”. Novi Sad. 123—135.
5. Gartus, A. (2015). The effects of visual context and individual differences on perception and evaluation of modern art and graffiti art. Acta Psychologica, 156: 64—76. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.01.005.
6. Gartus,A., Helmut, L. (2014). The white cube of the museum versus the gray cube of the street: The role of context in aesthetic evaluations. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8: 311—320. DOI: 10.1037/a0036847.
7. Kruzhkova, O. V. (2024). Vandalism. Why doesn’t the theory of “broken windows” work? Psychology and Law, 14 (3): 26—38. DOI: 10.17759/psylaw.2024140303. (In Russ.).
8. Kruzhkova, O. V., Babikova, M. R., Robin, S. D. (2024). Vandalized Texts: Soft Power Potential. Nauchnyi dialog, 13 (2): 96—117. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-2-96-117. (In Russ.).
9. Kumar, K., Bernasco, W. (2024). Graffiti Writers Choose Locations That Optimize Exposure. Crime & Delinquency. 76—83. DOI: 10.1177/00111287241287133.
10. Lopera, A., Coba Gutiérrez. P. (2016). Public space expressions: public perception of graffiti in Ibagué, Colombiay context. Revista Encuentros, 14: 55—71.
11. Nurkova, V. V. (2015). The problem of inaccuracy of memories in the perspective of a multicomponent memory model. The world of psychology, 2: 35—49. (In Russ.).
12. Safonov, I. E. (2022). Graffiti for the city or the city for graffiti? The legitimacy of illegal graffiti in the historical center of St. Petersburg. Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies, 4 (3): 100—122. DOI: 10.46539/gmd.v4i3.315. (In Russ.).
13. Salmin, L. (2024). Graffiti. The art of disobedience. Baikal Project, 21 (79): 81—87. DOI: 10.51461/issn.2309-3072/77.2290. (In Russ.).
14. Schwindt, U. S. (2021). The aesthetic and problematic orientation of street art in the perception of the urban population (on the example of Yekaterinburg). Koinon, 2 (2): 100—115. DOI: 10.15826/koinon.2021.02.1.005. (In Russ.)
15. Shobri, N. (2017). Public Perception Towards Graffiti Art in Malaysia. Advanced Science Letters, 23: 6203—6207. DOI: 10.1166/asl.2017.9236.
16. Urbonaitė-Barkauskienė, V. (2011). Non-Conventional Perception and (Trans)formation of Urban Space: the Study of Vilnius Graffiti Writers. Topos, 1: 170—182.
17. Vorobyeva, I. V. (2015). Psychology of vandal behavior. In: The circle. Yekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University. 304 p. ISBN 978-5-7186-0704-8. (In Russ.).
18. Walker, B. B., Schuurman, N. (2015). The Pen or the Sword: A Situated Spatial Analysis of Graffiti and Violent Injury in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Professional Geographer, 67 (4): 608—619. DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2014.970843.
Review
For citations:
Kruzhkova O.V. Memorability and Cognitive Errors in Recognizing Graffiti in Urban Environments: Results from a Field Experiment. Nauchnyi dialog. 2025;14(2):163-180. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-2-163-180
Views:
392
Email this article 