Regulation of interaction through architecture, travel, and telecommunication: A distance-equilibrium approach to environmental planning

The present paper applies the distance equilibrium model in analysis of environmental planning in the areas of architecture, travel, and telecommunication. Travel is viewed as essential for therestoration of face-to-face contact lost through decentralized (sociofugal) architecture. Telecommunication is seen as a substitute for travel. While telecommunication cannot restore face-to-face interaction in its entirety, it can through compensation along available modalities (i.e., proxemic, kinesic, paralinguistic, and/or linguistic) allow functionally equivalent interaction distances. Finally, we define crowding across multiple modalities and multiple dyad terms. Contrary to convention, we argue that one can be crowded by Picturephone®, telephone, or letter as well as by face-to-face interaction, and is by one other person as well as by many.

[1]  D. C. Lundgren,et al.  Eye-Contact, Distance, and Affiliation: The Role of Observer Bias , 1973 .

[2]  C A Kiesler,et al.  Visual behavior and face-to-face distance during interaction. , 1969, Sociometry.

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

[4]  R. Exline,et al.  VISUAL BEHAVIOR IN A DYAD AS AFFECTED BY INTERVIEW CONTENT AND SEX OF RESPONDENT. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Visual interaction and distance. , 1973, British journal of psychology.

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

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

[8]  K. Kaplan,et al.  Proxemic effects on cooperation, attitude, and approach-avoidance in a Prisoner's Dilemma game , 1973 .

[9]  H. Gans.  Planning and Social Life: Friendship and Neighbor Relations in Suburban Communities , 1961 .

[10]  K. Kaplan,et al.  Structure and process in interpersonal “distancing” , 1977 .

[11]  I. Altman,et al.  Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships , 1973 .

[12]  G Breed,et al.  The effect of intimacy: reciprocity or retreat? , 1972, The British journal of social and clinical psychology.

[13]  M. Patterson,et al.  Interpersonal distance and impression formation. , 1970, Journal of personality.

[14]  M. Argyle,et al.  EYE-CONTACT, DISTANCE AND AFFILIATION. , 1965, Sociometry.

[15]  O. Watson,et al.  Quantitative Research in Proxemic Behavior1 , 1966 .

[16]  S. Jourard,et al.  Experimenter-subject "distance" and self-disclosure. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  Glenn E. Davis,et al.  Spatial and Social Aspects of Crowding Perception , 1976 .

[18]  L. Festinger,et al.  Social pressures in informal groups , 1950 .

[19]  J. R. Aiello.  A test of equilibrium theory: Visual interaction in relation to orientation, distance and sex of interactants , 1972 .

[20]  P. Cozby.  Self-disclosure: a literature review. , 1973, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  H. Osmond,et al.  Function as the Basis of Psychiatric Ward Design , 1957 .

[22]  Edward T. Hall,et al.  A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior1 , 1963 .

[23]  M. Patterson.  Compensation in Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors: A Review , 1973 .