Subjective experience of social/spatial density in experimental and natural settings

Abstract

Disproportionate ratio of space to persons and persons in space, popularly known as density, as mediators of crowding experience, which is suggested to be an aversive one, were investigated in an informal experimental setting and a formal natural setting. In the experimental setting, density was manipulated by assigning constant number of persons to rooms of varying sizes (spatial density), and by allocating constant space to groups of differing sizes (social density) In total 12 groups of three persons (male and female) and two groups of six (male and female) persons formed the total subjects used in the experimental study. By manipulating social interaction with a task required discussion of choice dilemma problems, subjects' subjective feelings in the spatial densities of 9, 18, 43 and 80 sq ft space per person and in the social density of 3 and 6 persons with 18 sq ft space per person resulted in a significant difference in evaluation of same sex and other sex eagerness to participate in the discussion, that is, males were evaluated less eager than females both in spatial and social densities, but, it was found out that this difference was negligible at the spatial density of 43 sq ft space per person compared with densities of 9, 18 or 80 sq ft space per person. Although the taskrequired taking chances, the spatial density conditions did not result in a significant variance in the decisions made.In the natural setting study, 19 groups of 8 to 51 persons in classrooms allocating 13 to 75 sq ft space per person formed the subjects of this study, in which it was established that: the spatial and social densityexperiences were different, and also that the range of acquaintanceship is determined by social density rather than by spatial density; finally that the spatial inadequacy is an unpleasant experience. It was proposed that in spatial and social density studies the investigations best be aimed at finding what density is right for what setting rather than studying the experience of individuals in a crowded and uncrowded setting.