Mark Baldassare - Human Spatial Behavior

Human Spatial Behavior
Author(s): Mark Baldassare

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 4 (1978), pp. 29-56
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2945964 .
Accessed: 23/01/2015 23:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ann.Rev. Sociol. 1978. 4:29-56
? 1978 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved
Copyright
HUMAN SPATIAL BEHAVIOR *10548
Mark Baldassare1
Departmentof Sociology,University
of California,Los Angeles,
California 90024
INTRODUCTION
Overa decadeago,sociologists withan interestinthedynamics ofinterper-

sonalrelations turnedtheirattentiontowardthespatialsetting ofhuman
behavior. Thiswasanexciting movement awayfrom the"figure" ofindivid-
uals and groupsto the"ground"of thespacein whichsocialactivities
occur.As Goffman (1963, 1971)beganto studythe spacesseparating
groupsandactors, newinsightsintovariouskindsofsocialsituations were
gained.Carefulobservers ofactivities
in everyday life,suchas Garfinkel
(1964),foundregularitiesin thewayspeopleusedspacewheninteracting
andreported thatthedisturbanceoftheseregularities created difficulties
for
individuals.
In general,newknowledge indicated a relationshipbetween spatialbe-
haviorandthesocialorder.Hence,thosesociologists studyinginteractions
couldpotentiallycollectdataonthelocationandmovements ofindividuals
tocomplement thepictureofsociallifethatevolvedlargely frominforma-
tionof a verbalnature.It was,however, psychologists suchas Sommer
(1969),and notsociologists, whotooktheseobservations seriously.
The
general sociological
ambivalencetowardthespatialdimension ofsociallife
hasbeenunfortunate bothforthestudy ofspatialbehavior andforsociology
itself.
Thisis a pointthatI referto repeatedly in thetextthatfollows.
'Thanks
arerendered
toClaudeFischer,HaroldGarfinkel,CarolSilverman,
DanielStokols,
and RalphTurnerforcomments on an earlierdraft.The preparation
ofthischapter
was
bya NationalInstitute
supported ofMentalHealthPostdoctoral Fellowship
(USPHS-MH-
14583).
29
0360-0572/78/081
5-0029$01.00

30 BALDASSARE
Thereis an obviousifsomewhat sad analogyto be drawnbetween the

fieldsofhumanecologyandmicroecology (i.e. thespatialorganization of
individualsin smallgroups).RobertPark(1915),ErnestBurgess[1967
(1925)]andmanyoftheearlyfounders ofhumanecologyhadhighaspira-
tionsfortheirdiscipline,butprobably foremost wasanunderstanding ofthe
relationship betweenthesocial organization of the cityand its spatial
layout.Somehow themoregeneral theoretical issuesraisedbythesesociolo-
gists,whichhadwideranging relevance tothesociological discipline,
were
largelybypassed orforgotten, andinitialinterests inurbanspatialphenom-
ena werelatertranslated intothemeremapping ofsocialgroupsin their
ecologicalsetting.2 Sociologistsconcerned withsmall-group phenomena
havein a similarwaylargelymissedan important opportunity to better
understand theform andfunction ofhumansociallife.Unfortunately, those
leftwiththeresponsibility ofstudying spatialbehavior haveoftendoneso
withlittleifanytheoretical orientation, anda minorinterest inimproving
ourunderstanding ofthesocialorder.However, therehaverecently been
encouraging exceptions to theruleas thefieldofstudyhas matured, and
I emphasize thesedevelopments in latersectionsofthechapter.
Threesubareas comprise theliterature onhumanspatialbehavior: inter-
personaldistancing, small-group ecology,and crowding.3 Altman(1975)
hascalculated thatthereareover200published studiesonthedeterminants
and consequences of spacingamongdyads,or interpersonal distancing.
Small-group ecology, orthestudyofthedeterminants andconsequences of
howindividuals placethemselves in socialsituations, has beenrelatively
inactivesincetheearlier contributions madebySommer (1969)andothers.
The mostproductive areatodayconcerns theanalysisofindividuals' re-
sponsesto thelackofspaceandsurplusofpeople,i.e. crowding. Because
ofthetremendous attention given(largely bypsychologists) tothisarea,it
has beenincreasingly difficult
to stayabreastoftheworkproduced(see
Sundstrom 1977).
Thisreview emphasizes theoretical drifts thathavedirected research on
humanspatialbehavior.4 Theorientations presented canbe placedintwo
historicalperiods.Earlyworkconsidered spatialactivity largelyin unidi-
2 Exceptionsare,forexample, Hawley(1950),Duncan& Duncan(1955)andSuttles (1968,
1972).
3Some wouldarguethatterritorialityandprivacy aredistinct
subareasthatdeserve
separate
I havechosen
attention. todiscussthosetopics(i.e.attachmenttoplaceandregulationofsocial
contacts)
throughout thischapter as theycontribute toanunderstandingofpersonaldistance,
small-groupecology, andcrowding.
4Avariety ofmoretechnically oriented disciplines
areconcerned withspatialfactors,
but
I havechosento limitthediscussion in thischapterto workthatis relatedto socialand
psychologicalvariablesin associationwiththespatialdimension.

HUMAN SPATIAL BEHAVIOR 31
mensional and deterministic

terms, whilenewerstudiesapproachspatial
behavior interms ofmultiplefactors,
whichoften mediate humanresponses
and actionsin complexways.
I concludebyarguing thatsociologists
shouldparticipatemoreactively
in or at leastgivemoreseriousattention to,thisfield.Thewaysin which
humansusespacehaveimportant communicative valuesforobservers
and
participants inanysocialsituation.Theknowledge thatthedistribution
of
spaceis an outgrowth ofsocialstructure,andin turnthattheavailability
andutilization ofspacehasimplications forsocialrelations,
shouldalsobe
ofconsiderable concern tothediscipline.Thereis,then,a relevant
rolefor
sociology inthestudy ofspatialactivity
andan equallyimportant placefor
spatialconcerns in therealmofsociology.
EARLY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY

OF SPATIAL BEHAVIOR
Thepreliminary research onhumanspatialbehavior concentrated onthree

causalfactors: biological,cultural,and environmental. Laterworkwas
moreconcerned withsociological and psychologicalexplanations.In this
section,I summarize someofthethoughts behindtheutilizationofthethree
variables, theresearch evidencethatsupports theirconsideration,and I
reviewthe"antispatial" perspective thatdevelopedas a reactionto this
earlywork.
Determining theunderlying assumptions oftheearlyresearch onhuman
spatialbehaviorisnoteasyandprobably subjecttosomeerror.5Inaddition,
a good proportion of the studiesin thisfirstera are exploratory and
atheoretical;thus,theyarenotexamined herein greatdetail.6Reviewsof
themajorfindings byothershelpsupplement myintentionally focussed,
issues-oriented
approach totheliterature
(Altman1975;Edney1974;Evans
& Howard1973;Fischeretal 1975;Freedman 1973,1975;Lawrence1974;
Pederson & Shears1973;Stokols1978a;Watson1972;Zlutnick & Altman
1972).
'Admittedly, I havetakensomelibertiesin placingstudieswithinspecifictheoretical
frame-
works,and even in separatingthe fieldinto these threecategories,which are somewhat
overlapping (e.g. theculturalperspective
does appreciatethebiological;theenvironmentalhas
hintsof the culturaland biological).However,thesedecisionswerenot arbitrary but based
on themajorpremisesin thesetheoretical orientations
and in myperceptions ofthehypotheses
and goals of the specificstudiesreviewed.
6Forexample,studiesmeasuredspatialvariationsamongage, sex,political,and personality
groupings (e.g. Strattonet al 1973;Sewell& Heisler1973; Heshka& Nelson 1972;P. Nesbitt
& K. Skinnerland, unpublishedobservations;Frankel & Barrett1971; Gardin et al 1973;
Pederson1973).

32 BALDASSARE
TheBiological
Perspective
The firstand perhapsmostinfluential paradigm was borrowed fromre-
searchon animals.Observations conducted on a widevariety ofanimals
indicatedspecies-specific
interaction distances (Hediger1964,1968),which
seemedtobe "preprogrammed." Additionally, animalsociallifeseemedto
be regulatedbyterritoriality,an instinctive attachment to place(Wynne-
Edwards1964;Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1970).Sincetheneedforand defenseof
territory
wasconsidered tobe present amongall beings, itwasthought to
be obviousthatplacinganimalsin situations thatdisruptpersonaland
socialspatialdomainswouldcreateabnormal behavior andpsychological
stress.The widelynoticedstudyofCalhoun(1962),otherreports ofpa-
thologiesamongcrowdedanimals(Christian et al 1960;Susiyama1967),
andpopularized versions ofethological theory (Ardrey 1966;Lorenz1966,
Morris1969)addedmuchinterest to thestudyofhumanspatialbehavior
from a biological
perspective.A fast-paced searchforpreprogrammed spa-
tialreactionswassoonunderway in laboratory and fieldsettings.
Theexperiments influenced bytheseideassought evidence ofpsychologi-
cal stressor aggression as automatic responses to veryclose individual
distances,territorial
invasions,or overcrowded conditions. Severalstudies
in factfounda relationship between spatialcircumstances andheightened
arousalas measured byself-reports andmachines (Aielloetal 1975;Baxter
& Deanovitch1970;McBrideet al 1965;Smith& Haythorn 1972;Evans
1978).
Thereisnoconsistent evidence, however, thatabnormal spatialsituations
elicitspecific
kindsofresponses amonghumans.Studieshavebeencon-
ductedofinvasions ofindividual andgroup-controlled territories.Whena
person'sspatialdomainis infringed uponbyan experimental confederate
(Felipe& Sommer 1966),theresponse is typically tofleeandrarely totake
theexpectedaggressive stance.However,Cheyne& Efran(1972) report
thatundercertain conditions,peoplewillavoidtheuseofspatialzonesthat
areoccupiedbyongoing groups. Observations ofpreschoolers byan etholo-
gistconfirm thisfinding: Ongoinggroupscan be veryhostiletowardthe
inclusionof newmembers in theirterritory (McGrew1972).Crowding
studiesalso showcontradictory evidenceof interpersonal hostilityand
performance deficits.
Somefindnegative affect amongadults(Griffitt &
Veitch1971)andchildren (Hutt& Vaizey1966).Othersreport no signifi-
cantdifferencesamongadultgroupsin taskperformance (Freedman et al
1971),no increased aggression amongchildren (Loo 1972),and yetaddi-
tionaldataindicatethatfemales tendtorespond morepositively tocrowded
conditions thando males(Freedman et al 1972;Ross et al 1973).

Although thereis repeatedevidencethatunusualspatialcircumstances

leadtophysiological thevariety
arousal, thatoccurseem
ofovertbehaviors
to suggest modelsoffixedresponses
thatbiological havelittlepredictive
power.In fact,eventhefindingthatcrowding leadsto heightenedarousal
maybe a response byindividualsto conditionsconsideredas deviantor
withstrangers)
unusual(e.g.closedistances ratherthanas an inbornreac-
or invasions.
tionto spatialconstraints
TheCulturalPerspective
Hall, an anthropologist, wrotea book entitledThe HiddenDimension
(1966),whichmadeseveralrelevant statements abouthumanspatialbe-
havior(see also Hall 1959,1963a,b,1964,1968,1974).Amongthemost
influentialofthesestatements weresomegeneralizations abouttheuse of
spacebydifferent cultures.WhileHallagreedwiththosewhofounduniver-
sal (andbiologically based)similarities in spaceuse,he notedthatpersons
from differentcultures varyintheinterpersonal distancesanddensities that
theyconsider tobe appropriate. Hall (1966:13,172-73)dividedthepeoples
oftheworldintotwogroups, basedonsimilar statements thatHediger(see
Hall 1966)madeabouttheanimalkingdom. "Contactcultures" areconsid-
eredtobe highly involved intheirinteractions andthususesmallinterac-
tiondistances, likehighdensities, andengageinfrequent touching (Arabs
and Latinswereusedas examples)."Noncontact cultures,"on theother
hand,shuntouching, dislikehighdensities, and avoidcloseinterpersonal
distances (Northern Europeans and NorthAmericans wereplacedin this
category). Further, Hall(1966:172-73) arguedthatevensubcultures within
theUnitedStates(e.g.blacks,PuertoRicans,Northern Europeans) exhibit
differentspatialpreferences. Theexactreasonsforthesecultural variations
werenotthoroughly examined, thoughHall's treatment ofthisissuesug-
gestedthatcultures traintheirmembers to acceptspatialconditions that
arecongruent with the social structure and values.
societal This socializa-
tionapparently occursearlyin lifeand becomesa fixedattribute of the
individual.
Numerous experiments wereconducted to findculturally determined
spatialbehavior, largely ignoring Hall'sequallyuseful statements aboutthe
socialsituational aspects of interpersonal distancingand responses to per-
sonalintrusions (forexample, 1966:113-29). A narrow concern fortherole
ofculture ledresearchers to concentrate on cross-cultural Un-
differences.
fortunately,littleattention waspaidto theequallyimportant issueofhow
a culturetrainsitsmembers intheskillofdiscriminating amongsituations
thatrequirespecific kindsof spatialbehavior.Thesestudiesand Hall's
contributions arethoroughly reviewed in twootherarticles (Baldassare&

34 BALDASSARE
Feller1975;Altaman& Vinsel1977).BelowI present someofthemore

significant
findings andtheconclusions I havedrawnfromprevious work
in thisarea.
The research on cultural differencesreviewed belowsolelyinvolves in-
teractiondistances.Thisis because,tomyknowledge, thereis no research
on small-group ecology, andwhilecrowding studieshavebeenconducted
outsideoftheUnitedStates(e.g. Booth1976;Mitchell1971;Munroe&
Munroe1972;Chombart de Lauwe 1961;Draper1973,Gasparini1973;
Marsellaetal 1971;Anderson 1972;Schmitt 1963),therearenocontrolled
comparisons toprovide dependable evidence ofcultural differences.
Mitch-
ell(1975)examined ethnographic materials from lesscomplex societies
and
concludedthatspatialbehaviors are culturallydefined;a statement sup-
ported bythemixedreports ofcrowding instudies
effects conducted around
theworld.
The data on interpersonal distancessupportthenotionthatcultural
differencesdo exist,although themethods usedin theseexperiments have
beenless thanideal.Two studiesmeasured interactiondistances among
foreign and nativestudents in theUnitedStates,and foundevidenceof
contactandnoncontact cultures (Watson& Graves1966;Watson1970).
Another study,however, foundnovariations between LatinAmericans and
NorthAmericans (Forston& Larson1968).Simulations havealso been
used:Peoplefrom differentcultures wereaskedtoplacedollsorcardboard
figuresinscaled-down roomsandthentomeasure theirplacement. Usually,
instructionsweregiveninadvance, whichdescribe kindsofrelation-
certain
shipsbetween imaginary people.7Little(1968)foundtheexpected differ-
ences in doll placements betweenNorthern Europeansand Southern
Europeansthoughboththisstudyand thestudyby Sommer(1968) re-
portedhighagreement amongcultures on whatconstitutes intimacy.
Therearemanymorestudiesto reviewon subcultural differences,since
thesearemorefeasible. Twostudiesinnaturalistic concluded
settings that
Spanish-surnamed groupsinteract at closerdistances thanwhites(Baxter
1970;Aiello& Jones1971),butnoconsistent findings emerged from studies
ofblacks(cfAiello& Jones1971;Jones& Aiello1973;Jones1971;Baxter
1970;Bauer1973;Willis1966,1974).Somearguedthatclassdifferences
explainethnicvariations (Scherer1974),and stillothersconcentrated on
theinteraction ofgender andraceindetermining thedistances ofsubjects
in subculturalstudies(Leibman1970).
I conducted a studyofMexicanAmerican andAnglopreschoolers and
foundno differences in personaldistancesbetweengroups(Baldassare,
'Somehavefoundthatthesepreference havelittlerelevance
measures to actualdistances
woulduse(Love& Aiello1976).
thatsubjects

unpublishedinformation).A morepowerful factorseemedtobe theteach-

ersinthesesettings,whorewarded whattheysawas properinterpersonal
distance,
punished children whoapproached otherstooclosely, andphysi-
callyprompted individualswhomaintained distancestoofarfromothers
(seealsoBaileyetal 1973).Theteachers inthesetwosettings sharedsimilar
valuesandthusprovided similarlearning experiencesin regardto spatial
behavior.Theresults ofthisstudyandothers indicatethatspatialbehavior
is no morea culturaltraitthanitis a biological
instinct,sinceindividuals
adjusttheirpersonaldistances on thebasisofnewcontingencies. Again,
thereseemsto be goodevidencefortheeffects of culturaltraining(e.g.
values,educators)on spatialchoices,thoughthereis theneedfora more
sophisticated
treatment ofculturalfactorsthanthusfarafforded bysimplis-
ticsearchesforcross-culturaldifferences.
TheEnvironmental
Perspective
Another extremely important orientationdirectlylinkstheenvironment,
particularly thebuildingsweinhabit,toourfeelings andbehaviors. In other
words,thisviewassumesthatthephysical characteristicsofa setting per
se havea largeinfluence on our attitudes and actions,ratherthanour
environments "triggering" orcultural
a biological trait.Perhapsthisnotion
evolvedfromthepopularenvironmental movement, whichdirected atten-
tiontowardthephysical worldin whichorganisms seeksustenance and
conducttheiractivities (seeEhrlich1968).However, theideasthatguided
research ofthisnaturecan also be tracedto academicand applieddisci-
plines.
Barker's schoolofecological psychology,forexample, placedheavyem-
phasisontheroleofthemicroenvironment indetermining humanbehavior
(see Barker1968).He andhisstudents carefully codedthecharacteristics
of "behaviorsettings," or smallenvironments thatelicitedveryspecific
responses fromindividuals in waysthatseemedto supersede theinfluence
of personality and interpersonalrelations(see Stokols1977a).A child
wouldactwithreverence whenattending churchwithpeers,forexample,
yetthesameindividual wouldbe noisywiththeidentical groupina play-
groundsetting. Admittedly, Barker'sformulation wentbeyondthemere
description of thephysicalenvironment to suggestthesocialmeanings,
culturalfactors, and socialpressuresthatinfluence responses to settings,
and his followers placedimportance on theorganization and "manning
levels"(i.e. personsperavailableroles)ofbehavior settings(Wicker1973,
1974;Wicker& Kirmeyer 1977).However, to manytheemphases ofeco-
logicalpsychology suggested thepowerful eliciting
properties ofthephysi-
cal environment. This may be becausethe behavior-setting approach
allowedus to focuson thevisible, staticpropertiesoftheenvironment as

36 BALDASSARE
causalfactors, sincesociocultural variables arehardertomeasure andless

obviousacrosssettings.
Relateddevelopments in urbanplanning and designalso producedthe
environmental perspective.Problems inthefieldofpublichousing, suchas
Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis,led designers to realizethattheirbuilding efforts
shouldhavegreater considerationfortheinhabitants (seeHeimsath 1977).
Thebeliefwasthat"good"designcanleadto healthy andhappytenants,
while"bad"designcanhavedisastrous effectsonresidents. Thus,thebuilt
environment perse andthewayweorganize settingswereviewedas major
explanations ofsocialandspatialproblems.
One ofthemostwidelypublicized examplesoftheenvironmental per-
spective is thebookDefensible Space(Newman1973),whichclaimedthat
differential ratesofcrimein urbanpublichousingcouldbe explained by
designfactors. For example, manyexisting projectshaveindoorand out-
doorspacesthatseemto be no one'sterritory and lackthepossibility of
community surveillance.Thus,theseterritories areinvadedbycriminals,
whocaneasilypreyontheirvictims. Thesolution, then,is todesignpublic
spacesthatwillbe perceived as thedomainofresidents, and thusforthe
architect toplanenvironments tofoster feelingsofterritoriality,
whichwill
lead to community monitoring. Littleconsideration is givento thesocial
characteristics oftheinhabitants or thesocialcircumstances thatlead to
feelingsofcommunity: The attitude is thatthedesignofenviroments per
se leadsto a communal formofterritoriality (Baldassare1975c).
Similarresearch indicatesthatdesigncan forcespatialproximity, and
thisinevitably leadstosocialinteraction andcommunity spirit.8Festinger
etal (1950)foundthatneighbors whometfrequently becauseofproximity
werelikelytobecomefriends. Jacobs(1961)hasalsoarguedthatproximity
duetolow-rise, high-density designresults ina spiritedcommunity lifeand
anenvironment morecarefully monitored its
by residents. Similarly, Freed-
man(1975) suggests thatthesocialisolationof high-rise livingcan be
alleviated ifpeopleareforced tocomeintocontact withtheir neighbors (e.g.
by sharingsoda machinesand othercommunity facilities).
Alongwith
Newman (1973),theaboveauthors express theviewthatforced contact and
sharedspacewillresultincooperation orcommunality andnotconflict or
withdrawal.
Therehasalsobeena viewexpressed thatitis environmental designthat
causessocialandpsychological difficulties
andnotdensity perse (Mitchell
1974).Highdensities thuscannotbe viewedas either harmful orbeneficial.
Giventhisargument, theso-called"behavioral sink"andpathology found
8Someoftheearlysociometric andinparticular
studies, andpropinquity
marriage studies,
reflected
similar
concerns(seereviewin Turner1970:43-46).

byCalhoun(1962)wouldmerely be theresultofcongestion aroundthe

feedingareasoftheratcages.A well-planned interior designis thusseen
as thesolutionto difficulties associatedwithcrowding. For example, an
evendistribution ofobjectsandresources wouldalleviate theclustering of
peoplein certain areas.Thisviewhasbeenusedto defend andencourage
high-density living.In a sensetheseideastendto rundirectly counter to
thedesignconsiderations listedearlier,whichsoughtto bringpeopleinto
contactwitheachother.Theretendsto be, withinall thesediscussions,
somenotionthatdesigncanbe manipulated to achievetheproperbalance
of communality and individuality. Absentthroughout, though,are any
thorough considerations ofsocialposition,socialorganization, orrationale
forchoiceofinteractants.
Justas theenvironmental perspectivehas influenced theinterpersonal
proximity andcrowding research,so ithasaffected studiesofsmall-group
ecology.Osmond(1957,1959)coinedtheterms"sociopetal" and"sociofu-
gal" to suggestthatinterior designcan encourageor discourage group
formation. Theseconcepts weresystematically utilized intheearlyworkof
Sommer (see forexample, 1969:121,122)andhisassociates. He observed
thatthewaysinwhichinstitutions (e.g.hospitals) andpublicfacilities (e.g.
airports) organized thefurniture in waitingroomsor socialareasoften
inhibited conversations andactuallyprevented long-term groupparticipa-
tion.Typically, thesesettings hadlongrowsofimmovable chairsall facing
one direction, whichmadeproximate conversations uncomfortable, and
interactions withthoseinfront orbehindthepersonall butimpossible. He
arguedthatthisincreased thephysical and socialisolation ofindividuals,
andhe calledfortheredesign ofpublicenvironments inordertofacilitate
interaction and encourage physicalproximity. Manystudieswerecon-
ductedthatsuggested thatcertain arrangements ofchairswouldbe condu-
civetolong,comfortable, physicallycloseinteractions (Sommer 1965,1967;
Russo1967);inparticular, diagonalseatingarrangements promoted these
goalsmorethanside-by-side seating.
The environmental perspective, whilestillpracticedto some extent
amongdesigners today,has largely beenreplacedbymorecomplexideas
aboutman-environment whichI review
relations, later.Becausemostofthe
studiesmentioned concerned highly controlled situations (e.g.laboratories,
institutions) andindividuals (e.g.thehospitalized, thepowerless), theim-
pactoftheenvironment onbehavior wasexaggerated. Theprevailing view
todayis thatwhiledesignmayfacilitate or inhibitaction,it does not
determine behavior (i.e.designis onefactor insetting parameters ofactivi-
ties).Later"systems approaches" viewindividuals' attempts towardenvi-
ronmental optimization or environmental congruence (see Stokols1977a;
Michelson 1976).Theseorientations suggest,amongotherthings, thatwe

38 BALDASSARE
ofbehavior
effects
viewthereciprocal andcomplement
andenvironments,
witha concernforthesocialand
concernforthephysicalenvironment
factors
psychological within
operating thesetting.
Perspective
TheAntispatial
Thestudy ofhumanspatialbehavior inthesocialsciences, andinparticular
sociology, has beenmetwithsomeambivalence and rejection. Thereare
threereasonsfortheweakacceptance ofthefield,andtheyare reviewed
below(see also Baldassare& Fischer1977).
arediscredited
First,spatialstudies becausetheyareoutside oftheframe-
workofsocialscience.Descriptions ofsociallifedo nottypically include
environmental variablesin a verysystematic way,noris thesociology
envisioned byscholars suchas Durkheim (seeDurkheim 1893,1897)inter-
estedin anything butsocialexplanations ofhumanactivities. Therefore,
merely bydefinition thesestudiesseemedirrelevant to sociology.
Thesecondreaction isa response tothesubstantive findings, ora general
discounting oftheimportance ofthespatialfactors basedon theevidence
to date.An examination oftheliterature on theimpactofcrowding, for
example, suggests thatitis socialstructural factors andnotspatialfactors
thatcause pathology amongthe generalpopulation(see Cassel 1971;
Fischer& Baldassare1975). EarlierworkbyLewis(1952) also suggested
that social circumstances alleviatethe adjustment problemsexpected
amongrecent arriversto theurbanenvironment. Further, thesocialrela-
tionsviewedamongpeoplephysically close(e.g.Festinger et al 1950) or
distantareactually duetosocialdistance orthehomogeneity andlifestyles
of residents and notphysicalfactors(Gans 1962).Evidenceseemingly
indicates thatthestudyofspatialvariables is thusunnecessary.
Thethird complaint isthatcausalexplanations ofspatialphenomena lack
sociological relevance. Whilethestudyofpersonalspace,microecology,
andcrowding isviewed as legitimate, theideasthatguidethisresearch place
it outsideofsociology. It wouldnotseem,forexample, thatthestrictly
biological, culturalorenvironmental perspectives ofspaceutilization would
add muchto mainstream sociology, unlesswe foundclearproofof the
dramatic impacts ofspatialvariables on thegeneral socialorder.Sincethe
evidence forsevere personal andsocialdisruptions seemedweakatbest,and
sincetheguiding theorieswerenonsociological, thefielditself seemedinter-
estingbutnotworthy ofclosescrutiny or active participation.
Recentrefinements in theoryand methodhavemadethesecriticisms
largelyirrelevant. Deterministic viewshavelargely vanished. Thesolitary,
single-variable experimental of
studies theearly are era now a rarity. In-
creasingly,researchers areshifting theirinterests towardlongitudinal stud-
ies,multivariate methods, thecollection ofdatainresidential settings,and

theresponses subgroups
ofvarious whodiffer inpersonal andsocialas well
Thus,thenewtrendis to providea moresophis-
as spatialdimensions.
ofspatialresources,
ticatedviewoftheinteraction temporal factors,
social
structure, phenomena.
andpsychological Theresultisan areaofstudythat
couldbe a substantial
concernofsociology.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY

OF SPATIAL BEHAVIOR
Sociological andpsychological approaches to studyingspatialphenomena
arereviewed inthissection.Thesedevelopments arepresented within five
generalorientations, whichseemparticularly relevant:
concerns forthe
individual's spatialperceptions;stimulus overload;personalcontroland
social control;rolesand symbolicmeanings; and equilibrium theories.
Again,thereareobviously overlappingissuesamongthesefivedirections,
somestatedand someyetto be explored.Thereare,in addition, other
approaches thatintegratepsychologicaland sociologicalconcerns, which
arepresented in thegeneraldiscussion.
It is clearfrom thecontent ofthissectionthatovercrowding is themajor
research topicinthefieldtoday.Examinations ofpersonalspaceandsmall-
groupecologyper se have not keptpace, becausetheyhave lackeda
theoretical and practicalfocus.Thosetopicshavebeenintegrated with
broadertheoriesof spaceutilization (see, forexample,thesectionson
equilibrium theories)or existin studieswiththespecialcontext ofhigh-
density situations.
SpatialPerceptions
Thefactthathumanspatialbehavior appearedtobe highlyvariable across
studiesindicatedto somethe presenceof intervening factors.Physical
distancesamongindividuals and highdensity perse werepoorpredictors
ofspecific
individual andthisledtoa closerexamination
responses, ofsocial
andpsychological factors operatingwithinsettings.
Desor(1972)directed attentiontowardtheperceptual dimension ofspa-
tialphenomena. She askedpeopleto placefigures in scaled-down rooms
untiltheyconsidered theinteriorspacetoocrowded. Notonlydidindividu-
als varythedensities withroomdesignsbut,importantly, also withthe
imagined ongoing activity.Thisexperiment, whichhasbeensupported by
otherstudies (Cohenetal 1975;Stokolsetal 1973),suggestedthatpersons'
perceptionsofthesituation hadsignificant
impacts uponwhatwasconsid-
eredovercrowded or physicallytoo close.
Stokolsprovided guidancefortheseconcerns
theoretical (see also Pro-
shansky etal 1970),arguingfora distinction
betweentheterms,density and

40 BALDASSARE
crowding (onethatI havenotfollowed inthisreview): Densityis a neces-

sarybutnota sufficient conditionforindividuals to experience thefeeling
ofbeingcrowded. Personal, social,andenvironmental circumstances thus
interactwithspatialfactors. The qualityofthisinteraction leadsone to
developa feeling of spatialadequacyor inadequacy. This attitude then
determines thenatureoftheresponse (Stokols,1972a,b).9
The importance ofperceptions in determining reactions to spatialcir-
cumstances hasbeenemphasized byrecentresearch on residential crowd-
ing.Stokolset al (1977) foundthatperceived crowding was relatedto
pooreracademic performance andhealthamonguniversity students.Baron
etal (1976)alsoreported thatamongdormitory residents,highdensity in
combination withinterpersonal hostilitycouldresultin pooreracademic
performance. Myownstudies ofhousehold crowding found evidenceforthe
importance ofspatialattitudes (Baldassare1978).First,whenexamining
survey itemson perceived crowding, onlya moderate amountofthevari-
anceseemsto be explained byobjective household space(i.e. personsper
room),whichindicates thatobjective density is onlypartof thespatial
problem in thesehomes.Second,perceived householdcrowding has an
independent effect on measures ofhousing satisfaction (i.e.whenaccount-
ingforpersons perroom),including an impacton preferred mobility (see
also Rossi1955).
A further refinement oftheinitial subjective-crowding modelhasrecently
beenproposed (Stokols1976).It suggests thatthetypeofenvironment in
whichcrowding is perceived(primary vssecondary orimportant vsincon-
sequential)and the sourceof interference in a settingperceivedas
"crowded"(neutral vs personalor intentional vs unintentional) willhave
a greatimpacton humanresponses and observable stress.Thoughyetto
be properly empirically tested,thesepropositions haveimportant implica-
tions.For example, household crowding amongfamily members seemsto
be moreseriousthancrowding in a setting suchas an amusement park.
Freedman(1975) attempted to replacethesubjective-crowding model
withthedensity-intensity theory. This notionsuggests thathighdensity
makesgoodeventsbetterand bad eventsworse,actingas an enhancer.
Stokols(1977b)countered theseideaswithevidencethatsuggested that
goodeventscan deteriorate due to density; he arguedthatthecrowding
construct needsfurther development to explaintheinconsistent results
concerning arousaland stress(see also Choiet al 1976).
Methodological developments mustoccuriftheseideasaretobeproperly
tested.Problems needtobeaddressed, suchas themeasurement ofdifferent
9Stokols(1978b) has sincerevisedhis thoughtson thissubjectand now considersperceived
proximitywithone or moreothersas a necessaryconditionforexperiencing crowding.

kindsofperceived
spatialinadequacies
(e.g.whatpeoplewantvswhatthey
need),andtheneedto accountforthereciprocal effects
ofthedependent
measuresonthesubjective (e.g.do nervous
measures peoplefeelcrowded?).
Presentsurvey
data,forexample,maynotsufficientlyseparateotherkinds
ofdissatisfaction
fromspatialdissatisfaction.
StimulusOverload
Stimulus overload is an approachthatwecantracedirectly tosociological
origins.In "The Metropolis and MentalLife,"GeorgeSimmel[1905
(1969)]characterized urbanlifeas a situationinwhichindividuals typically
hadtoomanydailycontacts at veryclosedistances withothers. Too many
peoplewithin anindividual's sensory rangepotentiallyledto"overloading"
thenervoussystem.To avoid theproblemof overstimulation, Simmel
observed thaturbanites developed copingresponses. Theprincipal adapta-
tionswerereferred toas "socialwithdrawal," orattempts byindividuals to
limittheirinvolvement in someassociations and totally avoidothers.
Theseideashavehada lasting impacton ourthinking aboutpopulation
density.Wirth (1938)incorporated manyoftheseideasinhispaperonthe
socialand psychological consequences ofurbanlife.He arguedthatthe
adaptations todensity andoverloadresulted inan impoverished sociallife
andpsychological withdrawal. Although manyofhisclaimsremain unsub-
stantiated(seeFischer1972,1973,1976),thestimulus-overload argument
resurfaced in 1970,in Sciencemagazine(Milgram1970).Borrowing con-
ceptsfromsystems theory (e.g. Meier1962)and theearliersociologists,
Milgram's stimulus-overload modelspecified variousadaptations thatre-
sultedfromhighpopulation density. He provided limited evidencefrom
fieldexperiments thatseemedto suggest an urbannormofunderinvolve-
ment(seealso Bickman etal 1973).His workwaswidelyreadandhighly
influential
intheareaofhumanspatialbehavior, sinceitsuggested a mecha-
nismthatapparently explained theimpactofspatialfactors andpredicted
humanresponses.
Somehavearguedthattheconceptofstimulus overload haswideimpli-
cationsforresearch on population densityand otherpsychological stres-
sors,andhavecalledforthefurther development oftheory (see Lipowski
1975).Yet others, suchas Evans& Eichelman(1976)findit uselessfor
researchonhumanproxemic patterns. Essentially,
theyarguethatitiswhat
thestimuli cognitivelyrepresent to us,andnottheactualreception ofthe
stimuli,thatpredicts ourresponses.
Somestudiessuggest thata processsuchas overloadadaptation may
exist,although themeasurement ofsocialstimulation is usuallyindirect.
Forexample, inDesor's(1972)previously citedsimulation, shefoundthat
subjectsplacedmorefigures withina spaceas thenumberof partitions

42 BALDASSARE
increased. Thisindicated to herthatroomdensity maybe increased (with

no adversepsychological effects)whenthenumber ofvisiblesocialstimuli
decrease. A studyconducted byBornstein & Bornstein (1976)foundthat
pedestrians walkedthrough thestreets faster as citysizeincreased, which
suggested totheauthors thatthemorecrowded individuals weretrying to
minimize thelevelofsocialstimulation theyexperienced (see also Valins
& Baum1973;Loo 1972).10Yet another fieldexperiment in a department
storein NewYorkCitysuggested thatpeoplehad taskand performance
duetooverstimulation
deficits indenseshopping environments (Saegertet
al 1975).
Cohen(1977)haspositedthatcrowdedindividuals do experience over-
load.Densityandclosespatialproximity are saidto leadto high"atten-
tionaldemand," sinceindividuals mustmonitor a gooddealofpotentially
threatening stimuli, and thisresultsin "cognitive fatigue"and various
(e.g.deficits
aftereffects, intaskperformance, lessattention topostcrowding
socialstimuli). He haspresented fieldexperimental evidence tosupport this
interpretation (S. Cohen& S. Spacapan,unpublished observations). The
implications ofthismodelaresignificant, sincethisviewis in contrast to
SimmelandMilgram, andit suggests thatwhatwe considered as adapta-
tionsare actuallyeffects of crowding due to fatigue (e.g. peopledo not
consciously withdraw fromothers;rathertheydo so becauseof mental
exhaustion).
Evidence from myownresearch suggests thattheseoverload modelsneed
revision.I havearguedthatthepresence oftoomanyindividuals within our
sensory andspatialrangeleadsus to learna strategy of"specialized with-
drawal."Thegeneral notionis that,whenconfronted withhighdensities,
individuals learnto conserveenergies by attending to morerewarding
encounters andavoiding neutral orpotentially harmful interactions. Those
havingrational capacities canthus learn over time to avoid the experience
ofcognitive fatigue orsocialoverload. Theresults ofsocialsurvey analyses
suggest thatindividuals experiencing residentialcrowding do notwithdraw
from primary relationships (friends,socialnetworks, family, organizations),
thoughtheyseemto decreaseinvolvement in socialencounters ofa more
secondary nature (reactions tostrangers,neighboring, meeting newpeople),
whichindicatesa cost-effective methodof limiting socialoverload(see
Baldassare1975a,b,1976,1977,1978;anddatafromDavis 1975;Lansing
et al 1970;Michelson1973).
Pastmodelsofstimulus overload seemtounderestimate humanlearning
andresponse capabilities,whilealsoignoring thesocialdifferences among
thepotential contacts inourspatialrange.Evidence thatledotherresearch-
andinterpretations
ofthemethodology
'0Fora critique seeFischer(1977).
ofthisstudy,

ersto argueforgeneralsocialwithdrawalor cognitive

fatiguewas,in my
opinion,restricted
to encountersamongstrangers or casualcontactsand
notlongstanding,
intimateties.Thisledtheseresearchers
to different
con-
clusionsabouttheimpactofcrowding.
PersonalControl
and Social Control
Socialscientists of varying perspectives havelongbeenconcerned with
alienation. In particular, attention has oftenfocussed on theattitude of
"powerlessness," orthebeliefthatoutcomes orrewards cannotbe person-
allycontrolled, sincetheyaresubjecttooutsidecontingencies (seeSeeman
1975,1959).Researchers studying environmental stressors foundthatfeel-
ingsofexternal control areimportant predictors ofbehavioral andpsycho-
logicaldeficits.
In an influential studyon urban-related stress,Glass & Singer(1972)
exposedlaboratory subjectsto burstsofnoise.Whilethisenvironmental
stressor had no immediate effectson thecompletion of cognitive tasks,
certain kindsofaftereffects werereported (e.g.decreased in com-
abilities
pletingpuzzles)as "residues"of attempting to cope withthe stressful
experience. Theauthors showedthrough a seriesofexperiments thatitwas
thelackofpredictability andcontrollability oftheexperience thatcaused
a stressresponse, and experimental manipulations ofthesevariables pro-
videdstrong evidence fortheseconclusions. Importantly, themerepercep-
tionofcontroloverthenoisestimulus (without actualcontrol duringthe
situation) exerted a significantinfluence overbehavioral responses to the
situation.
Crowding hasrecently beenviewedas a situation inwhichindividuals are
confronted withenvironmental circumstances beyondtheircontrol. Sher-
rod(1974) manipulated perceived controlin a crowding experiment (i.e.
abilityto leave the and the
room), foundthat aftereffects ofstressexposure
(i.e.poortaskperformance) werepresent in thegroupthatlackeda sense
ofcontroloverthecrowdedsituation. A fieldstudyfoundthatchronic
household crowding createdtaskdeficitsamongchildren (Rodin1976).The
experimenter claimedthatexperiencing poorenvironmental control(i.e.
crowding) leads to an attitudeof powerlessness; the resultis "learned
helplessness" or weakattempts at manipulating theenvironment in other
situations. Otherstudiesindicated thatperceptions ofcrowding werealso
affectedbytheamount ofcontrol individuals weregivenduring grouptasks
(Rodinet al 1976).
Exactlywhyperceived controlmediates theimpactofcrowding is still
unclear, although thetwomajorarguments todayseemtobe learnedhelp-
lessness(Rodin& Baum1977)vs cognitive fatigue(S. Cohen& S. Spaca-
pan,unpublished information). The first modelsuggests thata crowding

44 BALDASSARE
experience and theresulting attitude of uncontrollabilityin one setting

generalizes to othersituations. Theopposing notionis thatuncontrollable
eventssuchas crowding leaveindividuals exhausted andthattheattitude
ofcontrollabilitywillproducelessattention to everydetailand thuswill
decreasethelikelihood ofstimulus overload. Weawaitfurther clarification
ofthemodelstodetermine iftheyneedtobe testedas competing theories,
or iftheyareactuallydifferent examples ofa moregeneralphenomenon.
In anyevent, somehavesuggested thatwhatwe consider tobe theeffects
ofdensity are actuallytheeffects ofenvironmental control. Therefore, if
people'sperceptions ofcontrol areincreased, thenegative aspectsofspatial
shortages canbealleviated (Sherrod & Cohen1977)."Personal control and
crowding" hasbecomea modeltobe utilized inthisarea,andsignsarefor
its wideracceptance (see reviewsby Cohenet al 1977;Baron& Rodin
1978).
I haveexpressed the viewthatwhileperceived controlmaylead to
decreased stressandlesslearned helplessnessinshort-term laboratory situa-
tions,theideathatthemanipulation ofthisattitude without actualpower
in long-term crowdedresidential environments willmakecrowding "bet-
ter"forpeople(Sherrod & Cohen1977)seemsuntested andnaivefroma
sociological perspective.Equallydubiousistheideathata general personal-
ityattribute of helplessness can developmerelyfromthe presenceof
crowded environments. Essentially,theexcitement ofthisimportant break-
through has causedsometo taketheconceptofpersonaland perceived
controltoofarandto consider otherimportant socialfactors too little.
Most "control"studiesconcentrate on attitudes,short-term crowding
experiences, orspecialgroupsintheirnaturalenvironments (e.g.children)
andthusshift attention from whataresociologically largerandmoresignifi-
cantsocialstructural issuesintheexamination ofhumanspatialbehavior.
Spacecan be considered as a resource, and thuscontrol overspaceanda
greater abilityto use it forattaining one'sgoalscan be a majorbenefit.
Therefore, we shouldsystematically studythesocialand psychological
impactsof notonlytheamountof area perpersonbutalso differential
controloverspace.Thisreadily brings to mindthefactthatpeopleoflow
status(e.g.theurbanpoor,thechildinthecrowdedhousehold) mayhave
lessofa claimto spacewhenit is in highdemandthando peopleofhigh
status(theurbanaffluent, adultsin the home).Therefore, it wouldbe
important to examine thedifferential impactofdenseconditions on those
withhighstatusvsthosewithlowstatus(see Lewis1971;Lyman& Scott
1971).Actualpoweroverspatialuseshouldminimize overloadandallow
oneto conductdesiredactivities withlessinterference, whilelesspower
wouldlead to moreinterruptions and theinability to conductpreferred

activities
(Baldassare1977;Booth& Johnson 1975:747).Studiesofcontrol
andcrowding shouldthusconcentrate on differencesbetween thosewithin
whohavemoreorlesssocialpowerintheireveryday
collectivities environ-
ments.
Besidesconsideration ofsocialpositionperse, I wouldarguethatthe
interaction between lowsocialpowerandtheattitude ofpowerlessness in
conjunction withcrowding shouldbe carefully studied.In fact,it is this
subgroup (i.e.lowinrealandfeltpower)thatmayactually be thebasisof
Rodin's(1976)findings ofa generalized learnedhelplessness amonglow-
incomecrowded children. Thereisreasontobelievethatlackofpowerover
theactivitiesincrowded environments, alongwitha lackofdesiretocontrol
one'ssurroundings, mayleadonetodisregard adaptationssuchas special-
izedwithdrawal. Therefore, a consideration ofattitudinal,environmental,
andsocialconditions couldleadtothebehavioral andpsychological deficits
so oftendiscussed in relation to crowding.
Onefinalpointis therelative inattention thatsocialcontrolhasattracted
in thecrowding literature (see Baldassare1977and Schopler & Stockdale
1977).A common response ofa stable,status-differentiatedgroupexperi-
encinga shortage ofspaceis greater controloverspaceuse andactivities
in itsterritory. For example, familiesin a crowdedhomecan implement
strategies(through decisionsand enforcement byitspowerstructure) to
minimize interference andcompetition byscheduling activities
andclosely
regulating anddefining appropriate spaceutilization(seeAnderson 1972).
Important topicsforresearchwouldbe whether thisdivisionof scarce
spatialresources to insurethecontinued functioning ofthegroupactually
occurs,andwhether suchpoliciesfavorhigh-status individualsand place
low-status individuals (e.g.children) at a relativedisadvantage (sincethe
latterarelessabletomakeandimplement theirowndecisions concerning
groupadaptations).
Groupadaptations tocrowding through suchsocialcontrol mechanisms
haveimplications from thesmall-group tothesocietallevel.Theirpotential
impacton individuals varying in socialpowershouldthusbe carefully
scrutinized. Hopefully, theresearch advancesmadeinpersonal control and
crowding willsoonbe complemented by new studiesthatwilltestthe
importance ofsocialstructure and individuals' socialpositions.
Rolesand Symbolic
Meanings
An infrequently
utilizedbutpotentially
important on human
perspective
spatialbehaviorplacesa majoremphasison the"socialsituation,"
and
drawsupontheworkof Mead and contemporary symbolicinteraction-

46 BALDASSARE
ists.1IIt forcesus toconsider thepersonal activitiesthataresociallydesig-

natedfora particular space.The socialmeanings thatpeopleattachto
environments through theirinteractions and ongoingsocialization thus
wouldplayan important rolein determining humanspatialresponses (see
also Lyman& Scott1971).
Spacedevelops a socialnature intwoways.First,groups gradually define
the appropriate rolesand activities thatoccurin theirterritories. This
"legislation" ornormsetting determines the"occasion"thatwillbe acted
out in a particular setting (see Ellis 1971,1974).Second,spacetakeson
moregeneralmeanings to actorsthrough socialization(Ball 1973).Mem-
bersofa particular society learnwhatis expected ofthem(interms ofroles
and interactions) at home,theballpark, and thesubway.Similarly, they
learnthemeaning ofvariousinteraction distances (e.g.public,social,per-
sonal,intimate) as Hall(1966)hassuggested. Giventhatspacehas"order,"
or is controlled,be it by smallgroupsor a society, theproblem forthe
individual thusbecomesoneofunderstanding theorderandlearning how
to achievedesiredgoalsinspecific socialsituations (seeGerson& Gerson
1976).
One centralissueofthisperspective is theimagery peoplehaveofthe
spacestheyuse.For example, Lym(1975)studiedthemeanings attached
tocertain areaswithin dwellings inhabited bymarried universitystudents.
He discussedwaysin whichpeopleorderspace and objectsand define
territoriesin orderto conform to imagestheyhaveoftheirenvironments.
Sometimes theimagespeoplehaveoftheirspacesaremorefantasy than
reality,andLym(1978a,b)arguesthatpeopledeveloptheseimagesinorder
to copewiththeexisting circumstances and imaginethemselves in better
positions.12
Perhapsthemajorcontribution ofthesymbolic interactionist
perspective
forthestudyofhumanspatialbehavior is intheuseoftheconceptofrole.
Sincerolesareenacted ina spatialcontext, individualsmustobtainvarying
degreesofphysical separationorcloseness to othersin orderto engagein
Whentheroleis ofa verysecretnature,theactormust
theiractivities.
obtainspaceawayfromothersto avoidintrusions duringtheenactment.
Whenthe rolesinvolveintimate actionsbetweensomemembers of the
group,they must be sureto haveadequate space for their
actions,yetfar
awayfromall others. All groups must cope withthe spatialproblem of
concentrates
I"Thissection onstudies ofsmallenvironments,thoughtherehavebeenappli-
cationsofthisperspetive to urbanneighborhoods (see,forexample,Firey1945).
12Forexample,oneurbanite I knowcalleda spacebetweenhisparkingspaceandapartment
"thepatio"andserved drinks whileloungingontheasphalt.Lym'sanalysiswouldarguethat
thisimaging processis importantfortheeventual enactment ofrolesandforescapingfrom
theeffectsofpresent environmental circumstances.

achieving privacy whileallowing accesstoothers (Silverman 1973).In other

words,roledifferentiation demandssomedegreeofspatialdifferentiation
within territories (Lym1978b)anda mechanism forcontrollingmovement
acrossboundaries.
Problems arisewhenthosesharing a common spacedo nothavethesame
viewsabouthowthisresource shouldbe allocated, sincethiscouldhinder
theenactment ofindividually preferred roles.Lym(1975,1978a)discussed
thedifficultiesthatspousesmight havewhentheydisagree aboutthealloca-
tionofspaceforroleenactments. Varying imagesofterritorial allotments
can producebothinterpersonal tensionand roleinterference. Evidence
fromonestudyofHongKonghouseholds suggests this,sincenonrelated
household groups(whomaypossibly disagreeonthewayspaceis differen-
tiatedorpoorly articulatetheseconcerns toeachother)do experience high
levelsofpsychological stress(Mitchell1971).
The symbolic interactionistperspective is mainlyconcerned withhow
socialinteractions definethespatialworld,butsincemeanings arisefrom
interaction, theproperties of theenvironment shouldalso influence the
meaning structure appliedto socialrelations(C. Silverman, personal com-
munication). Thereis reasonto believethatthespatialenvironment can
influenceroleperformance andsocialinvolvement. Smith (1971)hasargued
thata shortsupplyofhousehold spacewillleadtoroleconflict. Ifthereis
notenough roomorprivacy toconduct desired rolesaloneandwithothers,
competition forspace use mayoccur.Undoubtedly, thepossibilitiesof
incomplete roleperformances, intrusions,andtheblocking ofdesiredrole
enactments areheightened. Thelossofcontrol overboundary mechanisms,
whichallowpeopleaccessto variousaspectsoftheself,is thusseenas
havingsignificant socialandpersonal consequences (C. Silverman, unpub-
lishedobservations; Altman1975;Simmel1964).
Thestudyofrolesandsymbolic spatialmeanings hasbeencharacterized
byencouraging theorizing anddiscouragingly littleempiricalconfirmation
ofa dependable nature. Symbolic interactionism mustalsobe merged with
socialstructural issuesinordertoprovide a thorough conceptualizationof
spatialphenomena. Forexample, theexistence ofhumanspatialimagesis
an important contribution, but thiswillhave to be supplemented with
discussion ofhowandwherethesemeanings arelearned(i.e.socialization)
andhowtheyarecommunicated fromthegroupto theindividual. Also,
whilethediscussions ofroleconflicts due to spatialshortages are useful
waysofdescribing theeffectsofhumancrowding, theresearch evidence
suggests thatexplanations ofadaptations needto includesocialpower.In
otherwords, I suggest thata merger ofthesymbolic interactionist
perspec-
tiveandtheideasfrom sociallearning andexchange theorywilladdmuch
to theunderstanding ofhumanspatialbehavior. Sucha merger, though

48 BALDASSARE
thesociological
shouldprovide
unprecedented, linkin a fieldthus
missing
farlimited
bythepreponderance concepts.
ofpsychological
Theories
Equilibrium
Someworkssuggest thatspatialvariables are systematicallyand sequen-
tiallyrelated toanassortment ofnonspatial Thesecanbedesignated
factors.
as "equilibrium theories,"sincetheydescribe thedevelopment ofadapta-
tionsthathelpthehumanorganism function within thegivenspatialcir-
cumstances.13 The conceptof "homeostasis" and theachievement of a
stablerelationship between innerstates, actions,andexternal realitiesseem
prevalent in thesemultivariate conceptualizations.
Personalspaceresearch byArgyle& Dean (1965)first raisedtheissue
of"compensation," whichreappeared undervariousnamesinlaterstudies.
As earlyresearchers inthisarea,theywereintrigued bythefactthatcertain
distances andlevelsofeyecontactcouldbe expected fora givendegreeof
interpersonal attraction.
Importantly, thealterationofonefactor seemedto
createshifts alonganother dimension (e.g.closerdistancesled to lesseye
contact,orviceversa).Thus,theyarguedforan "optimal"distance when,
notattained, ledtocompensatory reactionsto decreasethestressfeltfrom
theinappropriateness of thesituation. A reviewof research findings by
Patterson (1973)supports theearlierassertions byArgyle& Dean (1965)
andextends theanalysis byspecifying whencompensation willoccurand
whenreciprocity willtakeplace.It suggests thatanarrayofnonverbal cues,
including distance,haveimportant communicative valuesand,whenoneis
disrupted, othersmustrealign toinsuretheconstancy ofsituational mean-
ingforactorsandoutsiders (see also Pederson& Shears,1973).Another
reexamination oftheresearch literature by Sundstrom & Altman(1976)
supports thebasicpremise thatthereareoptimaldistances forinteractions
varying in levelof involvement (interactingfriends and strangers; non-
interacting strangers),suggests thattherelationship between comfort and
distance neednotbe monotonic in everycase (e.g.closeandfardistances
arenotdesired formostinteractions), andarguesthatothercompensations
areavailablewhenspatialvariables areunadjustable.
Recently, Altman's (1975)useoftheterm"privacy" has renewed hope
ofuniting thecrowding literature withotherresearch on humanspatial
behavior. He suggests thata majorpsychological andsocialproblem facing
all peopleis theneedto regulatesocialcontact.Thoughwe wantsome
peopleto haveaccessto us someofthetime,itis necessary to control the
number ofpeoplewhoseeus incertain contexts.Wehaveadequateprivacy
13These havealsobeendescribed
theories as:growth, andbalancing
dialectical,
optimization,
models.

whenwearereceiving thelevelandkindofsocialstimulation weexpectto

receive ina socialsituation. On theotherhand,therearesituations inwhich
theneededprivacy is lacking(personalspace violations, territorialinva-
sions,and crowding) as thereare situations in whichinadequatesocial
contactleadsto feelings of isolation(low density, farinterpersonal dis-
tances,lackofterritorial encroachments), whichcanbeequallyunpleasant.
Altman(1975)thusseesindividuals andgroupsas controlling theflowof
information acrossa "boundary" (seealso Simmel1964),whichseparates
theiressencefromtheoutsideworld.Spaceandrelatedfactors thuscreate
theboundaries that,whenproperly utilizedby individuals and groups,
regulatesocialcontactsin an attempt to attainoptimalstimulation. A
variety ofmechanisms areusuallyatpeople'sdisposaltoreduceorincrease
contactsto a moreacceptablelevel.Hereagain,individuals are seenas
jointlyadjusting theirsocialandspatialcircumstances to meeta variety of
interpersonal needs.
Severaltheorists havedevelopedmodelsthatcapturethesequenceof
eventsthatseemto be responses to overcrowding (Stokolsa or b 1972b;
Manderscheid 1975;Sundstrom 1975,1977).The generalnotionis that
crowding leadstostress, whichthensetsoffa chainreaction (e.g.behaviors,
attitudes, environmental manipulations) byandwithin theindividual. The
resultis either adaptation andsuccessful functioning inthepresent spatial
circumstances, orcontinued andmalfunctioning
stress ofvarious durations.
Whilethereis ampleevidence thatsuggests copingresponses andfailures
toadapt,nodatapresently availablecanpotentially provide information on
thetemporal natureor sequential orderofwhatand whenan eventwill
occur(e.g.to testthepathmodelsand systems approaches thusfarpre-
sented).Theyremain interestingyetuntested searches fora balancing pro-
cessamonghumansconfronted withhighdensity.
Theideaof"congruence," ora closefitbetween people'sneedsandtheir
environments, hasbeenstressed bya variety ofresearchers. Wicker(1972)
suggests thatindividuals learntofunction intheirsetting, through a variety
ofmeans,in orderto attaincertainlargergoalsfromthatenvironment.
Michelson (1976)hasalsosuggested thatindividuals chooseenvironments
compatible withtheirsocialandpersonal needs:forexample, highdensities
aresoughtbyolderpeoplewhodesireeasyaccessto diverse services.The
notionis thatthespatialsetting andbuildings arepeople-made andpeople-
selected,orinotherwordstheyhavebeenformed tomeetsomeone's needs.
Theissuethusbecomesoneofexamining thefateofthosewhoareforced
to residein spatialcircumstances thatareincompatible withtheirpresent
needs.Stokols(1977a)arguesthattheconcept ofcongruence doesnotallow
enough roomforindividuals toremake theirspacesandthatitplacesundue
attention on theeffects ofspaceon theindividual. He callsforthenotion

50 BALDASSARE
of"environmental optimalization,"or thecontinuing interactionbetween

peopleandtheirenvironments, toreplacethesemoreone-directional equi-
libriumprocesses inwhichpeopleonlyseemtoseekthebestpossibleplace
andthenadaptto thosecircumstances without
altering theenvironment.
The modelofhousingadjustment presentedby Morris& Winter(1975)
wouldprobablywell exemplify Stokols'(1977a,b)approach,sincethe
authorssuggest thatresidential
dissatisfaction
canresult inmobility,
adjust-
mentsof theresidential structure,adjustments in family interaction,or
attitudinalchanges.Of course,theexactpathchosenforenvironmental
optimalizationcan varywiththeconstraints ofthesituation.
Equilibrium theoriescanbe helpful waysofconceptualizing spatialphe-
nomena,thoughtheycan be dangerously misleading ifimproperlyused.
First,weshouldnotassumethatallspatialproblems arealleviatedorresult
inbalancedsolutions: A system inequilibriumcouldbe onethatis merely
dealingwithdifficult circumstances, in generaldiscomfort.
or surviving
Similarly,individualsmayeventually abandonattempts to achievetheir
optimalspatialcircumstances and becomemoreexternally controlledor
shifttheir"comparison levels"(i.e. whattheythinkis needed).These
queriesagainraisetheneedfortime-series analysesofspatialbehavior. To
soundanother themerepeated earlierinthischapter, groupsmayadaptat
thecostofspecific individuals.
Conspicuously missing fromthesemodels
arenotions ofsocialpositionand,as Michelson (1977)argues, theexamina-
tionofantecedent conditionsthatleadtocertain spatialconfigurationsand
the placement of specificpeoplein theirsettings. Equilibrium theories,
however, enablethemodelofmanandenvironment to investigate
human
spatialbehavior in a morethorough and methodological
theoretical way.
CONCLUSIONS
The purposeofthisreviewis to critically evaluatepastapproaches and
recentdevelopmentsinthefield ofhumanspatialbehavior.Anobviousneed
forfurther sociologicalinputin thestudyofhumanspatialbehavior has
beenillustratedthroughout. Sincehumangroupstendto be highly orga-
nized,complexsocialsystems placeindividualsin uniqueroles.However,
moststudieshavenotconsidered or the
theissueofspatialdifferentiation,
ordering ofactivities,
or thecontrolofspacethrough socialmechanisms.
Individuals havehighadaptivecapacitiesand valuetheirsocialties,yet
mostresearchers havefailedto consider thefullrangeofmanipulations of
socialandspatialvariables tooptimizerewards(e.g.specialized
withdrawal,
family It is obviousthatsociallearning
adaptations). determines manyof
ourresponses tospatialcircumstances, ofspace
yetstudiesofsocialization
useandthedevelopment and
ofspatialmeanings subsequent responseshave

beenlacking.Moreover, as Michelson(1977)has pointedout,despitethe

obviousfactthatmuchofthespatialdimension (e.g.buildings,territories,
interior
objects, designs) hasbeenovertly manipulated byman,surprisingly
little
workonthe"antecedent variables"ofspatialfactorsandbehaviors has
occurred.Finally,
sociological methods, suchas systematic large-scale sur-
veystogether withobservations conducted overtime,arein shortsupply
and in highdemand.
Sociologycouldalso benefit greatly fromthestudyof humanspatial
behavior.Spaceobviously has valueforindividuals andshouldbe consid-
eredas a resource,
as is timeormoney.It is cherished bysome,deniedto
others,and competed forby all. Similarto otherresources, it does not
determine behaviors
butrather constrains opportunitiesorpotential activi-
ties(Baldassare1977).Sociologists shouldthusbe concerned withthe
ofthisresource,
distribution andtheconsequences ofthisdistribution, both
in micro-and macroanalyses. Beyonditsobjective value,spatialbehavior
and useshavecommunicative rolesin sociallife.Reactionsto ouruse of
space,environmentalcues,andthepositions others takeinspaceall inform
usofwhatis expected ofusandhowothers relatetoourpresence. It is thus
sociology,as muchifnotmorethanotherdisciplines, thatshouldbe ac-
tivelyconcerned withobserving the regularities in humanreactions to
spatialcircumstances.
Cited
Literature
Aiello,J.R., Jones, S. 1971.Fieldstudyon Baldassare, M. 1975a.Theeffects ofdensity
theproxemic behavior ofyoungschool on socialbehavior and attitudes.
Am.
children inthreesubcultural groups.J Behav. Sci. 18(6):815-25
Personality Soc.Psychol.19:351-56 Baldassare,M. 1975b.Residential density,
Aiello,J.R., Epstein, Y. M., Karlin,R. A. local tiesand neighborhood attitudes:
1975.Effects of crowding on electro- arethefindings ofmicro-studies gener-
dermal activity. Sociol.Symp.14:43-57 alizableto urbanareas?Sociol.Symp.
Altman, I. 1975.TheEnvironment andSocial 14:92-102
Behavior. Monterey:Brooks-Cole. Baldassare, M. 1975c.BookReview:Oscar
256 pp. Newman's DefensibleSpace.Contemp.
Altman,I. Vinsel,A. M. 1977.Personal Sociol.4(4):435-36
space:an analysis ofE. T. Hall'sprox- Baldassare, M. 1976.Neighborhood density,
emicframework. In HumanBehavior household crowding, and social rela-
and Environment, ed. I. Altman,J. tions.Presented at Am.Sociol.Assoc.
Wohlwill, Vol. 2. NewYork:Plenum. Meet.,71st,NewYork
Forthcoming Baldassare,M. 1977. Residential density,
Anderson, E. N. 1972.SomeChinesemeth- householdcrowding, and social net-
ods of dealingwithcrowding. Urban works. InNetworks andPlaces,ed.C. S.
Anthropol. 1:141-50 Fischer, pp. 101-115.NewYork:Free
Ardrey, R. 1966.TheTerritorial Imperative. Press
NewYork:Atheneum. 355pp. Baldassare,M. 1978.ResidentialCrowding in
Argyle,M.,Dean,J. 1965.Eyecontact, dis- UrbanAmerica. Berkeley: Univ.Calif.
tanceand affiliation. Sociometry 38: Press.Forthcoming
289-304 Baldassare, S. 1975.Cultural
M.,Feller, vari-
Bailey,K., Hartnett, J.,Clover,H. 1973. ationsin personal space:theory,meth-
Modeling andpersonal spacebehavior ods,andevidence. Ethos3(4):481-503
in preschoolchildren.J. Psychol Baldassare, M.,Fischer,C. S. 1977.Therele-
85:143-50 vanceofcrowding experiments tourban

52 BALDASSARE
studies. In PsychologicalPerspectives on Cohen,J.,Sladen,B., Bennett, B. 1975.The

Environment andBehavior, ed.D. Sto- effects
ofsituational variables onjudge-
kols,pp. 273-85.NewYork:Plenum mentsof crowding. Sociometry 38(2):
Ball,D. 1973.Microecology: SocialSituations 273-81
andIntimate Space.NewYork:Bobbs- Cohen,S. 1977.Environmental loadandthe
Merrill. 38 pp. allocation ofattention. In Advances in
Barker,R. 1968.Ecological Psychology. Stan- Environmental Research, ed.A. Baum,
fordUniv.Press,Calif.242pp. J.Singer, andS. Valins.Norwood, NJ:
Baron,R.,Mandel,D., Adam,C.,Griffen, L. Erlbaum.In press
1976.Effects ofsocialdensity onuniver- Cohen,S.,Glass,D., Phillips, S. 1977.Envi-
sitystudents. J. Personality Soc. Psy- ronment and health.In Handbookof
chol.34:434-46 MedicalSociology, ed. H. Freeman, S.
Baron,R., Rodin,J. 1978.Personal control Levine,and L. Reeder.Englewood
andcrowding stress:
Processes mediat- NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Cliffs, Forthcoming
ingtheimpact ofspatialandsocialden- Davis,D. L. 1975.Theshadowscale.Sociol.
sity.Psychol. Rev.In press Rev.23:143-50
Bauer,E. 1973.Personalspace:a studyof Davis,D. L., Bergin,K., Mazin,G. 1974.
blacksandwhites. Sociometry 36:402-8 When theneighbors getnoisy webangon
Baxter,J.1970.Interpersonal spaceinnatu- thewalls:a critical
exploration ofdensity
ralsettings. Sociometry 33:44456 andcrowding. Presented atAm.Sociol.
Baxter,J., Deanovich,B. 1970.Anxiety- Assoc.Meet.,69th,Montreal
arousing effectsofinappropriate crowd- Desor,J. 1972.Towarda psychological the-
ing. J. Consult.Clin. Psycholol.35: oryofcrowding. J.Personality Soc.Psy-
174-78 chol.21:79-83
Bickman, L., Teger,A., Gabriele, T. 1973. Draper,D. 1973.Crowding amonghunter-
Dormitory density andhelping behav- gatherers: the!Kungbushmen. Science
ior.Environ. Behav.5(4):465-90 177:301-2
Booth,A. 1976. UrbanCrowding and Its Duncan,B., Duncan,0. 1955.Residential
Consequences. New York: Praeger. distribution and occupational segrega-
139pp. tion.Am.J.Sociol.60:493-503
Booth,A., Johnson, D. 1975. Effects of Durkheim, E. 1893[1964].TheDivisionof
crowding on childhealthanddevelop- Labor in Society.New York: Free
ment.Am.Behav.Sci 18(6):736-49 Press.439 pp.
Bornstein, M.,Bornstein, H. 1976.Thepace Durkheim, E. 1897 [1951].Suicide.New
oflife.Nature259(5544):557-59 York:FreePress.405 pp.
Burgess, E. W. 1967[1925].The growth of Edney,J. 1974.Humanterritory. Psychol.
thecity:an introduction to a research Bull. 81(12):959-75
project.In The City,ed. R. Park,E. Ehrlich, P. 1968.ThePopulation Bomb.New
Burgess,pp. 47-62. Univ. Chicago York:Ballantine. 223pp.
Press, Ill. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1970. Ethology:The
Calhoun, J.1962.Population density andso- Biology ofBehavior. New York:Holt.
cial pathology. Sci Am.206:139-48 530pp.
Cassel,J.1971.Healthconsequences ofpop- Ellis,W.R. 1971.Planning, design, andblack
ulationdensity and crowding. In Na- community lifestyle:
theproblem ofoc-
tionalAcademy ofSciences, RapidPop- casion-adequate space. Proc.Environ.
ulation Growth, Vol.2,pp.462-78.Bal- DesignRes. Assoc.,ed. W. Mitchell.
timore: JohnsHopkinsUniv.Press Univ.Calif.,Los Angeles
Cheyne, J.,Efran, M. 1972.Theeffect ofspa- Ellis,W.R. 1974.Theenvironment ofhuman
tialand interpersonal variables on the relations:perspectives andproblems. J.
invasion ofgroupcontrolled territories. Architect.Educat.27(2,3):11-54
Sociometry 35:477-89 Evans,G. 1978.Behavioral andphysiological
Choi,S.,Mitiafari, A.,Weaver, H. 1976.The consequences ofcrowding inhumans. J.
conceptof crowding. Environ. Behav. Appl.Soc. Psychol. In press
8(3):345-62 Evans,G., Eichelman, W. 1976.Preliminary
Chombart de Lauwe,P.-H.1961.Thesociol- modelsof conceptual linkagesamong
ogyofhousing methods andprospects proxemicvariables.Environ.Behav.
ofresearch. Int.J. Comp.Sociol.2(1): 8:87-116
23-41 Evans,G.,Howard, R. 1973.Personal space.
Christian,J.,Flyger, V.,Davis,D. 1960.Fac- Psychol.Bull. 80(4):334-44
torsin themassmortality ofa herdof Felipe,N., Sommer, R. 1966.Invasionsof
sikadeer.Chesapeake Sci. 1:79-95 personal space.Soc.Probl.14:206-14

Festinger,
L., Schachter, S., Back,K. 1950. Gerson,E., Gerson,M. 1976.The social
Social Pressures in InformalGroups. framework ofplaceperspectives. In En-
NewYork:Harper.240pp. vironmental Knowing. ed.G. T. Moore,
Firey,Walter.1945.Sentiment andsymbol- G. Colledge, pp. 196-205Stroudsberg:
ismas ecological variables. Am.Sociol. Dowden,Hutchinson & Ross.441 pp.
Rev. 10:140-48 Glass,D., Singer,J.1972.Urban Stress. New
C. S. 1972.Urbanism
Fischer, as a wayoflife: York:Academic.182pp.
a review andanagenda.Sociol.Methods Goffman, E. 1963. Behaviorin Public
Res. 1:187-242 Places.NewYork:FreePress.248pp.
C. S. 1973.On urbanalienation
Fischer, and Goffman, E. 1971.Relations inPublic.New
anomie.Am.Sociol.Rev.38:311-26 York:Harper.396pp.
Fischer,C. S. 1976.The UrbanExperience. Griffitt, W.,Veitch, R. 1971.Hotandcrow-
New York:Harcourt, Brace,Jovano- ded: influences of population density
vich.309pp. andtemperature oninterpersonal affec-
Fischer,
C. S. 1977.Sociological comment on tivebehavior. J. Personality Soc. Psy-
psychological approaches to urbanlife. chol.17:92-98
In Advances in theStudyofEnviron- Hall, E. T. 1959. The SilentLanguage.
mentandBehavior, A. Baumed.Hills- Greenwich, Conn.:Fawcett.192pp.
dale,NJ:Erlbaum. Forthcoming Hall,E. T. 1963a.Proxemics-the studyof
C. S.,Baldassare,
Fischer, M. 1975.Howfar man'sspatialrelations andboundaries.
fromthe maddening crowd?N. Soc. In Man'sImagein Medicineand An-
32:531-33 thropology, pp.422-45.NewYork:Int.
Fischer,C. S., Baldassare, M., Ofshe,R. J. Univ.Press
1975.Crowding studies andurbanlife: Hall,E. T. 1963b.A system forthenotation
a criticalreview. J.Am.Inst.Planners ofproxemic behavior. Am.Anthropol.
41:406-18 65:1003-26
Forston,R., Larson,C. 1968.Thedynamics Hall,tural E. T. 1964.Adumbration in intercul-
ofspace.J. Commun.18:109-116 communication. Am.Anthropol.
Frankel,A., Barrett, J. 1971.Variations in 66(6),part2:154-63
personal spaceuseas a function ofau- Hall,New
E. T. 1966. TheHiddenDimension.
thoritarianism, self-esteem, and racial Hall,E. T. York: Doubleday.
1968.Proxemics.
217 pp.
Curr.Anthropol.
characteristics of a stimulus situation. 9:83-108
J. Consult. Clin.Psychol. 32:92-98 E. T. 1974.Handbookfor Proxemic Re-
Freedman, J.1973.Theeffects ofpopulation Hall,search.Washington, DC: Soc. An-
densityon humans.In Psychological thropol. VisualCommun.124pp.
Perspectives onPopulation, ed. J.Faw- Hawley,A. 1950. Human Ecology.New
cett,pp. 209-38.NewYork:Basic York:RonaldPress.456 pp.
Freedman, J.L. 1975.Crowding andBehav- Hediger, H. 1964.WildAnimals inCaptivity.
ior.San Francisco: Freeman. 177pp. NewYork:Dover.207 pp.
Freedman, J., Klevansky, S., Ehrlich,P. Hediger, H. 1968.StudiesofthePsychology
1971.Theeffects ofcrowding onhuman and Behaviorof CaptiveAnimalsin
taskperformance. J.Appl.Soc.Psychol. Zoos and Circuses. NewYork:Dover.
1:7-25 168pp.
Freedman, J.,Levy,A.,Buchanan, R.,Price, Heimsath, C. 1977.Behavioral Architecture.
J. 1972.Crowding andhumanaggres- NewYork:McGraw-Hill. 203 pp.
siveness. J.Exp.Soc.Psychol. 8:52848 Heshka,S., Nelson,Y. 1972.Interpersonal
Gans,H. J.1962.Urbanism andsuburbanism distance as a function ofage,
as waysoflife:a re-evaluation ofdefini- speaking
sex,and relationship. Sociometry 35:
tions.In HumanBehavior and Social 491-98
Processes, ed. A. M. Rose,pp.62548. Hutt,C.,Vailey,M. 1966.Differential effects
Boston:Houghton Mifflin ofgroupdensity onsocialbehavior. Na-
Gardin,H., Kaplan,K., Firestone, I., Co- ture209:1371-72
wan,G. 1973.Proxemic effects ofcoop- Jacobs, J.1961.TheDeathandLifeofGreat
eration, attitude and approach-avoid- American Cities.New York:Random
ancein a prisoner's dilemma game.J. House.458 pp.
Personality Soc.Psychol. 27:13-18 Jones, S. 1971.A comparative proxemic anal-
Garfinkel,M. 1964.Studiesin theroutine ysisofa dyadicinteraction in selected
groundsof everyday activities.Soc. subcultures in NewYorkCity.J.Psy-
Prob.11:225-50 chol.84:35-44
Gasparini, A. 1973.The influence of the Jones, S.,Aiello,J.R. 1973.Proxemic behav-
dwelling onfamily. Ekistics 216:34448 iorofblackandwhitefirst, third, and

54 BALDASSARE
fifth gradechildren. J.Personality Soc. McBride, G., King,M., Jones, J.,1965.So-

Psychol. 25:21-27 cial proximity effectson GSR in adult
Lansing,J.,Marans,R., Zehner,R. 1970., humans. J.Psychol. 61:153-57
Planned ResidentialEnvironments.McGrew,W. C. 1972.Aspectsofsocialde-
AnnArbor,Mich.:Inst.Soc. Res. velopment in nursery schoolchildren
Lawrence, J.E. 1974.Scienceandsentiment: withemphasis on introduction to the
overview ofresearch on crowding and group.In Ethological StudiesofChild
humanbehavior. Psychol.Bull. 81(10): Behavior.ed. M. B. Jones.London:
712-20 Cambridge Univ.
Leibman, M. 1970.Theeffects ofsexandrace Meier,R. L. 1962.A Communications Theory
normson personalspace. Environ. of UrbanGrowth. Cambridge, Mass.:
Behav.2:208-46 MIT Press.184pp.
Lewis,0. 1952.Urbanization without break- Michelson, W. 1973.Environmental change.
down.Sci. Mon.75:31-41 Researchpaperno. 60, Cent.Urban
Lewis,0. 1971.Privacy andcrowding inpov- Community Stud.,Univ.Toronto
erty.In Environmental Psychology, ed. Michelson, W. 1976.Man and thisUrban
H. Proshansky, W. Ittleson,L. Rivlin, Environment: A Sociological Approach.
pp.267-69.NewYork:Holt,Rinehart Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
& Winston 273 pp.
Lipowski, Z. J. 1975.Sensory andinforma- Michelson, W. 1977.Fromcongruence toan-
tioninputoverload: behavioraleffects. tecedent conditions:a searchfortheba-
Compr. Psychiatry 16(3):199-221 sisofenvironmental improvement. See
Little,K. 1968.Cultural variationsin social Baldassare & Fischer1977,pp.205-19
schemata. J. PersonalitySoc. Psychol. Milgram, S. 1970.Theexperience ofliving in
10:1-7 cities.Science167:1461-68
Loo,C. 1972.Theeffects ofspatialdensity on Mitchell, R. E. 1971.Somesocialimplica-
thesocialbehavior ofchildren. J.Appl. tions of highdensityhousing.Am.
Soc.Psychol. 2:372-81 Sociol.Rev.36:18-29
Lorenz,K. 1966.OnAggression. NewYork: Mitchell, R. E. 1974.Misconceptions about
Bantam.306pp. man-made space:in partialdefense of
Love,K., Aiello,3. 1976.Relationship be- high-density housing. Fam.Coordinator
tween observed interactiondistance and 1:51-56
projective distance measures.Presented Mitchell, R. E. 1975.Ethnographic andhis-
at Am. Psychol.Assoc.Meet.,84th, toricalperspectives onrelationships be-
Washington, DC tweenphysical and socio-spatial envi-
Lym,G. R. 1975.ImagesofhomeatPeabody ronments. Soc.Symp.14:25-40
Terrace. Unpublished PhD thesis, Har- Morris,D. 1969. The HumanZoo. New
vardUniv. York:Dell. 256pp.
Lym,G. 1978a.Housingurbannomads:the Morris, E. W.,Winter, M. 1975.A theory of
homesofchildless married student cou- family housingadjustment. J.Marriage
ples.In Residential Environments and Fam. 37(1):79-88
theFamilyLifeCycle,F. Ladd,K. Al- Munroe, R. L., Munroe, R. H. 1972.Popula-
lot. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. tiondensity and effectiverelationships
Forthcoming in threeEastAfrican societies.J.Soc.
Lym,G. R.,ed. 1978b.Spaceinsocialbehav- Psychol. 88:15-20
iorandexperience: a review.In Myth- Newman,0. 1973.Defensible Space. New
icalSpace.Englewood NJ:Pren-
Cliffs, York:Macmillan. 264pp.
tice-Hall. Forthcoming Osmond, H. 1957.Function as thebasisfor
Lyman,S., Scott,M. 1971.Territoriality: a psychiatric warddesign.Ment.Hosp.
neglected sociologicaldimension. Social 8:23-30
Space:CanadianPerspectives, p. 51-57. Osmond, H. 1959.Therelationship between
ed. D. Davies,K. Herman,Toronto: architect andpsychiatrist. In Psychiat-
NewPress ricArchitecture, ed.C. Goshen, pp.16-
Manderscheid, R. W. 1975.A theory ofspa- 20. Washington, DC: Am. Psychiatr.
tialeffects.In Progress in Cybernetics Assoc.
and Systems Research, Vol. I, ed. R. Park,R. 1915.Thecity:suggestions forthe
Treppl, F. R. Pickler.pp.75-83.Wash- investigation ofhumanbehavior in the
ington, DC: Hemisphere urban environment. Am. J. Sociol.
Marsella,A. J.,Escudero, M., Gordon,P. 20(5):577-612
1971.Theeffects ofdwelling density on Patterson,M. 1973.Compensation in non-
mentaldisorders in Filipinomen.J. verbalimmediacy behaviors: a review.
HealthSoc.Behav.11:288-94 Sociometry 36:237-252

Pederson, D. 1973.Personality and demo- Silverman, C. 1973.Theinterconnections be-

graphic corellates
ofsimulated personal tweenprivacy, space,and thenuclear
space.J.Psychol. 85:101-8 family.Unpublishedhonors thesis,
Pederson, D., Shears,L. 1973.A reviewof Princeton Univ.120pp.
personal spaceintheframework ofgen- Simmel, G. 1905[1969].Themetropolis and
eral systemstheory.Psychol.Bull. mental life.In ClassicEssaysontheCul-
80:367-88 tureofCities,ed. R. Senmett, pp. 47-
Proshansky, H.,Ittleson,W.,Rivlin, L. 1970. 60. NewYork:Appleton
Freedomof choiceand behaviorin a Simmel, G. 1964.Thespatialrelations ofso-
physicalsetting. See Lewis 1971,pp. cial forms. In Social Theory of Georg
173-83 Simmel.ed. N. J.Spykman, pp. 144-
Rodin,J.1976.Density, perceived choiceand 62. NewYork:RussellSage
response tocontrollable anduncontrol- Smith, D. 1971.Household spaceandfamily
lableoutcomes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. organization. SeeLyman& Scott1971,
12:564-78 pp. 62-69
Rodin,J.,Solomon, S.,Metcalf, J.1976.The Smith,S., Haythorn, W. 1972.Effects of
roleofcontrol inmediating perceptions compatibility, crowding, groupsizeand
ofdensity. Presented at Am.Psychol. leadership seniority on stress, anxiety,
Assoc.Meet.,84th,Washington, DC hostility and annoyancein isolated
Rodin,J.,Baum,A. 1977.Crowding andhel- groups.J. Personality Soc. Psychol
plessness:potentialconsequences of 22:67-79
density andlossofcontrol. In Human Sommer, R. 1965.Further studiesin small
Response toCrowding, ed.A. Baumand groupecology. Psychol.Bull.67:145-52
Y. Epstein.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Sommer, R. 1967.Smallgroupecology. Soci-
Ross,M. B., Erickson, L. B., Schopler, J. ometry 28:33748
1973.Affect, facialregard andreactions Sommer, R. 1968.Intimacy ratings in five
tocrowding. J.Personality Soc.Psychol. countries. Int.J.Psychol. 3:109-14
28:69-76 Sommer, R. 1969.Personal space:Thebehav-
Rossi,P. 1955.Why Families Move.Glencoe, ioralbasisofdesign.Englewood Cliffs,
Ill.: FreePress NJ:Prentice-Hall. 177pp.
Russo,N. 1967.Connotation andseating D. 1972a.Onthedistinction
ar- Stokols, between
rangement.CornellJ. Soc. Relat. densityand crowding. Psychol.Rev.
2:37-44 79(3):275-77
Saegert,S., Mackintosh, E., West,S. 1975. Stokols,D. 1972b.A social psychological
Twostudies ofcrowding inurbanpub- modelofhumancrowding phenomena.
licspaces.Environ. Behav.7(2):154-84 J.Am.Inst.Planners38:72-84
Scherer,S. 1974.Proxemic behavior ofpri- Stokols,D. 1976.Theexperience ofcrowding
maryschoolchildren as a function of in primaryand secondaryenviron-
theirsocioeconomic classand subcul- ments.Environ. Behav.8:49-86
ture.J. Personality Soc. Psychol.29: Stokols, D. 1977a.Origins anddirections of
800-5 environment-behavior research.See
Schmitt, R. 1963.Implications ofdensity in Baldassare & Fischer, pp. 5-36
Hong Kong. J. Am. Inst. Planners Stokols, D. 1977b.Indefense ofthecrowding
24:21017 construct. In Advances inEnvironmen-
Schopler, J.,Stockdale,J.1977.A socialin- talPsychology, ed.A. Baum,S. Valins.
terference modelofcrowding. Environ. Hillsdale,NJ:Earlbaum. Forthcoming
Psychol. Nonverbal Behav.1(2):81-88 Stokols,D. 1978a. Environmental psy-
Seeman, M. 1959.On themeaning ofaliena- chology.AnnRev.Psychol., Vol. 29.
tion.Am.Sociol.Rev.24:783-91 Forthcoming
Seeman,M. 1975.Alienation studies.Ann. Stokols,D. 1978bHumanCrowding. Bel-
Rev.Sociol.1:91-123 mont,Calif.:Brooks-Cole. Forthcom-
Sewell,A., Heisler,J.1973.Personality cor- ing
relates ofproximity preferences. J.Psy- Stokols,
D., Rall,M.,Pinner, B.,Schopler, J.
chol.85:151-56 1973. Physical,social and personal
Sherrod, D. R. 1974.Crowding, perceived determinants of the perceptionof
control, and behavioral J.
aftereffects. crowding. Environ. Behav.5:87-115
Appl.Soc.Psychol. 4(2):171-86 D., Ohlig,W.,Resnick,
Stokols, S. 1977.Per-
Sherrod, D., Cohen,S. 1977.Density, perceptionof residential crowding, class-
sonalcontrol, anddesign.In Crowding roomexperiences and student health.
and Design,ed. J.Aiello.New York: Hum.Ecol. Forthcoming
Plenum Stratton,
L.,Tekippe, D., Flick,G. 1973.Per-

56 BALDASSARE
sonalspaceandself-concept. Sociome- Watson,O., Graves,T. 1966.Quantitative

try36:424-29 research inproxemic behavior. Am.An-
Sundstrom, E. 1975.Towardan interper- thropol. 68:971-85
sonalmodelofcrowding. Sociol.Symp. Wicker,A. 1972.Processeswhichmediate
14:129-44 behavior-environment congruence. Be-
Sundstrom, E. 1977.Crowding as a sequen- hav.Sci 17(3):265-77
tialprocess:review ofresearch on the Wicker,A. 1973.Undermanning theoryand
effects of populationdensityon hu- research. Represent. Res.Soc. Psychol.
mans.See Rodin& Baum1977 4:185-206
Sundstrom, E., Altman,I. 1976.Interper- Wicker,A. 1974. Theoretical developments
sonalrelationshipsandpersonal space: pertaining topersonal spaceand crow-
research reviewandtheoretical model. ding:CommentsPresented at West.
Hum.Ecol. 4(1):47-67 Psychol. Assoc.Meet.,54th,SanFran-
Susiyama, Y. 1967.Socialorganization of cisco
HanumanLangurs. In SocialCommu- Wicker, A.,Kirmeyer, S. 1974.Fromchurch
nication AmongPrimates, ed. S. Alt- to laboratory to nationalpark:a pro-
man,pp.221-36.Univ.ChicagoPress, gramonexcessandinsufficient popula-
tionsin behavior settings.See Baldas-
Ill. sare& Fischer1977,pp. 69-96
Suttles,G. 1968. TheSocial Orderof the Willis,F. 1966.Initialspeaking distanceas a
Slum.Univ.ChicagoPress,Ill. 243pp. function of thespeakers'relationship.
G. 1972.TheSocialConstruction
Suttles, of Psychonom. Sci. 5:221-22
Communities Univ.ChicagoPress,Ill. Willis,F. 1974.Thedevelopment ofspatial
278pp. relationshipsinprimary schoolchildren.
Turner, R. 1970.FamilyInteraction. New Presentedat West. Psychol.Meet.,
York:Wiley.505pp. 54th,San Francisco
Valins,S.,Baum,A. 1973.Residential group Wirth, L. 1938.Urbanism as a wayoflife.
size,socialinteraction and crowding. Am.J.Sociol.44:1-24
Environ. Behav.5:421-39 Wynne-Edwards, V. C. 1964.Self-regulating
Watson,0. 1970. ProxemicBehavior:A systemsin populationsof animals.
Cross-CulturalStudy.Paris:Mouton. Science147:1543-48
127pp. Zlutnick,S, Altman, I. 1972.Crowding and
Watson,0. 1972.Symbolic and expressive humanbehavior. Environment and the
usesofspace:an introduction toprox- SocialSciences, ed.J.Wohlwill, D. Car-
emicbehavior. Addison-Wesley Modu- son,pp. 44-58.Washington DC: Am.
larPub.20 pp. Psychol. Assoc.


Mark Baldassare - Human Spatial Behavior

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Mark Baldassare - Human Spatial Behavior

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Human Spatial Behavior

Author(s): Mark Baldassare

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

HUMAN SPATIAL BEHAVIOR *10548

Overa decadeago,sociologists withan interestinthedynamics ofinterper-

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

Thereis an obviousifsomewhat sad analogyto be drawnbetween the

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

mensional and deterministic

EARLY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY

Thepreliminary research onhumanspatialbehavior concentrated onthree

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

Although thereis repeatedevidencethatunusualspatialcircumstances

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

Feller1975;Altaman& Vinsel1977).BelowI present someofthemore

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

unpublishedinformation).A morepowerful factorseemedtobe theteach-

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

causalfactors, sincesociocultural variables arehardertomeasure andless

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

byCalhoun(1962)wouldmerely be theresultofcongestion aroundthe

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

crowding (onethatI havenotfollowed inthisreview): Densityis a neces-

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

increased. Thisindicated to herthatroomdensity maybe increased (with

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

ersto argueforgeneralsocialwithdrawalor cognitive

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

experience and theresulting attitude of uncontrollabilityin one setting

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

ists.1IIt forcesus toconsider thepersonal activitiesthataresociallydesig-

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

achieving privacy whileallowing accesstoothers (Silverman 1973).In other

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

whenwearereceiving thelevelandkindofsocialstimulation weexpectto

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

of"environmental optimalization,"or thecontinuing interactionbetween

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

beenlacking.Moreover, as Michelson(1977)has pointedout,despitethe

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

studies. In PsychologicalPerspectives on Cohen,J.,Sladen,B., Bennett, B. 1975.The

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

fifth gradechildren. J.Personality Soc. McBride, G., King,M., Jones, J.,1965.So-

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

Pederson, D. 1973.Personality and demo- Silverman, C. 1973.Theinterconnections be-

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

sonalspaceandself-concept. Sociome- Watson,O., Graves,T. 1966.Quantitative

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:56:34 PM

Potrebbero piacerti anche