Module 2 Notes

2.1 Personal space, Territoriality, Crowding

• Personal space
“Thou shall not trespass thy neighbor's personal space”. It's among the most hallowed
rules of social behavior. But how do these invisible bubbles of space surrounding each of us
come to exist in the first place, and why does it feel so icky when they overlap?
Proxemics is the study of how humans use space when we're communicating. How close we
stand to someone, whether we touch them, and how comfortable we feel are all part of the
study of proxemics. Proxemics is a term coined by Edward Hall during the 1950s and 1960s.
It deals with the study of our use of space and how various differences in that users can make
us feel more relaxed or anxious. The branch of knowledge deals with the amount of space
that people feel it necessary to set between themselves and others. Proxemics is concerned
with territoriality, interpersonal distance, spatial arrangements, crowding, and other aspects of
the physical environment that affect behaviour. Do you feel uncomfortable when someone
stands too close to you? These questions are important to the study of proxemics.
Proxemics is the study of space and how we use it, how it makes us feel more or less
comfortable, and how we arrange objects and ourselves in relation to space. The term was
coined by the anthropologist Edward Hall. Hall was interested in understanding how humans
use space in communication. The notion of personal space is derived primarily from the ideas
of anthropologists E.T. Hall (Edward Twitchell Hall). Hall (1961) conceived of personal
space as a series of spatial spheres (bubbles) with the individual person as their
centre. Personal Space is a body buffer zone that people maintain between themselves and
others a portable, invisible boundary surrounding us into which others may not trespass.
“…an area with invisible boundaries surrounding a person’s body into which intruders may
not come.” (Sommer, 1969). It has been studied longer and more than almost any other
aspect of environmental psychology (e.g., Sommer, 1959). Thus, the Personal space is the
region surrounding a person which they regard as psychologically theirs. Invasion of personal
space often leads to discomfort, anger, or anxiety on the part of the victim. An invasion of
personal space occurs when those not entitled to entrance or use nevertheless cross the
boundaries and invade your personal space.
The amount of personal space required for any given person is subjective. For example,
one who is accustomed to busy city life, especially riding on crowded subways, is more
tolerant of others impeding on their personal space than someone who may live in a more
rural area. In fact, one who is used to having their personal space respected may become
extremely anxious and claustrophobic when placed in a situation where personal space might
get invaded or trespassed. The amount of personal space you require also depends on how
well you know the other person. The more intimate the relationship, the less personal space is
involved.
For the majority of people who find some amount of personal space necessary for
their security, an unexpected violation can be very disconcerting (causing one to feel
unsettled). For example, if you were standing in an airport that was relatively vacant and a
person that you didn't know came up and stood in very close proximity to your body, you
would probably feel extremely alarmed. This violation of personal space and the discomfort
that it causes works to keep you safe from potential threats such as those who might wish to
harm you.
There are common exceptions to one’s need for personal space, especially when the
exceptions are anticipated. Crowded events such as concerts, fairs, and sports arenas
normally don’t leave room for ample personal space. But event-goers normally don’t mind
suspending their space requirements in exchange for the fun they provide. Another reason to
quell one’s need for personal space is in romantic relationships. In these cases, the lack of
personal space is usually expected as well as desired. Similarly, family members often
welcome hugs and affection. These close and personal situations are often built on high levels
of trust. Trust is critical because a lack of space might create physical and emotional
vulnerabilities for an individual.
You know from your own experience that when people other than your most intimate
partners, friends, or family stand too close, you feel the need to step back within what you
feel is a safe zone. It feels creepy to have them right in your face, and even worse when they
make physical contact. You can probably relate to this idea if you’ve ever spent the majority
of a flight making sure you have access to your own armrest or resisting being jammed in by
a passenger in a reclined seat in front of you. Apart from physical discomfort, these factors
can also cause a lot of stress in your experiences.

In 1966 Anthropologist Edward Hall identified four different zones of personal space people
like to keep around them
i) Intimate distance: This extends roughly 18 inches (46 cm) from the individual and is
reserved for family, pets, and very close friends. Displays of affection and comfort are
commonly conducted within this space. The only strangers an individual typically accepts
within his or her intimate space are healthcare professionals.
ii) Personal distance: This extends 1.5 to 4 feet (0.46-1.2 m) is reserved for friends and
acquaintances. A handshake will typically place strangers at least 2 to 4 feet (0.6 1-1.2 m)
apart, preserving the personal distance.
iii) Social distance: This extends from about 4 to 12 feet (1.2-3.7 m) and is used for formal,
business, and other impersonal interactions such as meeting a client. as well as to separate
strangers using public areas such as beaches and bus stops.
iv) Public space: This extends more than 12 feet (3.7 m) and is the distance maintained
between the audience and a speaker. Secret Service agents will commonly attempt to ensure
12 feet (3.7 m) of open space around dignitaries and high-ranking officials.
People make exceptions to and modify their space requirements. A number of relationships
may allow for personal space to be modified and these include familial ties, romantic
partners, friendships, and close acquaintances where a greater degree of trust and knowledge
of a person allows personal space to be modified.

Cultural differences:
Take India for example. Let us take the example of traveling on a bus. Here you will find that
people are pushed and jostled and they stand packed in a bus each touching the other's body.
On the other hand, in European countries, especially in the USA, the Americans will tend to
pull in their elbows and knees and try not to touch or even look at one another while riding on
the bus. Thus, cultural differences in the physical environment can have a great impact on
people's interaction with others.

Thus, Personal space is a body buffer zone that people maintain between themselves and
others. It refers to the invisible bubble we all carry around us which defines how close we
will approach other people and how close we will allow people to approach us. Research
findings suggest that the personal space bubble is not circular, but elliptical, in that it is
bigger in front and behind the individual than that of the sides. Situational effects on personal
space have tended to focus on the social rather than the physical setting. It is generally found
that where the attraction between individuals is strong e.g. strong friendship, persons are
more willing to decrease the required personal space. Alternatively, where people dislike
each other and where the tone of the interaction is unfriendly, generally people move further
apart. In other words, certain important points emerge in regard to personal space and
bubble.
But how do these personal bubbles arise? According to researchers, we begin to develop our
individual sense of personal space around age 3 or 4, and the sizes of our bubbles are secure
by adolescence. These bubbles of personal space are constructed and monitored by the
amygdala, the brain region involved in fear. The amygdala is activated when you invade
people's personal space. This probably reflects the strong emotional response when
somebody gets too close to us. We confirmed this in a rare patient with lesions to this brain
structure: she felt entirely comfortable no matter how close somebody got to her and had no
apparent personal space."
Furthermore, he said, abnormal development of the amygdala may also explain why people
with autism have difficulties maintaining a normal social distance from other people.

Measuring Personal Space:

1. Stimulation Method: uses figures of people on a board or dolls. Participants are asked
to place the dolls at a distance where they would stand in real-life situations.
2. Stop-distance method: Participants are asked to walk towards the experimenter and
stop at a ‘comfortable’ point. The distance was then measured.
3. Naturalistic observation: people having a conversation are observed
4. Comfortable interpersonal distance scale (CIDS): Participant is seated and being
approached by people until participant asks them to stop when they feel that space is
about to be invaded

If there is a violation of personal space whether in regard to adults or children, it causes a

high degree of discomfort and imbalance. But there are times when personal space intrusions
are simply unavoidable, such as in a crowded subway car. How do we cope?
Adaptation (dehumanizing): The psychologist Robert Sommer suggested we do it by
temporarily dehumanizing those around us, avoiding eye contact, and pretending they're
inanimate until the moment comes when we spot an escape route. After all, it's not
uncomfortable to stand inches from a wall. People traveling in subways and in crowded areas,
often imagine those intruding on their personal space as inanimate (lifeless). This way they
adapt themselves to the violation of their personal space.
Behavior: Another method by which people try to cope is by stepping back to restore their
personal space. In situations where one person steps forward to enter what they perceive as a
conversational distance, and the person they are talking to can step back to restore their
personal space. This behavior removes the discomfort caused by the violation of personal
space.

• Territoriality

If you’ve ever watched an episode of the popular TV series The Big Bang Theory, you
probably know that the character Sheldon has a ‘spot.” When one of his friends sits in his
spot, Sheldon overreacts and demands that the person move immediately: “Hey, that’s my
spot.” Sure, Sheldon is territorial to the extreme. But maybe we all have a spot (and dislike
when it’s taken).
So, what’s the environmental psychology behind these possessive feelings over places? How
can my productivity and mood be so affected by the availability of a particular location? The
answer: territoriality. Environmental psychologists have been studying territoriality for some
time (hence my use of some older sources in the upcoming paragraphs). Generally, feeling
territorial over a place or thing comes about because of attitudes and behaviors based on
control and perceived or actual ownership.
It is related to personal space. Territoriality is a pattern of attitudes and behavior held
by a person or group that is based on perceived, attempted, or actual control of physical
space, object, or idea, which may involve habitual occupation, defense, personalization, and
marking of the territory. Marking means placing an object or substance in a space to indicate
one’s territorial intentions. Cafeteria diners leave coats or books on a chair or table.
Personalization means marking in a manner that indicates one’s identity. Many employees
decorate their workspaces with pictures. There is a close relationship between the concept of
personal space and territoriality. We build houses, fences, or any other markers and defend
this claimed territory against invasion.
Territoriality usually is associated with the possession of some physical space, but it
can also involve such processes as dominance, control, conflict, security, and identity. If a
territory is important to a person, his or her sense of identity may be closely tied to it.
Although it is sometimes associated with aggression, territoriality actually is much more
responsible for the smooth operation of society because most people, most of the time,
respect the territories of others.

Types of Territories
Territoriality is extremely widespread. Once you recognize them, the signs of human
territoriality are everywhere: books spread out on a cafeteria table to save a place, nameplates,
fences, locks, no-trespassing signs, even copyright notices. There are billions of territories in
the world; some are large, others small, some are nested within others (such as a person’s “own”
chair within a home), and some are shared. According to Altman and Chemers (1980) territory
can be divided into three types, viz., primary, secondary and public territory. -
1. Primary territories are spaces owned by individuals or primary groups, controlled on a
relatively permanent basis by them, and central to their daily lives. Examples include
your bedroom or a family house. The psychological importance of primary territories
to their owners is always high.
2. Secondary territories are generally less important to the person and are likely to be
only owned on a temporary basis. Secondary territories are less important to their
occupiers than primary territories, but they do possess moderate significance to their
occupants. A person’s desk at work, favorite restaurant, locker in the gym, and home
playing field are examples. The difference between primary and secondary territory
mainly depends on the individual's perception of its importance to them.
3. Public territories: These are more distinct in that they don't belong to any person and
are generally accessible to anyone. They are areas open to anyone in good standing
with the community. Beaches, sidewalks, and hotel lobbies are public territories.
Occasionally, because of discrimination or unacceptable behavior, public territories
are closed to some individuals. Retail stores, for example, are public territories open
to anyone. However, someone who causes trouble may be banned from a particular
store.

Sheldon’s preferred seat on the couch is a "primary territory." He owns his couch and uses it
at his convenience.

Territoriality Infringements
Even though territories usually work to keep society hassle-free, sometimes they are infringed
upon.
The most obvious form of infringement is invasion, in which an outsider physically
enters someone else’s territory, usually with the intention of taking it from its current owner.
One obvious example is one country trying to take the territory of another.
The second form of infringement is a violation, a temporary infringement of someone’s
territory. Usually, the goal is not ownership but annoyance or harm. Vandalism (action
involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property), and burglary
(illegal entry of a building with intent to commit a crime, especially theft) fall into this category.
Sometimes a violation occurs out of ignorance, as when a boy who cannot yet read walks into
a women’s washroom. Other times the violation is deliberate, such as computer pranksters
worming their way into others’ machines. Violation may occur without the infringer personally
entering the territory. Jamming radio waves and playing loud music are some examples.
The third form of infringement is contamination, in which the infringer fouls someone
else’s territory by putting something awful in the territory. Examples would be a chemical
company leaving poisonous waste in the ground for later residents to deal with, a house guest
leaving the kitchen filthy, or pesticide spray drifting into your yard.

Territoriality Defenses:
There are two different types of defense. When someone uses a coat, sign, or fence to defend
a territory, it is called a prevention defense. One anticipates infringement and acts to stop it
before it occurs. Reaction defenses, on the other hand, are responses to an infringement after it
happens. Examples range from slamming a door in someone’s face or physically striking the
infringer to court actions for copyright violations.

• Crowding

HISTORICAL ROOTS OF CROWDING RESEARCH

The major force for the psychological study of crowding was the ecology or environmentalist
movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The historical roots of the psychological study
of crowding are largely grounded in the environmentalist movement. This movement, started
by the popular writings of Carson (1962), Ehrlich (1968), and Commoner (1963), collectively
pointed to the approaching problems of pollution, overpopulation, and technology. Such
issues achieved their greatest public attention in 1970, as demonstrated by several events
including the creation of Earth Day, the establishment of Zero Population Growth (Zero
population growth (ZPG) is the absence of population growth in which equal birth and death
rates create a stable human population.)

The concept of crowding has recently gained a great deal of interest for psychologists. One
reason is the non-stop world population growth rate. As the population of many countries
moves more and more toward urbanization, increased concerns about the effects of crowding
also tend to increase. Crowding refers to having too many people in one place at the same
time and the result of it is the feeling of discomfort.

Crowding generally occurs in large informal groups of people wherein you may or may not
know the people who surround you. It is when psychological tension is produced in
environments with high density, especially when individuals feel that the amount of space
available to them is insufficient. Crowding is not due to a large number of people, but rather
because of density, that is, the number of people within the space available.

In John B. Calhoun’s Crowding experiment, rats were supplied with everything they needed
– except space. The result was a population boom, followed by such severe psychological
disruption that the animals died off to extinction. Using a variety of strains of rats and mice,
he provided his populations with food, bedding, and shelter. With no predators and with
exposure to disease kept at a minimum, Calhoun described his experimental universes as “rat
utopia,” “mouse paradise.” With all their visible needs met, the animals bred rapidly. The
only restriction Calhoun imposed on his population was of space – and as the population
grew, this became increasingly problematic. As the pens heaved with animals, one of his
assistants described rodent “utopia” as having become “hell”. Dominant males became
aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were
disrupted. Some became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual,
attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to
construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In
certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by
adults. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to coexist in harmony. The take-home
message was that crowding resulted in pathological behavior – in rats.

The effects of high density upon human behavior are considerably more ambiguous &
uncertain than those effects associated with high density in other animals. In the case of
human crowding, it becomes necessary to distinguish between high density and crowding
(Stokols, 1972). There are situations in which high density is perceived as enjoyable or
exciting, where individuals would not describe themselves as feeling crowded. High density
thus should be treated as a necessary, but not sufficient cause of crowding. Stokols has
suggested that the term crowding should be utilized when one's need or demand for space
exceeds the availability.

There are a number of factors that lead to the feeling of crowding:

a. Appraisal of physical conditions: an appraisal of physical factors such as the number
of people, space available, temperature, room layout, etc.
b. Situational variables: if the density is high in buses, trains, elevators, residential areas,
etc. the person might feel uncomfortable and experience crowding. On the other hand, if the
situation involves a musical concert, party, stadium, or movie hall, high-density cause a
favorable experience and the person might not feel crowding.
c. Coping Assets: if the person appraises the situation and finds adequate coping assets
available in the form of resources and social support, he/she may not evaluate the situation as
crowded.

Effects of crowding
Density-intensity hypothesis
In social psychology, the Density-Intensity Hypothesis states that crowded conditions have a
tendency to either ENHANCE positive experiences OR increase the unpleasantness of
negative experiences. This hypothesis was proposed by U.S. psychologist Jonathan M.
Freedman in 1952. It is an explanation of psychological reactions to crowding stating that
crowding makes unpleasant situations more unpleasant but pleasant situations more pleasant.

On a positive note: In stimulating social events, people actually prefer high-density crowds at
concerts, sporting events, festivals, and more. We also have a tendency to laugh more in
high-density environments compared to low-density environments. Crowding may not have
the same negative effects as when you go to a fair or a party. This explains why a high-
density social event (e.g., party) is fun. This could explain why we love large group activities
whereas a high-density living or workspace can be negative. This could explain why we love
large group activities

The negative effects of crowding: The most common effect of crowding is stress. For
example, when it is crowded, people typically have negative feelings such as anxiety and
frustration about restricted behavioral options. Our choices of what, where, and when we do
things are constrained. If these restrictions are experienced repeatedly, crowding can also lead
to feelings of helplessness wherein we start to question our own ability to effectively manage
the environment. Studies in India and in the United States have found that children and
adolescents who live in more crowded homes, independent of socioeconomic status, are less
likely to continue on challenging puzzles, giving up sooner than those living under
uncrowded conditions.

It can also lead to a decrease in privacy, a negative view of space (you start perceiving small
spaces negatively), and loss of control in social interaction. Two results are common: They
withdraw from others, creating more psychological space when physical space is limited, and
they become more irritable and potentially aggressive. The natural tendency to cope with
crowding by social withdrawal may become a characteristic way of interacting with others.
Nevertheless, crowding may have a damaging effect on mental health and may result in poor
performance of complex tasks and increased physiological stress. Men may react more
physiologically to crowding, their blood pressure and stress hormones elevating more, whereas
women (at least initially) try to get along with those around them when it’s crowded. However,
over time, if these attempts are unsuccessful, women may actually react more negatively
because their attempts at affiliation prove futile.

One of the ways researchers mark whether a situation is stressful or not is to use physiological
measures like blood pressure. If crowding is a stressor, then it should affect these physiological
measures. Both laboratory research, usually with college students, and community studies
provide evidence that crowding can cause physiological stress. If you carefully observe
yourself or others who are in a crowded situation, you can also see nonverbal indicators of
stress. For example, when it’s crowded, people will fidget; adjust their clothes, hair, jewelry,
and so on; and often avoid eye contact. Next time you are in a very crowded setting (e.g.,
elevator, train), see if you notice a link between how crowded the setting is and how much
these behaviors occur.

If we do not understand crowds and crowd behavior, we are left with random attempts at
crowd control and crowd management which may result in serious losses of life, health,
property, and money. Those involved in crowd management and crowd control must foresee
the nature of the crowd that will be in attendance and must be able to observe the behavior of
a crowd while an event is taking place, and make timely decisions for effective action.
Generally, crowding leads to uncomfortable experiences, negative feelings, and a sense of
loss of privacy which in turn mediate the feeling of crowding. However, humans are
accommodative and there is also evidence that having some space in your home where you
can at least temporarily be alone (refuge) can offset some of the negative impacts of
crowding. Crowding is but one example of the many ways in which human behavior and the
physical environment can influence one another.

2.2 Indian research on crowding and personal space.

(Refer to the researches presented by the class)

2.3 Theoretical models: stimulus overload, behavioral constraint, ecological and

adaptation

1. Stimulus Load Theories

The theory that humans have a limited ability to handle environmental stimuli. The
limit is determined by the amount of information inputs that can be processed by the central
nervous system. When the environmental load exceeds the individual’s capacity for
processing, the central nervous system reacts by ignoring some of the inputs.
Central to stimulus load theories is the notion that humans have a limited capacity to
process information. When inputs exceed that capacity, people tend to ignore some inputs
and devote more attention to others (Cohen, 1978). These theories account for responses to
environmental stimulation in terms of the organism's momentary capacity to attend to and
deal with salient features of its milieu. Generally, stimuli most important to the task at hand
are allocated as much attention as needed and less important stimuli are ignored.
For example, while driving during rush-hour traffic a great deal of attention is paid to
the cars, trucks, buses, and road signs around us, and less attention is paid to the commentator
on the car radio, the kids in the back seat, and the clouds in the sky. If the less important
stimuli tend to interfere with the task at hand, then ignoring them will enhance performance,
(e.g., ignoring the children's fighting will make you a better and safer rush-hour driver. If,
however, the less important stimuli are important to the task at hand, then performance will
not be optimal; for example, ignoring the road signs because you are attending to the more
important trucks, cars, etc., may lead you thirty miles out of your way in getting home.
Sometimes the organism's capacity to deal with the environment is overtaxed or even
depleted. When this occurs only the most important information is attended to, with all other
information filtered out. Once attentional capacities have been depleted even small demands
for attention can be draining. Thus, behavioral aftereffects including errors in judgment,
decreased tolerance for frustration, ignoring others in need of help, and the like can be
accounted for by these theories. For example, the exhausted rush-hour driver eventually
might reach the point where he or she doesn't notice the traffic light turning from red to green
(or worse yet, from green to yellow to red), even though this is a very important stimulus.
Additionally, decreased tolerance for frustration may lead to "laying on the horn" or "lane
hopping" and motorists in the break-down lane may be ignored, if not looked upon with
disdain.
Stimulus load theories are also able to account for behavioral effects in stimulus-
deprived environments (e.g., certain behaviors occurring aboard submarines and in prisons).
That is, this approach suggests that under-stimulation can be just as aversive as
overstimulation. So-called cabin fever resulting from monotonous living conditions can also
be seen as the result of under-stimulation.

2. Behavior Constraint Theories

Behavior constraint theories focus on the real, or perceived, limitations imposed on
the organism by the environment. According to these theories, the environment can prevent,
interfere with, or limit the behaviors of its inhabitants (Rodin & Baum, 1978; Stokols, 1978).
Friday afternoon rush-hour traffic interferes with rapid travelling; loud, intermittent noises
limit effective communication; over-regimentation in hospitals can interfere with recovery,
excessively high ambient temperatures prevent extreme physical exertion, and extremely cold
temperatures limit finger dexterity. In a sense, these theories deal with situations where
persons either actually lose some degree of control over their environment, or perceive that
they have.
Brehm and Brehm (1981) assert that when we feel that we have lost control over the
environment, we first experience discomfort and then attempt to reassert our control. They
label this phenomenon psychological reactance. If the rush-hour traffic interferes with getting
home in a timely fashion, we may leave work early, or find alternate, less-congested routes.
Loud, intermittent noises may be dealt with by removing their source or by changing
environments. Extreme temperatures are handled by adjusting the thermostat. All that is
needed is for individuals to perceive that they have lost some degree of control, or for that
matter, to anticipate the loss of control, and reactance will occur. If repeated attempts to
regain control are unsuccessful, learned helplessness may develop (Seligman, 1975). People
begin to feel as though their behavior has no effect on the environment. They begin to believe
they no longer control their own destiny, and that what happens to them is out of their
personal control. These feelings can eventually lead to clinical depression, and in the most
extreme form can lead people to give up on life, and to die.

On the opposite side of the coin, perceived control over one's environment (even
when real control does not exist, or is not used) can alleviate the negative outcomes that the
environment might otherwise bring about. Perceived control over noise (Glass & Singer,
1972), overcrowding (Langer & Saegert, 1977), and over one's daily affairs (Langer & Rodin,
1976) has been shown to influence in a positive manner a variety of behavioral responses. For
example, residents of a nursing home who were given greater control over, and responsibility
for their own well-being displayed enhanced mood and greater activity in comparison with
residents who were not given control. Similarly, people who had control over the thermostats
in their working and living environments reported fewer health complaints during the winter
months than did those who did not have control. These results occurred despite the fact that
they did not actually manipulate the thermostats and kept their environments at ambient
temperatures similar to those without control (Veitch, 1976). Behavior constraint theories
thus emphasize those factors (physical as well as psychological; real as well as imaginary)
associated with the environment that limits human action.

3. Adaptation-Level Theories
Adaptation theories are similar to stimulus load theories in that an intermediate level
of stimulation is postulated to optimize behavior. Excessive stimulation, as well as too little
stimulation, is hypothesized to have deleterious effects on emotions and behaviors. Major
proponents of this position include Helson (1964) and Wohlwill (1974). While all
environmental psychologists emphasize the interrelationship of humans to their environment,
adaptation-level theorists speak specifically of two processes that make up this relationship—
the processes of adaptation and adjustment. Organisms either adapt (i.e., change their
response to the environment) or they adjust, (i.e., change the environment with which they
are interacting). Adaptation to decreases in ambient temperature includes piloerection (hair
on the body standing up or what is commonly called getting "goose pimples"), muscle
rigidity, increased motor activity, vasoconstriction; adjustments include throwing another log
on the fireplace or turning up the thermostat. Either process brings the organism back to
equilibrium with its environment.
 Another value of this approach is that it recognizes individual differences in
adaptation level (i.e., the level of stimulation/arousal that the individual has become
accustomed to and expects or desires in a given environment). Thus, this approach is capable
of explaining the different responses of two individuals to the same environment. For
example, a boisterous party may be perceived as pleasant to a person high in need for
sensation, but as overwhelming to the person who prefers a low level of sensation. By the
same token, some people revel in the crowded atmosphere of last-minute Christmas shopping
while others abhor the inconvenience of having two or more shoppers in the same store with
them. These individual differences in adaptation level lead to quite different behaviors. The
person high in need for sensation will seek out boisterous parties whereas the person
preferring low levels of sensation would avoid them or seek out havens of solitude within
them. We have all seen the "life of the party" and the "wallflower." Some of the differences
in their behaviors can be ascribed to differences in their adaptation level.

4. Ecological theories
Central to the thinking of ecological theorists (Barker, 1963, 1968) is the notion of
organism-environment fit. Environments are designed, or grow to accommodate certain
behaviors. Behavior settings, as Barker termed them, are evaluated in terms of the goodness of
fit between the interdependent environmental features and the behaviors that take place. For
example, a schoolyard, a church, a classroom, an office, or an entire business organization
might be considered a behavioral setting; each would then be evaluated in terms of how suitable
it is for the play behavior of children, how well it accommodates the religious sacraments, or
how well it serves the functions of the business.
Critical to Barker's thinking is the question of what happens when there are too few or
too many individuals for maximum efficiency within a particular behavior setting. For
example, what happens to students at small schools as opposed to students at large schools?
Are there predictable differences in behaviors? Does the type of behaviors of participants
from small churches differ from that of participants from large churches? Studies of these
questions from a social-ecological perspective led to theories of undermanning and
overmanning (contemporary writers are more likely to use the gender-neutral terms
understaffing and overstaffing) and are the topic of the book Big School, Small School,
authored by Barker and Gump (1964).
According to these researchers (see Gump, 1987), as the number of individuals in a
setting falls below some minimum, some or all of the inhabitants must take on more than
their share of roles if the behavior setting is to be maintained. This condition is termed
understaffing. The college roommate of one of your authors went to a very small high school,
which in many ways exemplifies an understaffed setting. This roommate played football and,
like most high-schoolers, played before fans on Friday night. Also, like most high schools,
there was a high school band that performed at half-time. Your author's roommate, however,
was also the best trumpet player in the school; so, at half-time while the rest of the football
players were obtaining instructions as to what they should be doing the second half, he was
out marching with the band. In understaffed settings inhabitants often have to assume a
variety of roles.
If the number of participants in a setting exceeds the capacity for that setting, then the
setting is considered overstaffed. Different strategies are brought into play when a setting is
overstaffed than when it is understaffed. Too many swimmers waiting to get into the pool on
a hot summer afternoon, commuters on the five o'clock train, football fans at the Super Bowl,
and shoppers in department stores at Christmas time might all represent overstaffed settings.
One obvious solution to overstaffing would be to increase the capacity of the physical setting,
perhaps by enlarging it or by moving the set. Another adaptive mechanism might be to
control the entry of clients into the setting by forcing either stricter entrance requirements or
through some sort of 'Tunneling process/' Still another mechanism would be to limit the
number of time participants can spend in the setting. This kind of regulatory mechanism is
often seen at playground basketball games where teams are formed and wait to take on
winners. Winners gain control of the court while the losers have to wait their turn to get on
the court again.