Dynamic Space: Proxemic Research and the Design of Supportive Environments

  • Craig M. Zimring
  • Gary W. Evans
  • Ervin H. Zube

Abstract

Frank Lloyd Wright once reportedly described design as “art with a purpose.” This description highlights a current view of design. Although the basis of design is aesthetics, design, unlike art, is also characterized by a responsibility to its users. Concern about this responsibility, and with the general topic of human-environment interactions, has prompted a wide variety of design professionals and behavioral scientists to participate in the multidisciplinary research area of environmental behavior. Within the span of a decade, this area has begun to acquire academic respectability as it formed professional organizations, founded journals, and produced many books and articles.

Keywords

Europe Stim Stake Venezuela 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Altman, J. The envivonment and social behavior. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, California, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Appleyard, D. Why buildings are known: A predictive tool for architects and planners. Environment and Behavior, 1969, 1: 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baum, A., and Davis, G. E, Spatial and social aspects of crowding perception, Ms. 1974.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berlyne, D. E. Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1963, 17: 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berlyne, D. E. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broadbent, D. E. Decision and stress. London: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruner, J. S. Beyond the information given. New York: Norton, 1973.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coss, R. G. The perceptual aspects of eye-spot patterns and their relevance to gaze behavior. In S. Hutt & C. Hutt (Eds.), Behavior studies in psychiatry. New York: Pergamon Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coss, R. The cut-off hypothesis: Its relevance to the design of public places. Man-Environment Systems, 1973, 417–440.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cozby, P. Effects of density, activity and personality on environmental preferences. Journal of Research in Personality, 1973, 7: 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Long, A. J. The micro-spatial structure of the older person: Some implications for planning the social and spatial environment. In L. A. Pastalan and D. H. Carson (Eds.), Spatial behavior of older people, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Desor, J. A. Toward a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21: 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Downs, R. M. and Stea, D. Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epstein, Y. and Aiello, J. Effects of crowding on electro-dermal activity. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, September 2–6, 1974.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Esser, A. H. Cottage fourteen: Dominance and territoriality in a group of institutionalized boys. Small Group Behavior, 1973, 4: 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans, G. W. Behavioral and psychological consequences of crowding in humans. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1975.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Evans, G. W. Design implications of spatial research. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Meeting of Environmental Design Research Association, Vancouver, B. C., May, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evans, G. W. and Howard, R. B. A methodological investigation of personal space. In W. Mitchell (Ed.), Environmental design: Research and practice. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evans, G. W. and Howard R. B. Personal space. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80: 334–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Evans, G. W. and Eichelman, W. H. Preliminary models of conceptual linkages among some proxemic variables. Environment and Behavior, 1976, 8: 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Freedman, J. L. Crowding and Behavior. New York: Viking Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friedman, S. Relationships among cognitive complexity, interpersonal dimensions and spatial preferences and propensities. In S. Friedman and J. Jukasy (Eds.), Environments: Notes and selection on objects spaces and behaviors. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1974,Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gibson, J. J. Perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Miffin, 1950.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greenbie, B. B. Design for diversity: planning for natural man in the neo-technic environment: an ethological approach. New York and Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1976.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hall, E, T. The hidden dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1966.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holahan, C. Seating patterns and patient behavior in an experimental dayroom. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1972, 802: 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hutt, C. and Hutt,J.S. Effects of environmental complexity on stereotyped behaviors of children. Animal Behavior. 1965, 13: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hutt, C. and Hutt, J. S. Behavior studies in psychiatry. New York: Pargamon Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jacobs, K. W, and Koepell, J. Biographical correlates of sensation-seeking. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1974, 39: 333–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    James, W. Psychology: The briefer course. New York: Harper, 1892, reprinted, 1962.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kahneman, D. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaplan, S. Adaptation, structure and knowledge: A biological perspective. In W. J. Mitchel (Ed.), Environmental Design: Research and Practice. Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association, Conference Three, Los Angeles, California, 1972.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaplan, S. Knowing man: Towards a humane environment. In R. M. Downs and D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: cogitive mapping and spatial behavior, Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaplan, S. Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research. Stroudsberg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1973b.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaplan, S. An informal model for the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, J. G. Fabos and R. 0. Bruch (Eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Stroudsberg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1975.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Knight, R. C., Zimring, C. M., and Kent, M. J. (In press). Normalization as a socio-physical system. In M. J. Bednar (Ed.), Physical and social barriers in design. Stroudsberg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lynch, K. The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McBride, G., King, M. and James, J. Social proximity effects on galvanic skin responses in adult humans. Journal of Personality, 1965, 61: 153–157.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mehrabian, A. and Diamond, S. G. Effects of furniture arrangement, props and personality on social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 20: 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Milgram, S. The experiences of living in cities. Science. 1970, 167: 1461–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Newman, O. Defensible space. New York: MacMillan, 1972.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nichols, K. A. and Champness, B. Eye gazs and galvanic skin response. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1971, 7: 623–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Payne, I. Pupillary responses to architectural stimuli. Man-Environment Systems. 1969, 5–11.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Payne, I. Complexity as a fundamental dimension of the visual environment: A pupillary study. Man-Environment Systems. 1970, 5–26.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Preiser, W. F. E. Analysis of pedestrian velocity and stationary behavior in a shopping mall. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, 1972.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Proshansky, W. H., Ittleson, W. and Rivlin, L. G. Freedom of choice in a behavior setting. In W. H. Proshansky, W. Ittleson and L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston, 1970.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Saegert, S. Crowding: Cognitive overload and behavioral constraint. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental Design Research. Vol. II, Stroudsberg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1973.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schopler, J. Conceptions of cruwding. Science. 1976, 192: 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sommer, R. Personal Space: The behavior basis for design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sommer, R. and Ross, H. Social interaction on a geriatric ward. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 1958, 4: 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stokols, D. Crowding in primary and secondary environments. Environment and Behavior. 1976, 8: 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stokols, D., Smith, T., and Prostor, J. Partitioning and perceived crowding in a public space. American Behavioral Scientist. 1975, 18: 792–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Welch, B. Psychophysiological response to the mean level of environmental stimulation: A theory of environmental integration. In Symposium on Medical Aspects of Stress, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 1964.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wicker, A. W. Undermanning theory and research: Implications for the study of psychological and behavioral effects of excess populations. Representative Research in Social Psychology. 1973, 4: 105–206.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wohlwill, J. F. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity. Ferception and Psychophysic. 1968, 4: 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wohlwill, J. Human adaptation to levels of environmental stimulation. ’Human Ecology. 1974, 2: 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig M. Zimring
    • 1
  • Gary W. Evans
    • 2
  • Ervin H. Zube
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Man and EnvironmentUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Program in Social EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations