Environment and Behaviour

Invasions of Personal Space

Garfinkle (1964) asked students to bring their faces close to the face of an acquaintance whilst they were talking to them. These acquaintances showed confusion or embarrassment and several thought that the other person had sexual intentions because of their behaviour.

Felipe and Sommer (1966) conducted two field experiments. One took place in the grounds of a large mental institution. When a man was sitting alone on a bench someone came and sat down next to him, sitting 15cm away. If the participant moved along the bench the ‘invader’ followed. Observers noted the length of time before the participants left, and compared them with a control group (males sitting alone) who were watched from a distance. The results showed that 20% had left after one minute (but none of the controls), and 50% after nine minutes (8% of the controls).

Felipe and Sommer (1966) conducted a study in a library, using people who were sitting by themselves. Results showed that, when an ‘invader’ sat in the next chair and moved it closer, 70% of the participants had left their seats after 30 minutes, whereas only 13% left when the participants allowed a gap of one chair between them.

This study also showed that many participants also changed the angle of the chair, pulled in their elbows and used books or other objects as barriers. People also change their body position, leaning away from the invader or turning the angle of the body to present more of a barrier.

Differences in Personal space

Gender differences

There are several differences between the personal space of men and of women.

Fisher and Byrne (1975) arranged for a confederate to invade the space of a person whilst they were sitting alone in the library. Invaders were either male or female, and sat next to or opposite. After a few minutes the invader left, and a student (another confederate) then came over and asked for the participant’s impressions. These were:

• Male Participants disliked the invader who sat opposite, but did not mind when the invader sat by them..
• Female participants disliked the invader sitting next to them, but did not mind the invader sitting opposite.

Cultural differences

Hall conducted cross-cultural research. He found that in cultures high in ‘sensory contact’ (such as French, Greek and Arabic) personal distances are much closer than in low ‘sensory contact’ cultures (such as American, English, and Swiss). Because of these differences, someone standing too far away could cause offence in one culture, and standing too close cause discomfort in another.

Baxter (1970) showed that personal distances varied according to the setting. African-Americans interacted more closely in indoor settings, whereas Mexican-Americans were closest in outdoor settings.

Territoriality

Altman and Chemers (1980) suggested there are three types of territory:

• Primary territory - this is an area over which we have relatively complete control and which is of central importance to us, sucha s a bedroom.
• Secondary territory - is an area over which we have only partial control, perhaps for a short period of time (such as a table in a restaurant) or because we share it with others (such as a classroom).
• Public territory - is generally accessible to anyone and no one individual or group has a right to it. Examples include pavements, beaches and libraries. Public territory can be temporarily personalised with markers, for example by a person leaving a newspaper on a library chair while getting a book or setting up windbreaks on a beach.

Haber (1980) devised a field experiment which had invaders sit at students’ regular seats while the occupants were out of the classroom. When they returned, she observed that many of the students claimed ownership of their seats. The longer the seat had been occupied or the more marked it was with personal property, the more vigorous were the owner’s efforts to reclaim it. The next time the class met, all the students who had been invaded arrived earlier and re-occupied their seats!

Ways of establishing and protecting territory

• Defining territory -Territory may be defined by walls, hedges, filing cabinets, furniture etc. Sundstrom (1980) showed that office workers preferred to work in private offices rather than an open plan office.
• Marking territory - ownership of territory may be publicised by markers. These could be personal possessions, a nameplate, a national flag or graffiti.
• Protecting territory - markers may be an effective way of telling others to stay away, Workers who have their office are able to close the door, but those who work in an open plan office use other tactics such as turning their back on public areas. But with larger territories the individual takes a position that will enable them to see and identify intruders.

Defensible space

The term defensible space refers to territory that is centred on the home.

Bell (1990) defined it as a relatively stationary, bounded area which is home centred.

The key feature of defensible space is that the area around the home can be defended from intruders.

Newman (1972) compared the rate of crime in two New York housing projects. Brownsville was designed in small blocks built around a courtyard and housing five or six families, while Van Dyke consisted of high-rise buildings set apart within parkland. Although the same number of residents lived in both housing projects, the crime rate was 50% higher in Van dyke. Newman suggested that four factors were important in explaining the difference in crime rate. These were:

• Zone of territorial influence - this is defined by indicators that an area Is private rather than public, such as flower pots or washing lines.
• Opportunities for surveillance - residents can easily see the common areas so potential intruders can quickly be identified.
• Image - the more anonymous a building is, the more public it seems, so names of residents and personalisation of the property reduce anonymity.
• Milieu - the larger the space around a building the more public it seems and the more likely it is to attract vandalism. Also the more decayed the buildings the higher the crime level.

Felipe and Sommer (1966) conducted a study in a library, using people who were sitting by themselves. Results showed that, when an ‘invader’ sat in the next chair and moved it closer, 70% of the participants had left their seats after 30 minutes, whereas only 13% left when the participants allowed a gap of one chair between them.

This study also showed that many participants also changed the angle of the chair, pulled in their elbows and used books or other objects as barriers. People also change their body position, leaning away from the invader or turning the angle of the body to present more of a barrier.