issues in env psych

8/11/2019 Issues in Env Psych

1/16

Theoretical Issues in Environmental PsychologyAuthor(s): Harold M. ProshanskyReviewed work(s):Source: The School Review, Vol. 82, No. 4, Learning Environments (Aug., 1974), pp. 541-555Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084002.

Accessed: 21/10/2012 01:46

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 [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

School Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1084002?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1084002?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/16

Theoretical s s u e s

n

nvironmental

sychology

HAROLD

M.

PROSHANSKY

City University

of

New York

The

purpose

of this

paper

is to discuss both the need and the

potential

for theoretical

analysis

in

individually

oriented

en-

vironmental

psychology.

The theoretical

tasks are

neither

simple

nor routine. Yet

a rush

toward

empirical

research

without the benefit of such

analysis

seldom leads

to

meaning-

ful

advances

in

the

development

of

a new field.

Individually

oriented

environmental

psychology

has its own contribution

to

make to the

theory

of human behavior.

The

development

of

an environmental psychology has a validity in its own right,

apart

from the need to solve

the

problems

of

urban

living

and

urban stress. No

corpus

of

knowledge

about

human behavior

and

experience

can

be

complete

or

fully

meaningful

without

the inclusion of

concepts

and

principles

relevant

to the

influence

of

physical settings regardless

of how

much or how

little

they

contribute

to the

variance

in

such

behavior

and

experience.

I

want to discuss those

theoretical

issues

in

environmental

psychology

that are

of the most concern

to

psychologists

in

this field.

But

first,

it is

important

to

identify

and define

the

significant

aspects

of the field

as

they

have evolved

over

the

last decade.

August

1974 541


3/16

Theoretical

Issues

Nature

of the Field

Environmental

psychologists

conceive

of

the

physical

envi-

ronment

not

in

terms

of the

physical

stimuli of

traditional

psychology (light,

sound,

temperature,

etc)

or even

in

terms

of

the

irntegration

of

these

properties

with

others

(such

as

shape,

color,

and

density)

into

specific physical

objects. Being

an

environmental

psychologist

does not

preclude

the

study

of

such stimuli

with

respect

to

the

interrelationships

between

physical

settings

and

ongoing

behavior and

experiences

of

human

beings.

But

the

essential

thrust

of the new field lies

in

broader

questions.

The

physical

environment

refers

to

the

complexity

that

constitutes

any

physical

setting

in

which

men

live,

interact,

and

engage

in

activities

for either

brief

or

extended

periods.

It

is the

system

of

instrumental

objects

and

life-supporting

conditions

organized

in

space

and

time

to

support

and

mediate

the

behavior and

experience

of

the

individual

alone

and

in

relation

to other

individuals.

If we consider which physical settings have been given the

highest

theoretical

and

research

priorities,

it

must be

evident

that at

the

center of

the

environmental

psychologist's

concern

with

the

physical

environment is

the built

environment.

This

emphasis

on

complexity

does not

mean a lack

of concern

with

the

actual

physical

dimensions

of such

complex

human

set-

tings,

but

the

need

to

determine

those

dimensions which actu-

ally

foster,

shape,

and

underlie

the

complex

human

activities

that go on in these settings. We are referring to when, how,

and

where

people

read, talk,

eat,

work,

act

as a

family,

make

love,

fight,

and

get

bored.

A

concern with

the

physical

environment

in

all

its

complex-

ity

must

be

matched

by

a

concern with

the

individual or

HAROLD

M.

PROSHANSKY is

professor

of

environmental

psychology

and

president

at

the

Graduate

School

and

Univer-

sity

Center of the

City

University

of New York. He and his

colleagues

have

written

a

number

of

books in

this

new

field.

The

most

recent

is

Introduction

to

Environmental

Psychology,

published

in

March

1974.

542

School

Review


4/16

Harold

M.

Proshansky

groups

of

individuals

in

all their

complexity.

The focus is

on

the whole man. But there is no special glamour attached to

this

phrase.

The interest

is

not in the

analysis

and

processing

of

particular

psychological

functions

but in the

goal-directed

behaviors,

activities,

and

experiences

of the

person

in

relation

to relevant

physical settings.

Individuals

use,

respond

to,

experience,

and

do

things

to

settings

because of what

they

see,

have

learned,

and would

like to

achieve

in them. To

examine

and understand

this

process,

the environmental

psychologist

will have to

be concerned both

generally

and

specifically

with

the role of

human

perception, thinking,

motivation,

learning,

and

feeling

in

man-environment interactions.

The environmental

psychologist

conducts

his research

in

the

physical settings

or

built environment

of concern to

him.

He must do

this

in

ways

that maintain

the

integrity

of these

settings,

including

the

people

who are contained

by

them

and

the

activities that take

place

in

them.

This

implies

far more

than a

commitment

to

a field-research

as

opposed

to

a

laboratory

approach.

It means that the

methodology

of en-

vironmental

psychology

must

evolve

out of

and be

adapted

to

the nature

and characteristics

of the

phenomena

it

studies,

that

is,

the

human use

of

space

in

the

ongoing

activities

of

day-to-day

life.

Analysis

and

Issues

Environmental psychology must rely heavily on exploratory

and

descriptive

investigations.

Its

concern

must be with

searching

out

the

dimensions and

properties

of

phenomena

involving

human

behavior

in

relation to

physical

settings.

For

many

environmental

psychologists

who

are

oriented to indi-

viduals,

this

means

that

the

exploratory,

empirical,

and

de-

scriptive

nature of

their

research

mitigates

their

responsibility

with

respect

to

theory.

In

their

eagerness

to

determine

when,

how,

and

why

individuals

relate to

physical

settings

in

given

contexts,

they

resort to

operational

concepts,

common

sense,

or ad

hoc terms

that

remain

undefined

and

unclear.' This is

no less true

in

nonempirical

discussions of

significant

en-

vironmental

problems,

such

as

privacy

and

territoriality.

August

1974 543


5/16

Theoretical Issues

The

emphasis

on

theory

here is

not a call

for elaborate

rational systems in which an interlocking network of assump-

tions,

propositions,

and

concepts

leads

to testable

empirical

generalizations.

On the

contrary,

systematic

theory

at

this

level

not

only

is

not

possible

at

present

but

may

never

be

for

environmental

psychology.

The

events

in

question

are

so

complex

that

isolated

variables cannot be

specified.

Further-

more,

the

relationships

between

individuals and

physical

set-

tings

require study

over

extended

periods

and

are not

subject

to the

usual

replication. Girgen suggests

that

social

psychology

must

view

itself

primarily

as a

historical

inquiry

in

which the

facts

it

deals with

are

essentially

nonrepeatable

and

fluctuate

markedly

over

time. 2

Clearly,

the

model of accumulated and

articulated

facts and

principles

enduring

over time which

typifies

the

natural

sciences

seems a

far less

likely

possibility

for

environmental

psychology.

The

plea

for

theory

here is

more

modest

and

more realistic.

It

is

a

plea

for

theoretical

analysis,

for the

systematic

use of

words, ideas, concepts, and the relationships among them as a

guide

to

thinking

and

research.

Empirical

investigations pro-

vide no

escape

from

the need

for

theoretical

analysis.

The

ultimate

meaning

and

value of

any

set of research

findings

about

the

individual

and

his

relation to his

physical

setting

depend

on

the

assumptions

and

conceptions

held-either

explicitly

or

implicitly-about

people,

settings,

and their

in-

teraction.

Explicit

theoretical

analysis

is

necessary

in

order to

relate empirical activities to the ideas and conceptions of

environmental

research,

to

permit

comparisons

of

findings

from

one

research

setting

to the

next,

and to

provide

a

rational

context for

understanding

what

any

fact derived

means.

There

is

little

evidence of such

analysis

in

the literature of

individually

oriented

environmental

psychology.

The

theoret-

ical

issues

I

am

concerned with

here

are not issues

in

the

sense of

ongoing

controversies

resulting

from

differences

in

the

conceptualization

of

particular

problems

or

commonly

accepted

phenomena.

Even

a

cursory

review of

the

environmental-psychology

literature on

privacy,

territoriality,

544 School

Review


6/16

Harold

M.

Proshansky

cognitive mapping,

urban

stress,

residential

satisfaction,

en-

vironmental attitudes and values, environmental complexity,

and

proxemics

reveals

that

controversies

have

not

yet

emerged.

Indeed

they

are nowhere

in

sight,

and are not

likely

to be

unless

investigators

and theorists

turn

away

from

the

sterile,

theoretical

expediency

of extreme

empiricism

to some

kind

of

theoretical

analysis.

I

see three

types

of

interrelated theoretical tasks:

defining

and

analytically

elaborating

existing

man-environment con-

cepts; establishing

their

relationships to other,

more tradi-

tional

psychological concepts;

and

actively seeking

to

develop

new viable

man-environment

concepts

based on

analysis

of

existing concepts

and

the

existing body

of

general psychologi-

cal

theory.

Concept

Definition and

Elaboration

The

failure

to

define

and

elaborate

significant

man-

environment terms is especially evident in the literature on

human

privacy

and

territoriality.

Even

when definitions are

given

they

are

denotative and

expressed

in

day-to-day

ter-

minology.

This

is

especially

true

of the

concept

of

privacy.3

Definitions

of

privacy

tend not

only

to

be

descriptive

and

expressed

in

commonsense

terms,

but

are treated

as

if

privacy

were a

simple,

one-dimensional

phenomenon

with

an

easily

identifiable class

of

empirical

referents.

The

problem

of

sys-

tematic definition and conceptual elaboration is hardly served

by

a definition

such as this: a

variety

of

situations

and

meanings

is covered

by

the

single

term

privacy;

The central

theme seems

to be the

ability

to

control

the

degree

to which

people

and institutions

impinge upon

one's life. 4

Westin,

a

political

scientist,

has

provided

the

only

reasonably

systematic

analysis

of

privacy.5

What

emerges

are

four

basic

states:

solitude,

intimacy,

anonymity,

and

reserve,

which

may

serve one or more of four basic functions:

per-

sonal

autonomy,

emotional

release,

self-evaluation,

and

limited

and

protected

communication. 6

Westin's four states of

privacy

are not

always

conceptually

August

1974

545


7/16

Theoretical

Issues

clear or consistent

with

each other.

Solitude

(the

individual)

and intimacy (two or more individuals) are not only concepts

formulated at different levels

of

analysis,

but

they

are defined

in

terms of different

analytic

properties.

Solitude

describes the

state

of

the

individual's

relationship

to

his

physical

environ-

ment,

the fact that

he cannot

be observed

by

others.

Intimacy

defines

a

close

relationship

between two or

more

individuals

in

terms

of

psychological

distance,

a

relationship

which

they

achieve

by seeking

seclusion from others.

Intimacy

is

a

group

rather

than an

individual state of

privacy,

but is

defined

in

terms

of individual motivational

processes.

The critical issues involved

in

the

use of these environmen-

tal

concepts go

beyond

the

problem

of

mixing

levels of

analysis.

Systematic

definition and elaboration

of these

con-

cepts

require

specification

and

clarification

of whether

they

represent

behavior,

a

need,

a state of

consciousness,

or even

an attitude or value. The

concept

of

territoriality

is

used at

times to describe a form of

behavior,

at other

times

a need to

define and defend a

particular spatial

area, and sometimes a

mixture of the two. This often

happens

unwittingly,

since the

researcher or theorist does not

explicitly

define

territoriality,

and so is unconcerned about the

question

of

conceptual

clarity.

But

there is a more serious and

fundamental

problem

which

must be considered

in

any

attempt

at theoretical

analysis

of

man-environment

concepts

such

as

privacy

or

territoriality.

It

is quite common to find that these concepts are conceived as

human needs or motivational states.

But can we assume

that

the

behaviors observed

in

privacy

and

territoriality

are rooted

in

need states or states that can

have ascribed

to them

the

properties

of

needs? Can we extend

our list

of

complex

human

social needs based on observed behavior

and

reported

experience-security,

affiliation,

achievement,

recognition-

to include such

man-environment interactions

as revealed

in

territoriality

and

privacy?7

With

respect

to

privacy,

the issue

may

be even more

complex

than with

territoriality.

Westin's

analysis

suggests

that

a

single concept,

need for

privacy, may

have no

theoretical

or

empirical reality

per

se. Given the

variety

of

situations,

546

School Review


8/16

Harold

M.

Proshansky

behaviors,

goal

states,

and

functions that his

analysis

reveals,

to speak simply of a need for privacy is to cover up a welter

of

variable human

behaviors

and

experiences.

There

may

be

needs

for solitude

or

intimacy

or

anonymity

which are instru-

mental

to

satisfy

still other needs for

personal

autonomy,

emotional

release,

and

the other functions

of

privacy

Westin

cites. Because of normative

factors,

privacy

may

be

regarded

as an

embracing

value

which

can be

expressed

and differen-

tiated

by any

number

of

specific

needs

which can be tied to

particular

situations

for

particular purposes.

If

privacy

as

a

single concept

subsumes too

much,

then

territoriality

does

not subsume

enough.

In

the case

of

territo-

riality,

as

applied

to human

behavior,

far

more

has been left

out than

put

in.

In

most

discussions,

territoriality

is

narrowly

defined or related to

particular

environments such

as

libraries,

cafeterias,

or

hospitals

in

which

highly

transient

relationships

of

demarcation

and

defense are considered.8

Altman

presents

an

excellent

definitional

analysis

of

the

concept

of territorial-

ity.

Through

the use of

generic

dimensions-organismic,

situational,

behavioral,

and

antecedent-he classifies

existing

research,

demonstrates its current status insofar as

theory

is

concerned,

and

reveals

many

of

the

gaps

in

the

range

and

nature

of

the

problem

studied.9

Environment

Concepts

and

Traditional

Psychology

Any

serious

attempt

to define

and

analyze

man-

environment

concepts

must

involve

establishing

their

meaning

in

relation

to

traditional

psychological

concepts.

Establishing

such

relationships

involves

not

only developing

the

implica-

tions

of similarities

and

differences

but also

attempting

to test

these

implications

empirically.

In

their

study

of

territoriality,

Becker

and

Mayo

sought

to

distinguish

it from

personal

distance. Dominance

has connotative

elements

related

to the

concept

of

territoriality,

and at least one

investigator

has

studied their

relationship

in

human

behavior

and

found

positive

correlations between

the two

forms.10

My colleagues

and

I

have

sought

to

integrate

the

concepts

August

1974

547


9/16

Theoretical

Issues

of

privacy,

territoriality,

and

crowding

by relating

them to

freedom of choice. Pastalan's useful and provocative attempt

to elaborate

the

concept

of

privacy

in

terms of

its territorial

components

is related

to this

effort.11

By

a careful examina-

tion

of Westin's

four

states of

privacy

and their

relationships

to

Altman's four

conceptual

elements

in

definitions of

territo-

riality,

Pastalan evolves

a fourfold

matrix

which

helps

to

integrate

the

man-environment

concepts.

His

analysis

reveals

the narrow

and

highly

restrictive

nature

of the

present

definitions

and

empirical

research

on

territoriality.

This is

more than the

question

of its

being

restricted

to

highly

transient behaviors

in

limited social

settings,

for

example,

libraries

and cafeterias: The most

valuable

aspects

of

viewing

the

behavior

related to the states

of

privacy

as a

fundamental

form

of human

territoriality

is

that

it

released us

from

dealing

with

territoriality

only

in

terms

of

occupation

and defense

responses.

It

also

suggests

the

potential

of

using

privacy

as an

organizing principle

in

working

out

linkages

between

territoriality-related

behavior and

general

human behavior. '2

There are

many

conceptual

avenues

having

to do

with

territoriality

in

human behavior.

In

a

complex

industrialized

society,

its

social

origins

must lie

in

the

values of

private

property

and

individual

states;

and

its

significance

must ex-

tend

beyond

the use of

space

to

include

objects.

Using

another

person's

desk

or

typewriter

in

an office

setting

invokes

ter-

ritorial

behavior,

despite

the

fact that

neither

actually belongs

to the person assigned to use them regularly. This suggests

that the

concept

of role

in

its

general

as well

as

its

specific

meaning

has

territorial

implications. Specific

roles

and

func-

tions

by

definition

give

the individual

exclusive

or

relatively

greater

control over

relevant

places

and

objects.

It

may

be that

an

invasion of such

places

and

objects-using

someone

else's

desk

and

typewriter-implies

a

takeover

of

his

role

or

function.

Evolving

the

theoretical

linkages among

man-environment

concepts

is

only

a

part

of

the

general

task

involved

in

subjecting

them to theoretical

analysis.

Relating

territoriality

to role

concepts

is

an

attempt

to work out

linkages

between

territoriality

and

general

human

behavior,

an

attempt

both to

548

School Review


10/16

Harold M.

Proshansky

understand

and

clarify

the

newly

discovered

man-

environment concepts by relating them to and integrating

them

with

existing social-psychological

theory.13

Jourard

makes

such an

attempt

with

respect

to

privacy

as

related

to

social

conformity

and

self-identity

in

the context

of mental

health

and individual

adjustment.14

Bates

recognizes

this rela-

tionship

implicitly

in

his

analysis

of

privacy.

Kelvin sees

privacy

and

power

as

mutually influencing

elements

of

inter-

personal

role

relationships.

According

to

him,

privacy pro-

vides the

opportunity

for

nonconformity

or a

way

of

negating

the role demands made

by

others:

[The]

individual

perceives

himself

to

have

privacy

to

the extent

that others do or

cannot

exercise

power,

which,

in

principle

is available

to them. 15

Kelvin

sees

privacy

with

respect

to a

given

area

of

behavior,

such

as

sex,

as

deriving

its

significance

from the fact

that

the

area of behavior is normative

in

character. Without normative

constraints,

others could

not

exert

power

over the

individual,

and

the

purposes

of

privacy

would

not

develop.

He concludes

that once

privacy

has become a norm with

respect

to a

given

class of

behavior,

it

acts as

a

higher-order

norm

which

countermands,

or at least

severely

limits

the

norms

which

put

constraints on

the

patterns

of behavior

(including

beliefs)

as

such. 16

Development

of New Man-Environment

Concepts

It

is one

thing

to

suggest

the

development

of new

man-

environment

concepts

and still another to effect

such de-

velopment.

New

analytic

tools

dealing

with

the

individual

and

his

physical settings

that describe and

give

meaning

to the

interactions between them

require

long-term

systematic

em-

pirical

research.

At

this

stage

in

the

development

of environ-

mental

psychology,

the thrust of such research

should be

toward

identifying

and

describing

the

properties

of

specific

individual-physical

environment

settings.

But

emphasis

on the

theoretical

analysis

of environmental

conceptions

should

not

be construed

to

mean

that

data

collection

is not crucial.

Its

purpose

is to

identify

significant

problem-related

environmen-

August

1974 549


11/16

Theoretical Issues

tal

settings

and to observe and

record

the behavior

and

experience of the individual as a means of establishing the

dimensions

and

properties

of his

relationships

with that set-

ting.

The

continuous

interplay

between data collection

and

the

definition

and

theoretical

elaboration

of

meaningful

man-

environment

concepts

is

essential.

Our research on

psychiatric-ward

design

and

patient

and

staff behavior has led

to

the formulation of

the

concept

of

environmental

security. 17

Not

only

the

study

of

psychiatric

settings

but

consideration

of

other kinds

of

settings

as well

suggest

that there

may

be a

need

for environmental

security.

More is involved than

just safety

and freedom

from stress.

Life

in

given settings,

especially

those

which

provide

the

context for

enduring relationships

and

activities,

such

as the

household,

depends

on the

behavior

of others

in

relation

to

an

increasing

technological

network of

services,

appliances,

machines,

and

products.

This

kind

of

existence evokes

in a

person

feelings

both of

control

over the environment

and of

dependency on it. A breakdown in the network increases his

sense of

dependency

and

reduces his

feelings

of

control,

which

in

turn

evokes his

need

for environmental

security.

More

is involved than

technology. Feeling

safe

in

relation

to

one's

neighbors,

secure

in

the belief

that one's food

is not

contaminated,

and

competent

about

being

able to

use

this

environment

are

all

components

of

the

concept

of environ-

mental

security.

We are

in

the first

stages

of

developing

this

conception, but we expect that an initial study of the mental

health

aspects

of

style-of-life

conflicts

in

the household

setting

will

help

in

its

theoretical

elaboration.

Other

conceptions

that

are

of concern

to us

in

this new

research

effort

are

environ-

mental

control,

the

sense of

home,

and

environmental

diversity.

One does

not

have

to

wait

for

research

to establish

new

man-environment

concepts.

Theoretical

analyses

with

respect

to

existing

man-environment

concepts

and other

types

of

conceptualizations

can

lead to

meaningful

insights.

Perhaps

it

would

be more

accurate

to

speak

of

the modification

of

existing concepts

rather than the

development

of

new

ones.

Both are

possibilities

for

man-environment

concept

develop-

550 School Review


12/16

Harold

M.

Proshansky

ment. The literature on

concept

of

self

in

relation

to

behavior

and experience in groups makes it evident that a sense of self

must involve the

internalization

of

significant

aspects

of

physi-

cal

settings

in

the form of structural and substantive

dimen-

sions which

give

meaning

to

the

self.

The

concept

of

place

identity

must assume considerable

importance

in

an

attempt

to relate the behavior and

experi-

ence of the individual to

his

physical

setting.

If

the

socializa-

tion of the

child

brings

with

it

the

internalization of

significant

others,

the normative

attitudes

of the

groups

he

belongs to,

the roles he

has to

play,

and the

unique

experiences

he

has,

then

it

undoubtedly

also

brings

the internalization

of

those

places

that

define

and

structure

these

people,

their

activities,

and his

relationships

with

them.

His

satisfactions,

frustrations,

growth,

and

competence

feelings

must

be as much

rooted

in

his

interactions with

physical

settings

as

with

the individuals

who

care for

him

in

these

settings.

If

individuals

express

their

self-identities

in

the

way

they

organize,

use,

decorate,

and

maintain

given physical

settings,

then the converse must be

true. The nature and

organization

of

physical settings

in

selected institutional contexts that

have defined

the

individual's existence and

development

over time

must be

expressed

in

the formation and

structuring

of

his

self-identity.

Our

attention has been

focused

almost

exclusively

on

man-

environment

concepts

for

describing

the behavior and

experi-

ence of the individual.

Little has been said about

the environ-

ment generally or about the physical environment in particu-

lar. No

single

theoretical task has

been

more

neglected

in

traditional

psychological

theory

and

research.

The environ-

ment conceived of as

discrete

physical

or

social stimuli has

obviated the need to

confront

this

task.

Some

attempts

to

conceptualize

the

environment

as

geographical

and be-

havioral

systems

were made

by

Lewin

and Tolman.18 Later

Chein

presented

a

preliminary

framework for

this

purpose

but

never

developed

his

conceptual

scheme.19

More

recently

Barker

has

given

his

attention to

this

problem

in

his

develop-

ment of

ecological

psychology

but not

in

terms

that are

meaningful

for

environmental

psychology.20

For

Barker,

be-

havior

settings

have

physical, psychological,

and social

proper-

August

1974

551


13/16

Theoretical

Issues

ties that

elicit

appropriate

experiences

and behaviors over

time and space in the people whose existence is defined by

them. The

level

of

analysis

involved is the

aggregate

of

persons

and

not

the

individual;

and the

emphasis

is on the

geographical

or

observer's

setting

rather

than on

the be-

havioral or

psychological

environment.

There is much to be done

in

theoretical

analyses

of en-

vironmental

settings

to

develop appropriate

descriptive

con-

cepts.

There is

a need

to

establish those

physical

dimensions

which

actually foster, shape,

and underlie the

complex

human

activities

which

go

on

in

complex settings:

distance,

shape,

boundedness,

complexity,

and

others.

All

of

these and

their

psychological counterparts

in

the

behavioral

environment

of

the

person

must be of

concern

to the

environmental

psychologist.

The

possible conceptualizations

of

physical

settings

or envi-

ronments are

many.

In

our

work,

behavioral

mapping

showing

the

frequency

of different

types

of activities

in

different locations or areas of the

psychiatric

ward was used

extensively.21

These data are

useful for

analysis

of

empirical

concepts

such as behavior

density

(frequency

of

all

kinds

of

activities

in

a

given

area)

and

behavior

variation

or

diffuse-

ness

(degree

of

variation

in

kinds of activities

going

on).

Other

approaches

involve

psychological

conceptualizations

of

physical settings.

Vielhauer evolved

an

Environmental De-

scription

Scale

which

evaluates

perceptions

of

physical

charac-

teristics of rooms along dimensions such as size, lighting,

physical

organization,

temperature,

and ventilation.22

At a

more

global

level,

Lansing,

Marans,

and

Zehner

concep-

tualized

planned

residential environments

in

terms

of more

complex

dimensions

such as

dwelling

unit

density, accessibility

of recreational

facilities,

percentage

of

homes

with

sidewalks,

and

so on.23

The

task of

conceptualizing

the

physical

settings

of concern

to environmental

psychologists

is formidable.

It would seem

best to be

guided

by

the

following

considerations:

First,

descriptions

of

physical

settings

should

evolve out

of the

nature and

level of the

particular questions being

raised

about

552

School

Review


14/16

Harold

M.

Proshansky

particular

kinds

of

settings.

For

example,

behavior

mapping

as

an empirical method for conceptualizing spatial areas in terms

of the

frequency,

location,

and nature of activities is

less

likely

to have value where

settings,

individuals,

and activities are

inadequately

related,

where

there

are too

many

people

in-

volved

in

too

many

activities

given

the nature of the

settings.

Second,

the

description

and

conceptualization

of

a

physical

setting

are better

served

by

a

scheme

in which

both

geographical-physical concepts

and

behavioral-psychological

concepts

are

employed

and

their

interrelationships

estab-,

lished.

A

major

theoretical and

empirical

task

for

the en-

vironmental

psychologist

is

establishing

the

relationships

be-

tween the

setting

as

is and the

setting

as

experienced.

The

behavior and

experience

of

the

person

are rooted

in

the

nature of

these

relationships. Finally,

similar

man-

environment

questions

can be

raised

about

quite

different

physical

settings.

To ask how the

individual uses

space

in

a

room

or

achieves

privacy

in

it

as

compared

with what

he does

in his entire house or even in his neighborhood immediately

suggests

that the

system

of

constructs

for

conceptualizing

the

physical

setting

will have

to

vary

correspondingly.

Distance

in

these

two contexts

will

vary

in

significance

and

may play

a less

significant

role

in

the room

setting.

Physical

settings

have their

own

properties

which

place

constraints on some behaviors

and

facilitate,

if

not

require,

others.

Typical psychological pro-

cesses such as

perception,

which are involved

in

human

behavior, reflect these differences as well.

Ittelson's

analysis

of

large-scale

perception

reveals the

essen-

tial differences between such

perception

and

the

perception

of

specific objects.24

He

distinguishes

between

environmental

perception

and

object

perception.

The

distinguishing proper-

ties of the

former-the fact that

environments

surround,

are

multimodal,

involve

peripheral

stimulation,

give

off

too

much

information,

involve

action,

and so

on-clearly

have

implica-

tions

for

individual behavior and

experience

in

physical

set-

tings. Viewing

an

object

is different from

viewing

a

room,

and

the latter

in

turn

is different from

viewing

a

city.

As size

of the

setting

and its other

structural dimensions

vary,

so

does the

August

1974

553


15/16

Theoretical

Issues

individual's method

of

perceiving

and

behaving

in it.

These

differences in scale and complexity of physical environments

require

conceptualizations

that

are

correspondingly

different.

I

began

this

paper

by

suggesting

that

environmental

psychology

is

a

new

and inchoate

field. It has much to offer

to

a better

understanding

of

man's

relationships

to his

built

environment.

The extent to

which that

understanding

will be

achieved

will

depend

on

systematic

research and

analysis

rooted

in

appropriate

and

meaningful

theoretical

concepts.

Empirical

research

by

itself

has never

been nor

can

it

ever

be

a

substitute

for clear

conceptual

analysis.

Finally,

the

develop-

ment of

appropriate

concepts

and

ideas

will

in turn

depend

on

the extent

to which researchers

and theorists work

closely

with

practitioners

who

design,

use,

and determine

the

opera-

tion

of

physical settings.

1.

R.

Sommer,

Personal

Space:

The

Behavioral

Basis

of

Design

(En-

glewood

Cliffs,

N.J.:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

1969);

K. H.

Craik,

Environmental

Psychology,

in

New

Directions

in

Psychology,

ed.

T.

Newcomb,

vol.

4

(New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970); H. M.

Proshansky,

W. H. Ittelson,

and L. G.

Rivlin,

Environmental

Psychology:

Man

and

His

Physical Setting

(New

York:

Holt,

Rinehart &

Winston,

1970);

J.

F.

Wohlwill

and

D. H.

Carson,

Environment and the

Social Sciences:

Perspectives

and

Applications (Washington,

D.C.: American

Psychological

Association,

1972).

2.

K.

J.

Girgen,

Social

Perspectives

as

History, mimeographed

(1972).

3.

A. P.

Bates,

Privacy-a

Useful

Concept,

Social Forces

42

(1964):

429-34;

P.

Kelvin,

A

Social-Psychological

Examination of

Privacy,

mimeographed

(1971);

N.

J.

Marshall,

Privacy

and

Environment,

Human

Ecology

1

(1972):

93-110.

4.

Marshall.

5. A. F.

Westin,

Privacy

and Freedom

(New

York: Atheneum

Publishers,

1967).

6.

My

colleagues

and

I

undertook a

preliminary

theoretical

analysis

of

our own to

interrelate

privacy, territoriality,

and

crowding

by

means

of the

concept

of

freedom of

choice. The

reader

is

referred to

this

analysis,

since,

apart

from the notion of

freedom of

choice,

it

reveals

the

connotative

relationships

among

privacy, territoriality,

and

crowding

and

some

of the

basic limitations

in

Westin's

analysis

(H.

M.

Proshansky,

W.

H.

Ittelson,

and

L.

G.

Rivlin,

Freedom of Choice and

Behavior

in

a

Physical Setting,

in

Environmental

Psychology:

Man and His

Physical

Setting,

ed.

Proshansky,

Ittelson,

and Rivlin

[New

York:

Holt,

Rinehart

&

Winston,

1970],

pp.

173-83).

7.

In

considering

the

use of

survey

methods

frequently

employed

to

obtain

user

responses

to

physical

settings,

I

sometimes

wonder whether

attitudes,

needs,

values,

and

feelings

with

respect

to

physical settings

exist

as

enduring

tendencies that

have

consequences.

Too often

in

environmental

554

School

Review


16/16

Harold

M.

Proshansky

research it

is assumed that the

users or

respondents

possess crystallized

and

significant

attitudes,

values,

beliefs,

. .

about the

places

in

which

they

live

and work

(H.

M.

Proshansky,

Methodology

in Environmental

Psychology:

Problems

and

Issues,

Human

Factors

14

[1972]:

431-60;

quote

appears

on

p.

456).

8.

F.

D.

Becker and

C.

Mayo,

Delineating

Personal Distance and

Territoriality,

Environment

and

Behavior

3

(1971):

375-81;

H.

J. DeLong,

Dominance-Territorial

Relations

in

a

Small

Group,

Environment

and

Behavior

2

(1970):

170-91;

H.

Esser

et

al.,

Territoriality

of

Patients on

a

Research

Ward,

in

Recent Advances

in

Biological Psychiatry

7

(1965):

36-44;

R.

Sommer,

The

Ecology

of

Privacy, Library

Quarterly

36

(1966):

234-48.

9.

I.

Altman,

Territorial Behavior

in

Humans:

An

Analysis

of

the

Concept,

in

Spatial

Behavior

of

Older

People,

ed.

L.

Pastalan

and

D. H.

Carson

(Ann

Arbor:

University

of

Michigan-Wayne

State

University

Press,

1970),

pp.

1-24.

10.

DeLong.

11.

L.

Pastalan,

Privacy

as an

Expression

of Human

Territoriality,

mimeographed

(1968).

12.

Ibid,

p.

12.

13. Ibid.

14.

S.

M.

Jourard,

Some

Psychological

Aspects

of

Privacy,

Law and

Constitutional

Problems

31

(1966):

307-18.

15.

Kelvin,

p.

14.

16. Ibid., p. 16.

17.

W.

H.

Ittelson,

L.

G.

Rivlin,

and

H.

M.

Proshansky,

The Use

of

Behavioral

Maps

in

Environmental

Psychology,

in

Environmental

Psychology,

pp.

658-68.

18. K.

Lewin,

Principles

of

Topological

and

Vector

Psychology

(New

York:

McGraw-Hill

Book

Co.,

1936);

Edward

C.

Tolman,

Purposive

Behavior

in

Animals and

Men

(New

York:

Century

Co.,

1932).

19.

I.

Chein,

The Environment as a Determinant of

Behavior, Journal

of

Social

Psychology

39

(1954):

115-27.

20.

R. H.

Barker,

Ecological

Psychology

(Stanford,

Calif.:

Stanford Uni-

versity

Press,

1968).

21. Ittelson et al.

22.

J.

Vielhauer,

The

Development

of a

Semantic

Scale

for the

Description

of

the

Physical

Environment

(Ph.D

diss.,

Louisiana State

University,

1965).

/

23.

J.

Lansing,

R.

Marans,

and R.

Zehner,

Planned Residential

Environ-

ments

(Ann

Arbor:

Survey

Rearch

Center,

Institute for Social

Research,

University

of

Michigan,

1970).

24.

W.

H.

Ittelson,

The

Perception

of

the

Large-Scale

Environment,

Transactions

of

the

New York

Academy

of

Sciences

32

(1970):

807-15.

August

1974 555

issues in env psych

Documents