Module 2 Notes
Module 2 Notes
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.
• 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
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.
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.
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.