The proximity of others: A critique of crowding research and integration with the Social Sciences

Dissatisfaction with density as a concept and as an operational definition appears to have resulted in neglect of the close presence of others as a defining initial condition for crowding. The problems with density are analyzed and an alternative conceptualization, the prox imity of others, is suggested. The proximity model based on the summed closeness to each other person present provides a per spective that (a) replaces density, (b) provides a basis for predicting some unexplained relationships in crowding, (c) emphasizes the similarity of crowding to other psychological and social science issues, and (d) suggests several neglected issues in crowding research.

[1]  C. Hutt,et al.  Differential Effects of Group Density on Social Behaviour , 1966, Nature.

[2]  Harriett von Krais Porter,et al.  Studies in the Psychology of Stuttering, XIV: Stuttering Phenomena in Relation to Size and Personnel of Audience1This study was directed by Wendell Johnson at the University of Iowa. , 1939 .

[3]  James P. Batchelor,et al.  Spatial Arrangements in Freely Formed Groups 1 , 1972 .

[4]  J. Fisher,et al.  Situation-specific variables as determinants of perceived environmental aesthetic quality and perceived crowdedness , 1974 .

[5]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Effects of Group Size and Proximity Under Cooperative and Competitive Conditions , 1976 .

[6]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Perception of groups, size of opposition, and social influence. , 1977 .

[7]  Harold B. Gerard,et al.  The Anchorage of Opinions in Face-to-Face Groups , 1954 .

[8]  Fred O. Dukes,et al.  Deindividuation as a function of density and group membership. , 1976 .

[9]  S. Valins,et al.  The Role of Group Phenomena in the Experience of Crowding , 1975 .

[10]  S. Asch.  Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. , 1956 .

[11]  "Hey Mister, Do You Have Any Change?": Two Real World Studies of Proxemic Effects on Compliance with a Mundane Request , 1974 .

[12]  N. B. Cottrell,et al.  Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audicence and the mere presence of others. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  George Thomas,et al.  Reactions to physical closeness. , 1977 .

[14]  E. S. Knowles,et al.  Boundaries around group interaction: the effect of group size and member status on boundary permeability. , 1973, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  M. Giesen,et al.  Discussion, Distance and Sex: Changes in Impressions and Attraction During Small Group Interaction , 1976 .

[16]  E. Ebbesen,et al.  Effects of a violation of personal space on escape and helping responses , 1975 .

[17]  H. Gerard,et al.  Conformity and group size. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  Stuart Valins,et al.  Residential Group Size, Social Interaction, and Crowding , 1973 .

[19]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Density does affect task performance. , 1976 .

[20]  F. N. Willis.  Initial speaking distance as a function of the speakers’ relationship , 1966 .

[21]  George Kingsley Zipf,et al.  Human behavior and the principle of least effort , 1949 .

[22]  P. Cozby.  Effects of density, activity, and personality on environmental preferences☆ , 1973 .

[23]  S Milgram,et al.  Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority , 1965 .

[24]  Bibb Latané,et al.  Cross-modality matches suggest anticipated stage fright a multiplicative power function of audience size and status , 1976 .

[25]  Y. Epstein,et al.  Effects of Acute Experimental Crowding1 , 1975 .

[26]  John Q. Stewart,et al.  Demographic Gravitation: Evidence and Applications , 1948 .

[27]  Walter R. Gove,et al.  Population density and pathology: what are the relations for man? , 1972 .

[28]  E. S. Knowles,et al.  Groups and crowds as social entities: Effects of activity, size, and member similarity on nonmembers. , 1976 .

[29]  Clark McPhail,et al.  THE ASSEMBLING PROCESS: A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION* , 1973 .

[30]  P. Bell,et al.  Physical Distance and Helping: Some Unexpected Benefits of “Crowding In” on Others1 , 1976 .

[31]  Albert Mehrabian,et al.  Encoding of attitude by a seated communicator via posture and position cues. , 1969 .

[32]  Coleman R. Griffith,et al.  A comment upon the psychology of the audience. , 2022 .

[33]  J. Q. Stewart.  AN INVERSE DISTANCE VARIATION FOR CERTAIN SOCIAL INFLUENCES. , 1941, Science.

[34]  A. Schiffenbauer,et al.  Physical distance and attraction: An intensification effect , 1976 .

[35]  D. Stokols.  On the distinction between density and crowding: some implications for future research. , 1972, Psychological review.

[36]  J. Desor,et al.  Toward a Psychological Theory of Crowding. , 1972 .

[37]  R. D. Middlemist,et al.  Personal space invasions in the lavatory: suggestive evidence for arousal , 1976 .

[38]  S. Albert,et al.  Physical distance and persuasion. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[39]  S. Lindskold,et al.  Territorial Boundaries of Interacting Groups and Passive Audiences , 1976 .

[40]  R. Sommer.  Tight spaces; hard architecture and how to humanize it. , 1974 .

[41]  S. Milgram,et al.  Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. , 1969 .

[42]  Rainer Martens,et al.  Evaluation potential as a determinant of coaction effects , 1972 .

[43]  L. Nordholm.  Effects of Group Size and Stimulus Ambiguity on Conformity , 1975 .

[44]  G. McBride,et al.  Social proximity effects on galvanic skin responses in adult humans. , 1965, The Journal of psychology.