Eliminating the causes and effect of crowding

At this point in our discussion, you might be wondering how we can eliminate the
causes and the effects of crowding. We will explore the predictions derived from
our eneral environment behavior model and apply them to address this issue.
PREDICTIONS FROM OUR GENERAL ENVIRONMENT-BEHAVIOR MODEL
APPLIED TO HIGH DENSITY
One extremely valuable feature of our model is that it provides a
framework for speculation and research about how to moderate the causes and
effect of crowding. This can be great conceptual and applied significance. As you
recall, the modle specifies that individual differences conditions determine
whether or not high density is perceived as crowding. Research has supported
the assertion that these three sets of factors can produce the experience of
crowding, which is associated with negative consequences. We will briefly
discuss representative individual differences, situational conditions, and social
conditions found to affect our reactions to high density.
Identifying individual difference variables that determine whether high
density is experienced as crowding is of practical value, since it allows us to
select those individuals who will be most and least sensitive to the constraints of
limited space. For example, we have found that in a variety of situations, males
are more apt to experience crowding than females, and have suggested several
explanations for this. There is some evidence, however, that pattern of gender
differences may be limited to laboratory settings, where there is no possibility of
escape (aiello, Thompson, & Brodzinsky, 1983a). Under such conditions, women
seem to handle stress better, perhaps because they are more apt than men to
share their distress with others. In long-term high-density contexts, however,
women may cope more poorly than men. For example, in dormitory crowding
studies (e.g., Aiello, Baum, & Gormley, 1981a), women sometimes report more
crowding and negative effects. Thi may be because men copewith high density
by leaving their rooms, whereas women are more involved with their roommates
and spend more time in their room, which results in increased stress (Aiello,
Baum, & Gormley, 1981b). Additional long-trm crowdidng studies conducted in
real-world settings similarly suggest that women may react more negatively than
men in certain ways to long-term high density (e.g., Booth & Edwards, 1976;
Ruback & Pandey, 1996), though some studies of long-term high density have
found no gender differences (e.g., Lepore, Evans, & Schneider, 1991) or mixed
results (Ruback & Pandey, 1996).
In addition to gender, the amount of personal space people desire to
maintain between themselves and others constitutes an individual difference
variable that may affect the degree to which crowding is experienced. For
example Aiello et al. (1997) found that those with prefereces for large
interpersonal distances were more adversely affected in high-density setting
than those with smaller preferred distances. Indivisuals who liked to sit far away
from others showed greather physiological arousal, discomfort, and proorer task
performance than those who preferred to sit closer.

Another important determinan of our reactions to high density is our level

of social support studies by Evans and Lepore (e.g., Lepore, Evans, & Schneider,
1991) found that individuals who were experiencing high density and who had
low social support had more negative psychologycal reactions tha those with
high social support. After very long exposure to high density, this buffering effect
of social support on the negative consequences of high density disappeared,
because long-term exposure to high density distrupted the very social networks
that had proctected people from its negative effects!
Research has examined whether personality characteristics moderate our
reactions to high density (Baum & Paulus, 1987). Some of this work has focused
on locus of control (i.e., whether people believe they, or outside forces, control
their outcomes). It has typically but not always been found (ef Walden, Nelson, &
Smith, 1981) that internals individuals who feel they control their fate display a
higher threshold of crowding than externals (individuals who feel events are
controlled by outside forces; Schopler & Walton, 1974). In addition, people who
are highly affiliative are more tolerant of high density than those who are less
affiliative (Miller & Nardini, 1977). In fact, high-affiliative individuals experienced
more stress in a low- than a high density dormitory living situation (Miller,
Rossbach, & Munson, 1981).
When considering individual differences, it is important to note that the
characteristics of a practicular high density setting way affect how an individual
difference variable will affect coping (Baum & Paulus, 1987). For example, Baum
et al. (1982) found that people who screen themselves from interaction and
organize their surroundings were better able to cope with high social density
than individuals who did not screen themselves. One would expect that this
screening variable would be less important under conditions of high spatial
density.
We should also keep in mind that the individual differences we have
discussed were found for North American sample and may not hol crossculturally. Indeed, the personal space literature (see Chapter 8) and work on
crowding suggest that we may expect cultural differences in reaction to high
density. Research corroborate this assertion. For example, studies find that high
density is related to social pathology in some places but not in outhers (e.g.,
Fuller et al., 1993; Lester, 1995). Similarly, Nasar and Min (1984) prected and
faound that Mediterraneans whould respond more negatively than Asians when
placed in a small, single dormitory room. Other studies, however, show few
cross-cultural differences (e.g., Vaske, Donnelly, & Petruzzi, 1996).
What differentiates the cultures where high density may be more, and
less, associated with pathology? One factor could be the age of the culture.
Young, as opposed to older, cultures may have had less time to develop means
of coping with high density,and negative effects may decrease (Gifford, 1997).
Some suggestive data support the above line of reasoning, altought more
research is clearly needed. One society that is very old, in which people may
cope especially well with high density, is the Chinese culture. It has been

suggested that the Chinese may have become so familiar and comforyable with
high density that, when given the choice, people often opt for high as opposed to
low density conditions (Aiello & Thompson, 1980). Further, it has been suggested
that the Chinese have developed an elaborate set norms, rules, and coping
strategies to support them in a densely packed existence (Ekblad,1996). There
are rules about accessto space, a low level af emotional involvement is expected
with others, and interaction between different groups (e.g. men and women; high
and low status individual) is regulated. Further, sound dthat others might view as
noise are regarded as acceptable (aiello, Thompson, 1980). Similar practices are
found in other cultures that have adapted successfully to high density (Iwata,
1992, Munroe, Munroe, & Vutpakdi,1999).
However, others research casts doubt on the assumption that the Chinese
have an affinity for high density. In a study of people living in San Fransisco, Loo
and Ong (1984) found that residents view crowding was also a major reason why
they thought they might want to move. Overall, this research suggest that the
Chinese like crowding no more than anyone else and present a forceful challenge
to work implying that they bear up especially well under high density.