J O U R N A L OF SOCIAL ISStiES

V O L U M E 33~NUMBER 3 . 1977

The Place of Architectural Factors in

Behavioral Theories of Privacy
John Archea
Georgia Institute of Technology
Although much of the recent concern for privacy as a central issue
in the study of interpersonal behavior has arisen within the area of
environmental psychology, the environment presented in this literature
tends to lack enduring properties which set it apart from the behavior
to which it is presumably related. By contrast, a model of the environment is proposed which is sensitive to physical properties which are
independent of normative and symbolic associations imposed by tradition. This model indicates how the selection of ones location and
orientation within an architecturally bounded setting can affect both
the acquisition of information about surrounding activities and the
abilities of others to take notice of ones own behavior. Within this
framework selective conspicuousness i s suggested as the chief means
of privacy regulation. Selective conspicuousness involves a trade off
between the environmental and behavioral options available for concealing or disclosing information about oneself with the physical
environment presenting certain initial conditions upon which behavior
is contingent.

Much of the recent interest in privacy as a central aspect

of interpersonal behavior has arisen within the area of environmental psychology. While the environment is often discussed at
great length in these treatments of privacy, it is not always clear
what is being referred to when the term environment is used.
T h e notion of a physical o r architectural entity is implicit in the
frequent attempts to state the design implications of privacy
research (Altman, 1974, 1975; Proshansky, Ittelson, & Rivlin, 1970).
Yet most research on privacy considers the environment solely
Special appreciation is extended to Stephen T. Margulis whose discussions
of concepts and issues and whose assistance with earlier versions of this
article greatly exceeded his responsibilities as the editor of this special issue.
Correspondence regarding this article may be addressed to J. Archea,
College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332.

116

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

117

in terms of the normative or symbolic qualities superimposed

upon it by its inhabitants (Altman, 1974, 1975; Bossley, 1976;
Laufer, Proshansky, & Wolfe, 1973). T h e demarcation between
the environment as a physical entity and the environment as
a set of normative o r symbolic associations has not been made
explicit (see Levy, 1976; Moore, 1976; Willems &Campbell, 1976).
CONCEPTUALIZING THE E N V I R O N M E N T

T h e most elaborate treatment of the environment by an

environmental o r social psychologist concerned with privacy has
been Altmans (1974, 1975) account of clothing, personal space,
and territoriality as privacy-regulating mechanisms. H e conceptualizes privacy as the key linkage between these three aspects of
the environment and verbal or paraverbal behavior. He also
conceptualizes these three mechanisms as successively more remote
layers of the self. By intentionally confounding the environment
with these extensions of ones being and personality, Altman has
beclouded the notion of an environment that stands apart from
the self. As privacy-regulating mechanisms these three manifestations of the environment are always present when and where
the self is present. If, like ones vocabulary or knowledge, these
mechanisms are coextensive with ones person, then how are they
to be differentiated from that person? More importantly, by what
logic do they become aspects of the environment? Altmans position
that his complex model suits the complex relationships he seeks
to explain begs the question-particularly
when he offers his
model as a source of guidance for architects (Altman, 1975).
Other notions of the environment as something that evokes
or sustains a privacy experience (Laufer et al., 1973) or as a
prop for the expression of individuality (Bossley, 1976) present
similar problems. T h e environment thus conceived has no existential status independent of the uses to which it is put. This is
analogous to the fictitious nineteenth century social scientists view
of the steam engine as something that is at once the emancipator
and the enslaver of the working class. This is one view of what
a steam engine can do, but this is not what a steam engine is.
T h e environment, similarly construed, has circumstantial attributes and mediating consequences but no enduring properties.
While most environmental psychologists regard the environment as an unavoidable factor in the study of privacy, few seem
to separate it from established notions of behavior. Most treatments
are analogous to the early physicists treatment of ether or

118

JOHN ARCHEA

phlogiston as hypothetical place holders for the unexplained

variance in prevailing theories. Like its historical counterparts,
the environmental psychologists ethereal environment is empirically
evasive and conceptually vague.
As alternatives to these behavior-centered notions of the
environment, consider Canter and Kennys (1975) view of the
environment as a set of locations or places, each differing in
their access to information, or Marguliss view of the environment
as an information flow network (Margulis, Note 1). Here the
environment begins to stand apart from the behavior which occurs
within it. It has an existence that precedes and survives the
respective arrivals and departures of the people who use it. Instead
of being treated as a medium, the environment assumes the
characteristics of a variable (Michelson, 1970). Still the Canter
and Kenny and the Margulis formulations are too sketchy to
link the personal experience or regulation of privacy to specific
environmental variables without further elaboration. Such elaboration will require a conceptualization of the environment that
is not encumbered by current models of behavior. The quest
for such a model of the environment may have to extend well
beyond the traditional boundaries of psychology or the other
behavioral sciences.
This article proposes a model of the environment that not
only might be useful in conceptualizing privacy and other forms
of interpersonal behavior, but that is also independent of the
normative and symbolic associations with which tradition and the
behavioral sciences have encumbered it. It begins with an explication of the physical properties of the architectural environment,
followed by a sketch of the behaviorally relevant attributes of
the environment so defined. From these attributes, the role of
the physical environment in the presentation of information about
the self and in the experience of privacy will be developed. It
should be noted that the purpose of this analysis is not to design
environments but to more fully comprehend interpersonal behavior.
Properties and Attributes

T h e starting point for explicating the relationships between

environment and behavior is the recognition that such an analysis
is not necessarily a logical extension of the traditional concepts
and methods of psychology or the other behavioral sciences. This
point is underscored by noting that the major unifying principle
behind those conceptual and methodological pursuits has been
the notion that the environment is a source of error which must

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

119

be experimentally or statistically controlled in order to preserve

the scientific integrity of behavioral constructs (Archea, 1974,
1975a). Instead of expanding accepted notions of interpersonal
behavior to encompass the physical environment, our task should
be to reconceptualize the nature of the physical environment
so that the relationships between it and human behavior can
be fully elaborated. A thorough consideration of this basic task
must precede the analysis of specific environment-behavior concepts like privacy. Such a fundamental reassessment calls for a
fresh consideration of the properties and attributes of the physical
environment and of human behavior itself.
Properties are those intrinsic, defining characteristics of a thing
or a class of things that make it what it is. Properties are always
present, even if they are not fully understood or utilized by those
who construe a thing in a particular way. Somethings color,
density, tensile or compressive strength, bilateral symmetry,
opposable handedness, and binocular vision are all properties.
They impose limits on what things can do.
Attributes are those extrinsic, relational characteristics of things
or classes of things that relate them to other things for specific
purposes. Attributes are contingent upon what things do in relation
to other things. T h e concern is with functions, rather than essences.
Efficiency, flammability, hazardousness, visibility, intelligence, and
competence are all attributes. They link things to contexts. In
effect, they are the performance characteristics of the situations
created when things come together in time and space.
Whereas properties provide a fairly objective set of constraints
from which all other characteristics of things derive a part of
their existential status, attributes are only conventions. T h e qualities of attributes are functions of both the nature of the relationships which they characterize and the intentions of those who
find such characterizations useful.
In most analyses, privacy is considered to be a relational
characteristic, or attribute, of a selected class of interpersonal
situations. While the place-related or environmental aspects of
these situations remain implicit in most theoretical treatments
(Altman, 1974, 1975; Laufer et al., 1973; Proshansky et al., 1970),
there is no justification for leaving these aspects any less explicit
or empirically accessible than the person-related or behavioral
aspects with which behavioral scientists are so much more familiar.
Situations consist of a series of interrelated activities or events
which occur within a series of physically and temporally bounded
settings. As an attribute of a class of situations, privacy should
be considered only in terms of the interrelated constraints which

120

JOHNARCHEA

both physical and human properties impose upon interpersonal

encounters. Each set of properties presents a necessary condition
for the analysis of privacy, but it is their interrelationships which
provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for such an analysis.
This represents a sharp departure from the previous efforts of
many environmental psychologists to conceptualize the environment as a higher-order attribute of behavior, thereby endowing
it and most situations with limitations that are exclusively human
rather than physical.
Part of the problem of objectifying the environmental aspects
of privacy may stem from the fact that the issue straddles
intellectual communities as divergent in their traditions, objectives,
and methods as the behavioral sciences and the design professions
(Archea, 1975a, 1975b). Although architecture is the field most
commonly associated with environmental variables, it has not
developed a research tradition that requires the kinds of intersubjectively shared constructs or theories that psychologists are
accustomed to using. Despite an architectural literature that is
peppered with stimulating historical and philosophical insights
which link privacy to the subdivision of spaces within buildings
(Chermayeff & Alexander, 1965; Giedion, 1948; Mumford, 1938;
Neutra, 1954) the only attributes of the physical environment
for which architects have established explicit conventions are those
related to building fabrication and durability. In addressing
attributes related to building occupancy or use, the designers
vocabulary remains metaphorical and autobiographical.
In conceptualizing the behavior-related attributes of the
physical environment we are left somewhere between the architects inclination to define them subjectively and intuitively and
the psychologists inclination to derive them from previously
established models of environment-free behavior. The fact that
we presently are able to explicate the behavioral aspects of things
like privacy with much more precision than the environmental
aspects is little more than an artifact of a much longer scientific
tradition in the behavioral sciences than in the design professions.
If a commitment to precise definition and measurement had
historically favored the environmental side of the coin, we now
might be trying to untangle a working understanding of behavior
from the heights of kitchen cabinets and the widths of exits.

Information Fields
T h e task of explicating the behavior-related attributes of the
physical environment necessarily falls to those who presume that

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

121

interpersonal behavior is related to the setting in which it occurs.

In this section, a general framework for conceptualizing social
situations is proposed (also see Archea, 1974). T h e influence,
among others, of theoretical geographers Hagerstrand (1967) and
Pred (1967) and of the sociologist Goffman (1963, 1971) will
be apparent.
T h e framework begins with the notion that each person is
the center of a dynamic field of information about surrounding
events and activities, to which his o r her behavior is a continuous
adjustment. As ones ability to monitor surrounding activities
increases, so does ones awareness of emerging behavioral opportunities. Similarly, as the likelihood of being monitored by others
increases, so does the persons accountability for his o r her own
behavior. Thus, the regulation of interpersonal behavior is influenced by the possibilities for monitoring the behavior of others
(access) and by the possibilities that others can monitor ones
own behavior (exposure).
Even though all sensory modalities are involved in this process,
information conveyed visually is the most effective in governing
ones participation in an ongoing situation. I n physically bounded
settings, the potentials for seeing others (visual access) and for
being seen by them (visual exposure) will vary as functions of
the positions of walls and other visual barriers. I n this manner,
the spatial organization of the surrounding environment mediates
the range of behavioral options and obligations which are apparent
to those within the setting. T h e crux of this thesis is the notion
that the arrangement of the physical enuironment regulates the distribution
of the information upon which all interpersonal behavior depends.
From this presumptive notion, several auxiliary propositions
follow. First, as situations change over time, access to and exposure
from places where social events could develop will have as great
an effect on the regulation of ones behavior as access to o r
exposure from people who happen to occupy particular places
at particular points in time. This suggests that doors, corners,
and other places in the environment where new information first
impinges on a situation will have special behavioral significance.
Second, according to their immediate intentions, persons can
arrange to see o r be seen from any portion of their physical
surroundings. I n order to achieve desired social consequences,
people can strategically locate and orient themselves in a manner
that maximizes the benefits of visual access and exposure. Finally,
the effectiveness of visual access and exposure in regulating
interpersonal behavior can be offset by sensory-motor and

122

JOHN ARCHEA

experiential attributes of individuals and by the normative attributes of situations. T h e main point is that, despite an expectation
of considerable individual and circumstantial variability, the extent
to which the arrangement of their immediate physical surroundings permits people to see or be seen is regarded as the pivotal
link between environment and behavior.
Within this framework, the major behavior-related characteristic of the man-made or the natural environment is the manner
in which it concentrates, diffuses, segregates, or otherwise localizes
information. A closely related quality is the manner in which
physical surroundings facilitate the manifestation of the information that is present.
From this analysis it follows that the environmental attributes
relevant to understanding interpersonal situations are: (a) the
means by which the environment channels, obstructs, or otherwise
regulates the distribution of perceptible energies; and (b) the
means by which the environment transduces, amplifies, contrasts,
or otherwise mediates the appearance of available information.
Among the underlying physical properties that constrain the ways
in which visibility and other environmental attributes can be
conceptualized and measured are the position, extent, fixity,
density, color, radiance, and transparency or opacity of the
architectural components of settings.
Whereas the environmental or architectural attributes of a
situation affect the flow and appearance of information, the
interrelated behavioral attributes affect the process of decoding
and encoding that information. They include: the respective
locations of the participants in a situation, their head and body
orientations, the acuity of their various sensory modalities, their
psychomotor responsiveness, their familiarity with the setting, the
routinization of certain activities, and the normative or symbolic
associations shared among the participants. The underlying
human properties which limit the ways in which people can
exchange information with each other are: unidirectional vision
of high resolution but limited lateral extent, omnidirectional
audition of somewhat lower resolution, the rates at which information is processed, the categorical structure of short- and long-term
memory, and the mechanics of verbal and nonverbal expression.
Some of these characteristics are similar to the strictly behavioral constructs that were criticized earlier in this paper. The
main difference is that the framework proposed here requires
simultaneous consideration of the behavioral and the environmental attributes of situations. In contradistinction to an analysis

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

123

of behavior or environment, the object of this analysis is the

situation itself.
In sum, the physical environment is construed as a mechanism
for regulating the flow and appearance of information. People
process available information in order to coordinate their own
actions with those of others. T h e result of processing such
information is an adjustment in the course of ones own behavior
which itself constitutes new information. That new information
in turn is redistributed as the organization of the physical environment permits.

A MODEL
O F S P A T I A BEHAVIOR
L
In the framework proposed here, visual access and visual
exposure are the most fundamental attributes that subsume both
the environmental and the behavioral aspects of interpersonal
situations. In this section a model of spatial behavior is outlined,
based upon the interaction of visual access and exposure as both
are constrained by the properties of physical and human systems.

Visual Access
Visual access is the ability to monitor ones immediate spatial
surroundings by sight. A persons visual access within an informal
social setting establishes the range of opportunities available for
synchronizing that persons behavior with the behavior of those
who share the setting. The amount of information available from
ones immediate social surroundings determines both the number
of potential interpersonal relationships from which one can choose
and the number of cues available for anticipating changes in
those relationships. T h e extent to which individuals can maintain
active surveillance of their physical surroundings provides the
means for identifying the range of behaviors which are acceptable
or appropriate within the prevailing social context. Visual access
is a function of the positions of walls, doors, mirrors, and other
opaque or reflective surfaces relative to ones own position (position referring to the combined effect of location and orientation).
With regard to visual access, ones location limits the amount
of information about people or events that one can acquire directly,
over time. Opportunities for coordinating or integrating behavior
with the activities of other individuals are directly related to the
manner in which ones location in space enables him or her to
monitor the sociospatial dynamics of the situation in which he
or she is involved. The time available to adjust to changing

124

JOHN ARCHEA

interpersonal obligations is similarly related to the range of

behavioral cues to which one has direct visual access.
Ones orientation in space limits the amount of information
about his or her immediate surroundings which can be acquired
at a single moment. The ratio between (a) the maximum amount
of a setting that can be observed while oriented in a single direction
and @) the total amount that can be observed using all possible
orientations from a given location determines the efficiency of
visual access. In turn, the ease or efficiency with which ambient
information can be acquired determines the proportion of ones
time which can be devoted to any segment of ones surroundings
and, as a consequence, the degree of detail which can be acquired
from that segment.
Visual Exposure
Visual exposure is the probability that ones behavior can be
monitored by sight from ones immediate physical surroundings.
A persons visual exposure within an informal social setting
establishes the degree of accountability for his or her own behavior
that can be brought to bear by those who share the setting. T h e
extent to which peoples interpersonal encounters and other
activities are open to scrutiny from the areas around them will
determine the correspondence between their actual behavior and
the behavior which is attributed to them by others. A persons
sociospatial exposure provides the link through which enduring
impressions of his or her behavioral characteristics are formed
by others. Visual exposure is a function of the juxtaposition of
visual barriers, spaces, and illumination levels relative to ones
own position and to the positions of others.
With regard to visual exposure, ones location in a social
setting determines the number of potential observers who might
be in a position to monitor his or her behavior at a given point
in time. The probability that a persons behavior will be accurately
acknowledged by others is directly related to the manner in which
that persons location exposes his or her behavior to scutiny from
his or her physical surroundings. This relationship between visual
exposure and the potential assessment of ones behavior by others
can affect normative pressures to align ones behavior with
prevailing social sanctions.
A persons orientation within a social setting limits the degree
to which others will be able to observe certain aspects of his
or her behavior in detail. It also establishes the range of behavioral
opportunities to which one has visual access, thereby limiting

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

125

the amount of ambient information for which one can be held

accountable by others. T h e efficiency of visual exposure is determined by the likely orientations of those who might be in a position
to observe ones behavior, rather than by ones own orientation.
Thus, because theater seats face forward, the social accountability
of those sitting in the back rows is lower than of those in the
front rows.

Gradients
I n formulating visual access and visual exposure in this
manner, particular consideration has been given to the ways in
which the barriers and channels formed by the physical environment interact with the limited lateral range of the human visual
field to mediate the acquisition and presentation of information.
Further consideration of the rates at which people can process
incoming information suggests another element of the model.
Visual access and exposure gradients are abrupt changes in
the amount of ambient information available in the immediate
vicinity of openings and edges in surrounding visual barriers.
A change either in ones own position or in the positions of
others relative to access o r exposure gradients between adjacent
social settings establishes the internal stability of the situation
in which one is involved. Abrupt changes in the quality of a
persons visual access o r exposure will determine both the rate
at which information about new social opportunities becomes
available to that person and the rate at which his o r her own
behavior is revealed to new observers. If the amount or source
of ambient information changes at a rate that exceeds a persons
ability to accommodate it, then certain types of momentary
behavioral disorganization may be triggered. T h e rate of change
(the slope of an information gradient) is a function of the proximity
to edges o r openings in fixed visual barriers, momentary shifts
in the position of doors o r other semifixed barriers, and the
sizes of the spaces which are suddenly revealed o r concealed.
With regard to gradients, location-specific inflections in the
course of ones behavior can be expected to occur whenever one
changes ones own position relative to an edge o r opening in
a nearby visual barrier, thereby rendering oneself party to potential
oppol tunities and sanctions operating in an adjacent setting. T h e
rate at which a person must adjust his or her behavior to
accommodate altered social circumstances is directly related to
movement speed and proximity to an edge o r opening. Someone
who intends to minimize the social impact of sudden changes

126

JOHN ARCHEA

in the immediate physical surroundings can selectively either alter

the rate and path of approach to an edge or opening or alter
activity and orientation in a manner that will neutralize ones
accountability as one enters a new social setting.
Momentary inflections can be expected to occur when other
people enter or exit a setting via an edge or an opening in the
visual barriers that define it, thereby altering the opportunities
to which one has access and changing the observers to whom
one is accountable. T h e rate at which people must accommodate
such changes in their social surroundings is directly related to
the degree to which their visual access permits them to anticipate
change and the degree to which their visual exposure obligates
them to respond to change.
Terminals
An information terminal is a point within an informal social
setting at which information is either entered into or retrieved
from a formal communication network or information storage
system. Whereas an informal social setting consists of all of the
behavior-related information that operates wholly within a physically bounded space or series of linked spaces, a formal communication network or storage system is an instrument designed to
distribute specific classes of information between preselected
points in the environment which may be quite far apart. One
of the key characteristics of a formal information network, such
as a telephone system, is that the information being transmitted
is inaccessible at all of the points that lie between the preselected
terminals.
With regard to behavior, the terminal functions as a subclass
of the gradient phenomenon in which the activation of a terminal
that links an informal setting with a formal network establishes
the external stability of an ongoing social situation. Because the
signals and records that pass through formal communication
networks and data systems are directly perceptible only when
passing through operating terminals, such information cannot
easily be anticipated in advance or corrected after transmission.
This makes the gatekeepers, and those with whom they maintain
mutual access and exposure relationships, party to exclusive
information which only they are in a position to disseminate within
or transmit beyond that setting. T h e potential power of an
information terminal is a funtion of the size of the formal network
to which it is linked.
With regard to the use of terminals, information output from

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

127

a setting involves the codification and diffusion of impressions

beyond the sociospatial context in which they are formed. Once
such information is recorded and dispatched beyond the physical
boundaries within which it developed, it becomes insulated from
all attempts to modify or correct it spontaneously. Information
input involves the sudden infusion of information, the source of
which lies in settings that are physically removed from the settings
in which that information emerges. Until such information becomes manifest via a terminal located within an ongoing social
setting, no opportunities to anticipate o r prepare for it can exist.
When the phone rings we usually cannot predict who is calling
or what they want; once we have answered, we can no longer
deny that we are home.

Decoding/ Encoding and Precoding

In formulating visual access, visual exposure, gradients, and
terminals as a family of relationships that structure interpersonal
situations, the physical o r architectural environment has been
conceptualized as a system of barriers, channels, edges, switches,
and transducers that affect the flow of information. The role
of the individual has been characterized solely in terms of the
limited range of the human visual field and the rates at which
people process information from their surroundings. In order
to account for real-world social encounters, two more behavioral
factors must be considered.
T h e first of these is the manner in which the sensory motor
capabilities of the participants in an informal social setting mediate
their responsiveness in converting information about their social
surroundings into appropriate behavioral displays of their own.
The ability to participate fully in an ongoing social situation is
directly related to the rates at which one can process information
and execute a contingent course of action. This involves the closely
related processes of decoding and encoding information.
Decoding involves detecting and assessing the significance of
the interpersonal opportunities emerging around one. It is a
function of the range of a persons psychosensory capabilities.
Although people process most of the information about their
surroundings visually, the performance of the human visual system
is much more restricted by the organization of the physical setting
than are either the auditory or olfactory systems, Encoding involves
accommodating or responding to changing social demands by
imparting the appropriate meaning to ones own behavior. It
is a function of a persons verbal, gestural, postural, ambulatory,

128

JOHN AKCHEA

and other psychomotor capabilities for expressing intentions.

T h e second factor is the manner in which the precoding of
certain attributes mediates the significance of the information
associated with certain individuals o r activities within informal
social settings. T h e previously established status of specific people
or events can substantially alter the manner in which interpersonal
opportunities are identified and the degree to which individuals
are held accountable for their own activities. Dependence upon
direct visual access and exposure in regulating interpersonal
behavior is inversely proportional to the amount of previously
established information operating within the setting. Such information associates specific social obligations and exemptions
with specific individuals and circumstances.
Individual attributes are experientially defined characteristics
of oneself o r of others which, by routine o r reputation, render
sociospatial activities predictable and intentions comprehensible.
As ones familiarity with o r reputation within an informal social
setting increases, the utility of visual access for identifying interpersonal opportunities o r of visual exposure for maintaining
social accountability will diminish. Circumstantial attributes are
normatively defined characteristics of certain tasks o r situations
which exempt the people o r behaviors identified with them from
prevailing social sanctions. Certain widely understood symbols
(like uniforms, special equipment, o r stigmata) clearly associate
the individuals o r activities that bear them with externally imposed
obligations to d o specific things in specific places, even in violation
of prevailing social sanctions.

Scope and Value of the Model

This model of visual access and exposure provides a vocabulary for describing both the environmental and behavioral characteristics of interpersonal situations. Instead of treating rooms and
building types as homogeneous environmental entities, it becomes
possible to treat spatial attributes like access and exposure as
the potential sources of environmental variance. I n addition to
being sensitive to the physical properties of complex settings,
the model is also capable of being coordinated with accepted
models of human behavior.
Perhaps the ultimate value of the model in accounting for
the environmental variance in interpersonal behavior lies in the
fact that access and exposure can be objectively quantified. T h e
measurement methodology (Archea, 1974) generates a series of
contours through an iterative process. T h e main parameters used

A R C H I T E C T U R A L FACTORS

129

are the lateral range of the human visual field and the relative
positions of the walls, doors, corners, and other visual regulators
for a specific setting. Thus, the various potentials for access and
exposure can be calculated for each location within a bounded
space, and for each orientation at each location. Gradients are
identified by the differences in access and exposure values calculated for adjacent locations. T h e access and exposure surfaces
produced by this method are analogous to the trend surfaces
recently reported in analyzing the distributions of certain social
indicators in urban areas (Lewis, 1977).

IMPLICA
T I O N S F O R PRIV A c Y
According to the model, the physical environment is a relatively stable assembly of walls, doors, corners, and other regulators
of the flow of information. T h e physical arrangement of a given
setting remains substantially unchanged from one situation to
the next. T h e dynamic influence of the environment on interpersonal behavior stems from the ways in which it is used. By selecting
or changing ones location o r orientation, one establishes a potential
for obtaining and conveying behaviorally relevant information.
In Yffect, we change our environment by changing our position
within it.
Consider a large lamp placed on a desk so that it lies just
off the line of sight between the desk chair and the point where
colleagues o r visitors would enter the room. When someone enters,
the person sitting at the desk has the option of casually shifting
his o r her position so that the lamp blocks the visitors view.
As a consequence, the guest is denied access to the cues needed
to determine the hosts receptiveness to intrusion. This awkward
situation can be relieved if the host simply moves his o r her
head a few inches so that the lamp no longer obstructs the mutual
gaze paths between the potential interactants. This subtle manipulation of visual access and exposure can make a major difference
in the respective abilities of the guest and host to read each
others intentions and to synchronize their behavior. In this case,
the physical environment is an instrument which is used selectively
to inhibit o r facilitate the flow of interpersonal information.
Through the judicious selection of ones position in space,
numerous behavioral advantages can be obtained. Opportunities
for identifying the appropriate points to enter o r withdraw from
an activity and for fostering o r deterring the notice of ones
activities taken by others are both mediated by the manner in

130

JOHN ARCHEA

which location and orientation establish the potential for access

and exposure. I n effect, the way in which we present ourselves
to others is a function of our position relative to the organization
of our physical drroundings. And how we present ourselves to
others is the essence of privacy.

Coextensive and Trace Information

There are at least two distinct, though interrelated, effects
of the information which people present to those who share a
situation with them. T h e first effect is coextensive with the person
in time and place. This is the continual exchange of overt cues
which enables the participants in an ongoing situation to continually readjust their behavior in response to changing interpersonal
opportunities and obligations. This effect operates in the existential
here and now. T h e second effect includes those impressions made
on other persons or on the environment which survive the social
context in which they are formed. Unlike coextensive information
which accompanies the individual in time and place, this is a
trace which stays with other people or with the environment until
it dissipates o r is refreshed through a subsequent encounter. Some
traces of prior behavior are latent in almost all interpersonal
situations. Ones concern for trace effects stems from the potential
emergence of latent information in situations that are temporally
and spatially removed from the context in which the initial
impression was made. A bad impression made some years ago,
or even a warm seat cushion, may govern behavior toward an
individual in ways that are difficult to comprehend from the
overt cues that are available.
Any explanation of interpersonal encounters must consider
the subtle interplay of coextensive and trace information. T h e
following scenario suggests some of the intricacies: (a) people
continually process behavioral cues coextensively, (b) in doing
so they continually impress traces of their own behavior on other
people and on the environment, (c) some of these traces dissipate
while others endure, (d) people are always vulnerable to the
emergence of enduring traces left at some previous time and
place, therefore (e) people are somewhat cautious about the traces
which they leave. Laufer and his coworkers have labeled this
the calculus of behavior and have assigned it a key role in
their dimensionalization of privacy (Laufer et al., 1973).
How one coextensively manages the distribution and use of
trace information about oneself becomes even more central to
privacy when the role of the physical environment is made explicit.

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

131

One way to regulate the use of information about oneself in

advance is by preparation: the strategic placement of self-serving
trace information. By systematically (though not necessarily consciously) positioning oneself so that ones most appropriate behav iors are readily observed while those which are less appropriate
remain concealed, a person can increase the probabilities that
others will form favorable and lasting impressions of his or her
behavioral characteristics. If a person is successful in exhibiting
his or her hardest work during moments of high exposure while
confining idle moments to periods of low exposure, that person
will stand a good chance of having occasional episodes of idleness
or frivolity dismissed as uncharacteristic, even if they are readily
observable by other people. By routinely controlling ones position
in a manner that befits ones behavior, a context can be established
that will bias interpretations of subsequent actions in ones own
favor.
T h e second way to control the use of information about
oneself is by correction: casting previous actions in new contexts
in the hope that they will be reinterpreted more favorably. Thus,
when the unexpected emergence of unfavorable trace information
leaves an individual in a socially precarious position, new information can be introduced which gives the incongruous behavior the
appearance of necessity. For example, to account for a previous
episode of impropriety, a person might indicate that he or she
had just had two teeth pulled. I n this case, instead of adjusting
location o r orientation to foster the formation of favorable impressions, the person spontaneously supplies additional information
about his or her own behavior to satisfy the social demands
prevailing in the immediate vicinity.
T h e process of establishing and maintaining a favorable
alignment between ones behavior and ones position in the
environment is central to preparing and correcting the context
in which information about oneself is presented to others. This
provides an important link between the strategic use of ones
physical surroundings and privacy.
T h e appropriation of some trace information is not so readily
controlled. T h e loss of control typically occurs when personal
information is propagated in situations where the person referred
to is not present. T h e spread of gossip is the clearest example.
Another example includes the use of automated credit ratings,
medical records, and other durable traces of a persons behavioral
history. Recent public concern over access to these personal files
has led, among other things, to increasingly stringent controls

132

JOHN ARCHEA

over the places in which the terminals of these data networks

are located (Curran, Laska, Kaplan, & Bank, 1973). T h e issue
is not merely who has access to such files, but where they have
to be to gain that access.

Selective Conspicuousness
T h e management of behavior and position to further ones
own interpersonal objectives hinges on the notion that the most
accurate and vivid information about oneself is conveyed during
moments of high visual exposure. By continually realigning their
own behavior to meet the social obligations inherent in their spatial
circumstance, people regulate the availability of information about
themselves. Yet the act of determining the type of behavior which
is appropriate at a given time and place is itself a function of
a persons awareness of the interpersonal opportunities open to
them. This, in turn, depends upon visual access. Thus, to a large
extent, the process of controlling the manner in which information
about oneself is made available to others is a function of visual
access and visual exposure-as
both are constrained by the
arrangement of ones physical surroundings.
T h e concept which ties ones presentation of oneself to visual
access and exposure, and to privacy, is conspicuousness: the degree
to which a persons sociospatial display is discernible amid the
collective sociospatial displays of the surrounding persons and
events. T h e process of deliberately regulating behavior or position
to attain a desired degree of privacy is selective conspicuousness.
As the control of information about the self, privacy has
been characterized as a process of selective concealment and
disclosure (Margulis, Note 1). As the chief means by which ones
own privacy is regulated, selective conspicuousness establishes a
trade off between the spatial and the behavioral options available
in interpersonal situations. Conspicuousness is related first to the
likelihood that ones behavior will be noticed by others and second
to the appropriateness of that behavior. The mechanics of identifying the prevailing range of appropriate behaviors and of
attracting notice to oneself are initially constrained spatially,
through visual access and exposure, respectively. Ones skill at
selecting among such possibilities to initiate a contingent course
of action which satisfies ones own social objectives is the essence
of privacy regulation. What one chooses to do and where one
chooses to do it constitute the information for which others will
hold one personally accountable.
From this perspective, privacy regulation involves the simulta-

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

133

neous orchestration of visual access and visual exposure to buffer

unwanted penetrations of information about the self. T h e appropriateness, execution, and effectiveness of all other behavioral
mechanisms for regulating privacy are functions of ones spatial
circumstance. T h e utility of verbal, paraverbal, and other behavioral means of controlling the flow of information about oneself
cannot be fully ascertained without considering the spatial relationships among the actors and the limitations imposed by the
organization of the architectural surroundings.

Loss of Privacy
I n this analysis, the loss of privacy is related to either too
much o r too little conspicuousness. T h e condition of being overly
conspicuous is partly a function of too much exposure or too
little access. Being spatially overexposed simply means that more
information about oneself is available to others than one desires.
Having poor visual access means that ones ability to gauge the
appropriateness of behavior vis-A-vis others is hampered, thereby
increasing the likelihood of pursuing a course of behavior for
which one would rather not be held accountable.
Although becoming more conspicuous than one intends is
the primary problem in the regulation of privacy, being too
inconspicuous can also present difficulties. Inconspicuousness is
related to either too little exposure o r too much access. Insufficient
exposure simply means that ones behavior cannot be accurately
acknowledged by others. This could be a serious problem in
preparing o r correcting the context in which ones future or past
behavior is assessed. O n the other hand, a person with too much
access picks u p information about others which that person would
prefer not to have. This has two potential consequences for the
unwilling recipient. T h e first is the possibility of being drawn
into events that will compromise ones abilities to control the
presentation of certain information about oneself. T h e second
is the possibility of becoming encumbered with inappropriate or
undesirable information about others which may be difficult to
conceal on later occasions. Being vulnerable to revealing trace
information that one has inadvertently acquired about another
if that
person infringes on the privacy of both-particularly
information o r its possession conflicts with a long standing relationship.
To illustrate the architectural dynamics of privacy, consider
a solitary person surrounded by thick stone walls which allow
virtually no sound transmission. With a single unlocked door,

134

JOHN ARCHEA

having similar sound deadening properties, one would initially

assume that a high degree of privacy exists due to minimal acoustic
and visual exposure. Yet if someone approaches the door from
the other side, the barrier to sight and sound created by the
wall and door may diminish the privacy of the person in the
room because he or she will have no way to anticipate the potential
intrusion. T h e element of surprise experienced as a result of
the information gradient created when the door is thrown open
could easily be more intrusive than if a thinner barrier had
permitted a few moments of prior warning. T h e point is that
privacy is not simply a matter of curtailing exposure to prevent
invasions of the self. It must also include sufficient access to
interpersonal opportunities and obligations to enable one to
present oneself in a favorable manner. Whether one wishes to
withhold or to reveal information, matching ones spatial and
behavioral conspicuousness with ones intentions is a key element
of privacy regulation.

Co NCL USION
No matter how we conceptualize privacy, we cannot escape
the fact that the behavior required to attain or maintain it occurs
in an environment for which physical properties can be specified.
T h e existence of such environments generally precedes and
survives the situations to which privacy is attributed. Places do
not acquire their reality status because they are used, but because
their intrinsic physical properties constrain the manner in which
they can be used. T h e physical environment channels and obstructs
the distribution of virtually all information upon which the
regulation of privacy depends. People cannot act upon behavioral
cues which are obscured by physical barriers nor can they prevent
others from acting upon cues about themselves which are not
likewise obscured. T h e physical environment presents everyone
with a set of initial conditions upon which all behavior is largely
contingent. As such, it confronts the behavioral scientist with an
independent variable, the salience of which has been too long
denied.
T o date, instead of theories which link environmental variance
to specific physical properties, the field of environmental psychology has produced only psychological representations of the environment. T h e model of visual access and exposure proposed
here is a step toward the development of a capability for defining
and measuring the physical environment independently of the

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

135

way in which we define and measure behavior. Once models

such as this are more fully developed and tested, we may be
able to differentiate physically bounded settings and parts of
settings according to their behavioral attributes. Just as we find
similar meanings in grammatically distinct sentences, we may even
be able to identify certain behavioral similarities among architecturally distinct settings. Furthermore, if models are truly sensitive
to the behavioral characteristics of the users of environments,
ultimately w e may be able to stipulate the unique spatial requirements for privacy that satisfy the special needs of special groups.
Because the model of visual access and exposure proposed here
takes explicit account of the sensory-motor capabilities required
to decode ambient information and to encode information about
oneself, it suggests a basis for differentiating the special privacy
requirements of particular groups, like the elderly or the handicapped.
In this analysis the physical environment has been valued,
not for its symbolic or normative associations, but as the means
by which the flow of behaviorally relevant information is either
facilitated or inhibited. T h e issue is not private or personal space,
but how one must conduct oneself in order to attain a desired
level of privacy, given the distribution of information permitted
by the physical arrangement of ones surroundings. The concern
is how people manipulate both their position and their behavior
to further their own interpersonal objectives. In addition to a
consideration of the behavior associated with privacy, this analysis
suggests the need for serious consideration of precisely where
that behavior occurs. Before any of the theoretical or practical
benefits of this kind of analysis can be realized, there must be
a commitment to sampling and measuring the physical environment with the same level of objectivity and precision that we
require when we sample and measure behavior.
REFERENCE NOTE
1. Margulis, S. T. Privacy as information management: A n introduction to a
conceptual analysis. Unpublished manuscript, National Bureau of Standards, 1977.

REFERENCES
Altman, I. Privacy: A conceptual analysis. I n D. H . Carson (Ed.), Man-environment interactions: Evaluations and applications; (Part 11, Vol. 6: S.
T. Margulis, Vol. Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Environmental Design Re-

136

JOHN ARCHEA

search Association, 1974; and Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson

&Ross, 1975.
Altman, I. The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territorial$, crowding. Monterey, CA: BrooksjCole, 1975.
Archea, J. Identifying direct links between behavior and its environment:
Toward a predictive model. In T. 0. Byerts (Ed.), Environmental research
and aging. Washington, D.C.: Gerontological Society, 1974.
Archea, J. Establishing an interdisciplinary commitment. In B. Honikman
(Ed.), Responding to social change. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson
& Ross, 1975. (a)
Archea, J. Applied interdisciplinary research on environment and aging:
Conceptual and methodological conflicts. In P. Windley, T. 0. Byerts,
& F. G. Ernst (Eds.), Theory development in environment and aging.
Washington, D.C.: Gerontological Society, 1975. (b)
Bossley, M. 1. Privacy and crowding: A multidisciplinary approach. Man-Environment Systems, 1976, 6, 8-19.
Canter, D., & Kenny, C. T h e spatial environment. In D. Canter & P. Stringer,
Environmental interaction: Psychological approaches to our physical surroundings. London: Surrey University Press, 1975.
Chermayeff, S., & Alexander, C . Community and privacy: Toward a new
architecture of humanism. New York: Anchor Books, 1965.
Curran, W. J., Laska, E. M., Kaplan, H., & Bank, R. Protection of privacy
and confidentiality. Science, 1973, f82, 797-802.
Giedion, S. Mechanization takes command: A contribution to a n anonymous history.
New York: W. W. Norton, 1948.
Goffman, E. Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization ofgatherings.
Glen.coe, 11.: T h e Free Press, 1963.
Goffman, E. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York:
Basic Books, 1971.
Hagerstrand, T. Innouation diffusion as a spatial process. (A. R. Pred, trans.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Laufer, R. S., Proshansky, H. M., & Wolfe, M. Some analytic dimensions
of privacy. In R. Kuller (Ed.), Architectural psychology: Proceedings of
the Lund conference. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1973.
Levy, A. S. What happened to the environment? Conlemporary P~ychology,
1976,21, 615-616.
Lewis, M. S. Trend surface analysis of community variables. Psychological
Bulletin, 1977, 84, 940-949.
Michelson, W. H. M a n and his urban environment: A sociological approach.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1970.
Moore, G. T. Review of The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal
space, territoriality, crowding by I. Altman. Journal of Architectural Research,
1976, 5, 39-40.
Mumford, L. The culture of cities. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1938.
Neutra, R. Survival through design. London: Oxford University Press, 1954.
Pred, A. Behavior and location: Foundations for a geographic and dynamic
location theory. Lund Series in Geography, 1967, 27 (Series B).
Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H . & Rivlin, L. G. Freedom of choice and

ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS

137

behavior in a physical setting. I n H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson,

& L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psycholoo: Man and his physical
setting. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.
Willems, E. P., &Campbell, D. E. One path through the cafeteria. Environment
and Behavzor, 1976, 8, 125-140.