JoHo kan jouw hulp goed gebruiken! Check hier de diverse bijbanen die aansluiten bij je studie, je competenties verbeteren, je cv versterken en je een bijdrage laten leveren aan een mooiere wereld
Environmental Psychology elective at Leiden University (2020-2021)
Lecture 2: Going Into Town (the urban environment)
Pros and cons of living in an urban environment
+ More employment opportunity
+Cities are exciting, lively and diverse
+More cultural, educational and medical resources
- Crowdedness, information overload.
- High density
-Pollution
-Crime
Crowdedness and density
- Crowding is a personally defined, subjective feeling that too many others are around
- Density: people per square meter. Not identical to the subjective state of crowdedness
- Proximity to others can have even more adverse effects than density because of personal space invasion. Example: having to sit next to people on the train.
- Study about this phenomena: Evans, G.W., & Wener, R.E. (2007). Crowding and personal space invasion on the train: Please don't make me sit in the middle.
- Crowding became interpreted and studied as a specific stressor, involving:
- Antecedents
- Affective reaction
- Behavorial response
Antecedents
- Goal blocking (traffic jam, waiting in line)
- Threat of resource loss (food, shelter)
- Loss of control (unwanted interaction)
Affective reaction:
- Anger, annoyance (predominantly negative)
- Physiological reactions indicating increased arousal and stress
Behavioral response:
- Withdrawal, avoidance
- Filtering out information
- Changing social environment by increased selectivity in social contacts, creating norms
- Changing physical environment by partitioningspace, putting up fences, curtains etc.
How to deal with crowding?
- Residences: e.g. installing screens or walls
Amusement parks: queuing devices
Campings: zoning (grouping of like minded people)
- Prisons: huge differences between one- and more-person cells. Size is relatively unimportant. So, it is better to have one person cells, even if they are smaller
Information overload
Article on information overload in cities: Milgram (1970). The experience of living in cities.
- Decrease time per input
- Ignore low-priority input
- Shift to a more passive approach
- Impede access
Change in social responsibility:
Study: Allow strangers in the home; as a function of city size and gender (DV=% access allowed):
- Civility: less or different in character in cities
- Anonymity: blessing or curse? Anonymity makes people trust eachother less, but there is also less social pressure on people (less gossiping etc)
Article: Moser, G., & Corroyer, D. (2001). Politeness in the urban environment: Is city life still synonymous with civility?:
- Slightly different premise: Civility is an urban phenomenon
- Tacit rules (social norms) governing social behaviors regulate social interaction
- Civility is a form of politeness
- Impersonal, practiced in interaction with unknown others, different from helping, which is based on perception of individual characteristics
- To be found in public spaces of cities
- “Behavior in the city is, in fact, paradoxical: The individual has to cooperate socially to maintain his anonymity.”
Empirical test: holding open door for next visitor:
Two hypotheses:
Politeness is less frequent in large compared to smaller city (confirmed)
Politeness is not sensitive to immediate population density (not confirmed)
- Design: 2x2x2
- Size (Paris vs. Nantes)
- Density (high vs. low)
- Social norm by example (holding door open vs. not)
- Method: observations
- Findings:
- Civility suffers in large cities
- Density lowers civility
- Social norm buffers the negative effect of large cities on civility
Privacy and civility: waiting room observation study:
- Context: in a row of chairs, where do people sit? seat 2 is closest to where the other person sits, seat 8 is the farthest away
- Seat 4 was most popular sitting location. Why?
- It is impolite to sit too far away, but also privacy is important. Implicit norm for civility and privacy
Article: Canter & Larkin (1993). The environmental range of serial rapists:
- Crimes are committed in a way that is environmentally/spatially meaningful
- Two options:
- Criminal acts are done at a specific location away from the criminal’s home area (e.g., city center or regular routes)
- Criminal’s home forms a base area for the criminal acts
- Testing and outcome
- Sample: 45 rapists
- Outcomes: Circle hypothesis: 91% of crimes committed within circle (defined by two most distant crimes) with home as base within Circle.
- Range hypothesis: max. distance to crime from home is strongly correlated with max. distance between crimes (r = .93).
- This confirms Marauder model
Drug dealing study by Bernasco & Jacques (2015):
When dealing, drugs dealers:
- Walk, don’t stand
- Use stash spots to hide drugs
- Interact a lot with police officers patrolling - how come? they don't want to stand out and be in less crowded places
- Are aware of relevant, very small differences in physical features, social conditions, camera angle, time
Kuo & Sullivan (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city. Effects of environment via mental fatigue.:
Premises:
- Life in inner city is taxing, especially for the less privileged:
- Living in poor quality housing (small, noisy, unsafe)
- Low income --> few resources
- Crowded
- This creates, among other things, mental fatigue
- In the study, people were moved out to their homes to different locations. Some to a natural environment, some towards a more urban environment
- Aggression toward partner less in Nature condition
- Aggression toward child less in Nature condition
- Attentional functioning (DSB):
- worse in No Nature condition
- related to aggression
- mediator of Nature – Aggression relation
- Mediation by attentional fatigue:
Natural vs non-natural environment --> attentional fatigue --> aggression
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder:
"Broken windows theory”:Stating (1) that disorder is more likely when descriptive norm is in conflict with injunctive norm and (2) that disorder may spread to other forms of behavior: “cross-norm inhibition”
- Experiment 1: Does graffiti increase littering? Yes, littering went from 33% to 69%
- Experiment 3: Do unreturned shopping carts increase littering? Yes, from 30% to 58%
- Experiment 6: Does littering increase theft? Yes, from 13% to 25%
If a norm is broken in a public place, other social norms are more easily broken also. The effect has long-term consequences also (see: Dur & Vollaard (2015). The Power of a Bad Example: A Field Experiment in Household Garbage Disposal)
- for free to follow other supporters, see more content and use the tools
- for €10,- by becoming a member to see all content
Why create an account?
- Your WorldSupporter account gives you access to all functionalities of the platform
- Once you are logged in, you can:
- Save pages to your favorites
- Give feedback or share contributions
- participate in discussions
- share your own contributions through the 7 WorldSupporter tools
Ga jij binnenkort studeren in het buitenland?
Regel je zorg- en reisverzekering via JoHo!
- 1 of 52
- next ›
Add new contribution