In this section, we move from the dwelling itself into the streets. We will explore person-environment relations in public places : the neighborhood, the community, and on city streets. Some of the questions to be addressed are : what coast stitutes a satisfying neighborhood? Under what environmental conditions will individuals is public places tend to help or hurt one another what is the nature of social interaction in public places? How does the physical environment influence shopping? We begin with the sources a satisfaction in neighborhoods.
Sources of Neighborhood Satisfaction
Physical and personal factors. Once you are outside, on the streets near your home, are you satisfied with what you see and hear? Does your neighbourhood make you feel proud or ashamed? Do you feel as if you’d like to spend your whole life in such a great place?
The answer depends partly on the physical characteristics of the neighborhood itself. Is it noisy, expensive, downtown, split by major transportation routes, smoggy? Taylor [1982] concludes from his survey of research that physical deterioration and ;lack of nearby green space are strongly related to dissatisfaction with the nighborhood. Widgery [1982] also confirms the comonsese notion that satisfaction with a neighborhood depends in large part on the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood.
Cities reflect the culture and times in which they are embedded [Rapoport, 1985]. Within any singel culture or era, we tend to overlook the ways in which neighborhood forms mirror our values in the same way that fish are said to be the last to discover water. Consider different eras within one culture, for example. Repoport [1985] describe how a city on the U.S East Coast has been remade several times. First it had an “organic” irregular street pattern. This pattern was replaced by a scrict grid system that represented a modem point of view at one time. Now the streets have become curves with many culs-de-sac, not unlike their original layout! Satisfaction with this and many other features of cities that vary with time and culture presumably is a function of congruence between residents’ culture and the era with which they identifity (Gifford, 1984-1985) and the physical form of the community.
Cross-cultural diversity may characterize some features of communities, but other features seem to have a near-universal meaning (Repoport, 1982). For example, religious buildings from the cathedral at Chartres to temples in India to basilicas in Milwaukee to sacred buildings in Papua, New Guinea all use height to express holiness. The idea of reaching toward the heavens with buildings seems to have occurred to most of the world’s designers of religious buildings, reflecting a similar idea that is part of many cultures. Other features of communities also show widespread similarity across cultures. Satisfaction with community presumably is a functionnof whether these near-universal features are present in the buildings an form of our own community.
Cities are sometimes viewed as unrelenting sources of noise, crime, ugliness, and crowding. The overload approach suggest that urban stimmulation is so great that individuals are forced to become apathetic and rude. Stanley Milgram’s (1970) classic artcle on the topic was meant to defend urbanites by showing the had little choice in the face of an avalanche of stimulation. They must select for their attention and care only the most important stimuli, which means ignoring other stimuli that might seem important to outsiders. Overload was seen to “deform” the daily life of urbanites.
This perpective may have improved the image of city dwellers by arguing that they couldn’t help being rude and unhelpful, but city dwellers aren’t always like that anyway, and it made cities look bad as well as city dwellers. On the first issue, it may be true thar city dwellers are less friendly to neighbors and stranger then are rural residents, but they are just as involved with family and relatives (Frank, 1980, Korte, 1980).
On the second issue, the specter of overload in the city is not true for everyone. After an initial period of avtively coping with the admittedly higher levels of stimulation found in the city, most neew residents are able to find a social and physical niche that protects them from undesirable levels of stimulation. Of course, this protection depends in part on your resources, it is often said the New York is a great place to live if you have many. Still, its obvious that millions of urbanies lead satisfying lives that are sheltered from excessive stimulation.
Danil Geller (1980) has invoked the concept of optimal level of stimulation to develop a more balanced view of city life. The large amount of stimulation found in cities may be too much (an overload) for some individuals, such as some new arrivals, but just right for others. He suggest that an adaptation-level approach helps us understand who like cities and who doesn’t. Those who are adapted to quite low levels of stimulation-perhaps a villager-might find the sudden drastic increase in stimulation unpleasant. Similarly, city dwellers used to lost of action may find villages painfully boring. Helson (1964) suggest that moderate discrapancies from our adaptation level are pleasing. In the case of communities, this could mean that a villager would be pleased by a town but not a city, and that city dwellers would rether vacation in a small town than ih a village or out in the wilderness.
An individuvual’s community satisfuction also depends on aother personal factors, such as whether you own or rent and your stage of life (Michelson, 1997). Frances and Abraham Carp’s (1982) a study of the impast of san Franscissco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) on neighborhood satisfaction, discussed in Chapter Three, illustrated the idea that both person and environment factors are important. But what exactly are these person-environment sources os satisfaction?
William Michelson’s (1977) study of Tbronto families who had recently moved reveals that satisfaction with physical aspects of the community is strongly influenced by availability of public transportation and parking facilities, apparance of the neighborhood, and distance to green spaces. However, satisfaction is mediated by other factors, such as whether the resident lives downtown or in the suburbs and whether the residence is an apartment or a house. For example, distance to green space is a greater source of dissatisfaction for downtown residents than it is for suburban residents. Lack of public transportation of bigger source of unhappliness for suburban apartment dwellers that it is for downtown residents.
Michelson reports one source of dissatisfaction that is surprising. Nolse is one of the most dissatisfying features of many communities (Liewllyn, 1981). Because we think of urban areas as noisy, we might except downtown residents to be most obset about noise. However, Michelson found that two or three times as many residents of suburban houses were dissatisfied with noise from the environment as were residents of downtown houses. This suggest that (a) downtown neighborhoods are actually quieter than suburban neighborhood, or (b) downtown residents have adapted to higher noise levels and no longer notice the noise, or (c) suburbannites expect their homes to be even quiter than they are.
This raises the question of adaptation to community noise. Can we get used to noise, so that it doesn’t bother us anymore? Neil Weinstein [1982], after reviwing the research in this area, concluedes that the evidence does not support the idea that people can get used to anything. In a study of this own, the same residents were interviwed 4 months until 6 months after a major new highway opened in their community. The new highway raised sound levels 16 to 20 decibels above that in similar neighborhood with no highway. The residents annoyance with the increased sound did not decrease in the 12 months interval between surveys. Weinstein reports that residents became more pessimistic about their abillity to adapt. This is one sample of individuals who do not believe that you can get used to anything!
Nevertheless, some inddividuals may be able is adapt to noise. Mehrabian (1977) proposes that some of use are capable of screening out unwanted stimulation. Another mediating variable may be anxiety level. A study of over 100 individuals responses to traffic noise found that low-anxiety respondents appeared able to adapt to the noise, but high-anxiety respondents did not (Jonah, Bradley & Dawson, 1981).
In many neighborhoods, another source old is satisfaction is noise from aircraft. Near a busy Southem California airport where air traffic alone created an average 65 decibel of sound all day, 84 percent of recidents said aircraft noise was a problem (Jue, Shumaker,& Evans, 1984). Once again annoyance was mediated by a personal factories idents with low perceived control over the noise were more annoyed than residents who believed they could have some control over it.
Individuals may, however, adapt to other community stressors, such as air pollution. Gary Evans and his co-workers found that long time Los Angeles residents were just as capable of perceiving smog as newer residents, but they were significantly less likely to actually report a given day as smoggy (Evans, Jacobs, & Frager, 1982b). Is seems they could see smog, but a lower levels they no longer realized that what they saw was indeed smog. Presumably then, long term residents satisfaction with their community would not be adversel, affected by low levels of smog it may, however, adversely affect their social behavior and their health, as we shall see.
Among other features of the environment that influence residential satisfaction, one of the most important is the visual quality of the immediately surrounding area the streets of the neighborhood. Jack Nasar (1983) showed sixty residential scenes to design proffesionals and to adult laypersons. These groups preferred scenes that showed well kept yards, ornate rather than plain buildings, scenes depicting single us buildings (such as all residences as opposed to residential commercial mixtures), and scenes that appeared open. (See Fig. 9-6) These characteristicsare typical of more expensive housing, which we would expect to be satisfying to many individuals. How ever, the value of research like Nasar’s is that we begin to learn which specific aspects of expensive housing are preferred. Certainly houses have been constructed that are very expensive yet do not satisfy their residents, mere expensiveness does not guarantee satisfaction.
This is illustrated by another study by the same researcher, indicating that not everyone prefers housing with these expensive qualities. Nasar (1981) found that eldery observers also preferred residential scenes that were apoen and well kept, but they did not prefer scenes with single use buildings over scenes repicting mixed building types, and some of them preferred plan building to ornate ones in addition, the older judges preferred more uniform scenes over more diverse ones, more organized scenes over more disorganized ones, and scenes with little mystery over others with more mystery.
Social Factors. What about the social environment of a community? Doesn’t our satisfaction with a neighborhood depend on the quality of its social life? Surprisingly, social networks may be important sources of satisfaction only in a few communities. Marc Fried, who coauthored a classic study indicating the crucial role of social ties for residential satisfaction (Fried & Gleicher, 1961), now feels that most residential satisfaction is largely due to the physical quality of the neighborhood (Fried, 1982). Interviews of 2,500 individuals in over forty municipalities suggested that social ties are an important source of neighborhood satisfaction only to those who strongly value social ties. The implication is that many of us simply no longer value the neighborhood as a source of friends we look to work, school, and other nonneighborhood places for our social needs. Another study (Handal, Barling, & Morrissy, 1981) directly compared physical and social aspects predicted resident satisfaction better than the social aspects did.
Nevertheless, there are still some groups who see the neighborhood as crucial to residential and life satisfaction. Rivlin (1982) describes, for example, a religious group that explicitly works toward building close physical ties (by buying or renting in one neighborhood) to facilitate close social ties. This is a pattern many ethnic groups follow, especially among members who remain more oriented to the language and customs of the old country than to the dominant culture. But as Loo and Mar (1982) show, many ethnic group members begin to seek housing outside the trditional ethnic enclave as soon as they have enough money and feel comfortable in the dominant culture. This seems to reinforce fried’s position that social ties are less important for most residents than the physical qualities of the community.
Freedom from Crime. Fear of crime is another important factor in neighborhood satisfaction. It isn’t easy to feel good about a community if every time you go outside, you half expect to get mugged or raped. It is interesting that fear of crime does not heavily depend on the actual crime rate. It may be inflated by flashy media portrayals. In a study of Hongkong and Toronto, fear of crime was more closely associated with population density than with actual crime rates (Gifford & Peacock,1979). This is an unresolved issue, however, because others have concluded that density is more associated with crime than it is with our fear of crime (Taylor, 1982).
Oscar Newman’s (1980) theory of defensible space, discussed in Chapter Six, argues that certain arrangements of streets and other public territories create settings where space is easily given surveillance and clearly defined as to ownership. Whether such designs really lower crimes is not proved (many other factors may play a role), but the designs do seem to make residents feel safer. For example, lighting designed to facilitate surveillance of public areas reduced the fears of individuals even though crime may not have been reduced (Tien, O’Donnell, Barnett, & Mirchandani, 1979).
Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Urban Settings
What environmental conditions in the streets of our communities influence individuals to help hurt others? Temperature, noise, crowding, air pollution have all been linked to altruism and aggression.
Vandalism. Beginning with the latter, vandalism is a widespread destructive behavior. Not every alteration of public territory is vandalism of course. Robert Sommer (1972) distinguishes between vandalism and people’s art. Part of the distinction involves motives the artist’s goal is to beautify an ugly environment. Vandals are destructive or egocentric, instead of painting a moral that reflects a social concern, they break off a young tree or scrawl their own name on a subway wall. In contrast, public artists usually seek anonymity yet creatively enhance a blake place.
The vandal’s motive may often be revenge. An equity theory model views the vandal as a person who feels unfairly dealt with (Baron & Fisher, 1984). Vandalism may be particularly likely when this perceived unfairness is combined with a perceived lack of control, a feeling that the injustice cannot be rectified through normal channels, although very low perceived control may lead vandals to become passive. Whether or not potential vandals have a role model someone whole engages in vandalism may also be important (Baron, 1984).
Weather. Perhaps the best known of these variables is temperature. A popular idea is that high temperatures or, more precisly, heat discomfort (Harries & Stadler, 1983) causes riots and other social aggression. Police have subscribed to this notion for a long time ( Bell &Greene, 1982), but public awareness of the hypothesis was height used by a report from the U.S Riot Commission (1968). The Commission’s figures indicated that all 1967 riots except one began when the temperature was at least 27 C (80F). The commision did not intend this a proof that heat causes aggression. However, as sometimes happens when informal studies confirm an intuitively attractive idea, many readers accepted the data as proof that high temperatures cause riots. What is the empirical evidence?
Baron & Ransberger (1978) studied riot and temperature records over a 4 year period and cloncluded that riots did increase with temperature to about 28 C (83F). However, at higher temperatures, they seemed to decrease. Baron and Ransberger hypothesized that over this peak, the temperature may be too high to promote riots.
The following year, Carlsmith and Anderson (1979) reexamined the temperature and riot records and pointed out that riots decreased on days over the peak temperature mainly because there simply weren’t that many days over the peak! They suggested that when this base-rate problem was corrected for, antisocial behavior does, after all, rise steadily with temperature. (See Fig. 9-7)
Other field studies (Anderson & Anderson, 1984, Cotton, 1982) also show that, within the normal range of temperature (up to about 35 C or 95 F), the hotter it is the more aggressive actsoccur. Field research thus supports the linear hypothesis (more heat equals more aggression) rather than the curvilinear hypothesis (aggression peaks at moderately hot temperatures and declines in very hot temperatures).
However, Barron and Ransberger’s basic contention. That antisocial behavior declines at very high temperatures. Almost certainly is true at sufficiently high temperatures. My own experience with 45 C (133 F) temperatures is that no one any longer wishes even to move, let alone run amok in a riot. However, the temperature at which aggression begins to decline because potential aggressors are too hot to hit is so high that for all practical purposes, aggression does increase with temperature.
On the positive side of social behavior, Cunningham (1979) asked individuals to help him with a questionnaire under different climatic conditions. He found that temperature affected how much subjects were willing to help, but the effect was not the same in the summer, they helped more on cooler days, but in winter they helped more on warm days. It seems we help more when the weather is “nice” (warm winter days and cool summer days). Assuming taht most of us think of sunshine as pleasant, Cunningham’s work supports the following nice weather hypothesis : in both summer and winter, we are more willing to help when it sunny.
These result appear tidy until we examine a study by Frank Schneider and his colleagues. The carefully studied four different helping behaviors, both outdoors and indoors, and found that temperature made no difference (Schneider, Lesko, & Garrett, 1980). Schneider is continuing his research, trying to solve the mystery of these conflicting result.
Noise. Does loud noise reduce helping or ioncrease aggression? Again, if noise is loud enough, many of us try to escape it, rather than help someone in need. Loud noise may reduce helping because in attempting to escape, our attention is narrowed. We walk faster and gaze straight ahead more (Korte & Grant, 1980). Of course, another factor is the seriousness of the other person’s predicament. If someone’s life is in danger, we will probably risk noise loud enough to hurt our ears in order to render assistance. But if, as in some studies, the other person’s only problem is a dropped book, we may not help. For example, page (1977) found that construction noise (92 decibels as opposed to 72 decibels away from giving a quarter to a person who asked for one. Panhandlers are advised to avoid noisy corners.
The “seriousness” factor was supported in a study by Mathews and Canon (1975), who observed how many passersby helped a person who dropped an armload of books. They arranged for a nearby lawn mower with no muffler to be running during the incident (87 decibels) or not (about 50 decibels). In addition, the person who dropped the books either was wearing a cast or not. Without a cast, the book dropper was helped by 20 percent of passersby under low noise and 10 percent of them under high noise. A much larger different occurred when a cast was worn. Under low noise 80 percent helped, but only 15 percent under high noise.
Schneider, Lesko, and Garrett (1980) also included a needy case in their study someone using crutches but found no temperature differences, over 95 percent of passersby helped in hot, cold, and comfortable temperatures. Apparently, then, there is a big difference between helping in extreme temperatures and helping in noisy conditions. Why should this be?
One possibility is that we can usually anticipate and dress for cold or hot temperatures, thereby reducing the adverse effects of temperature. But when we encounter noise in public places we cannot counter the annoyance easily, except by leaving. When the noise is localized (as with a lawn mower), we realize that a little fast walking, which incidentally carries us past the person who needs help, will carry us beyond the awful din.
Noise in the streets may even affect how we think about others. Siegel and Steele (1980) asked their subjects to form impressions of others under low and high noise conditions. In the noiser conditions, these interpersonal judgments were more extreme. It seems that noise, perhaps because it acts as a general arousal agent, influense us to reach stronger conclutions about others than we might make under normal conditions.
Air pollution. Following several earlier studies suggesting that bad odors negatively affect mood and attraction to others, James Rotton searched for links between air pollution and social pathology in a community setting. Rotton and Frey’s (1985 a,b) discovered that higher levels of photochemical oxidants in the air were correlated with more domestic disputes and more instances of psychiatric disturbance. Correlation does not imply causation, but Rotton (1983) found that students exposed to a bad smelling pollutant judged peem (shown in photographs) lower on a scale of well being.
Of course, the intermediate stages of the phenomenon remain to be discovered. What does smog do to us that, in turn, influences some individuals to engage in antisocial behavior? If Rotton and Frey’s work is confirmed by subsequent research, the implications are very important for two reasons. First, we may expect that high temperatures and loud noise harm social relations, but we don’t usually think of air pollution as an antisocial agent. Smog may be a hidden cause of aggression. Second, those committed to fighting smog could reasonably argue that it erodes more than paint, vegetation, and Ph balance of lakes. It erodes human relitions.
Number of people. Finally, the number of by standers is related to helping. This idea was strengthened by the many studies stimulated by a 1964 episode in which a young women, Kitty Genovese, was killed on aNew York strett whill over thirty neighbors watched without helping her (Latane & Darley, 1970). Subsequent research has found that, under most conditions, the more individuals who witness someone having a problem, the smaller the odds that any one of them will help.
In one field study, the experimenter appeared to lose her contact lens. Helping behavior was defined as the length of time that the subject helped her look for it. When the shopping mal were study occurred was moderately full, subjects helped less than when it was moderatly empty (Cohen & Spacapan, 1978). In another field study (Kamman, Thomson, & Irwin, 1979), density in the immediate vicinity of the person needing help was more closely related to helping (high desity was associated with less helpfullnes) than was density at the communitywide level.
Urbanites do, of course, help those in need under some conditions. Once again, mediating variables such as a heavy workload (Cohen & Spacapan, 1978), where we are raised, and cognitive complexity (Weiner, 1976) play an important and sometimes counterintuitive role. For example, in Weiner’s study, those who were raised in the country. Thus high immediate densities may cause unhelpful behavior, but who the potential helper is and the circumstances other than high density surrounding the event also affect helping behavior.
People As Part of the Urban Environment
When we see a film in which the camera wanders through a city with not ane person to be seen, we feel something is terribly wrong. The presence of other people as we walk through the streets is a necessary component of normal reality. Yet, at least in towns and cities, we usually do not know most of the individuals we deal with. Although it may sound inhuman, people in the background of the urban panorama may be considered part of the environment. How do we interact with this part of the environment?
For the most part, event though we would fell very strange if we were the only ones on the street, we try to avoid contact with most individuals in public. For example, commuters are less willing to make eye contact with a stranger in the city than they are with the same stranger in the suburbs (McCauley, Coleman, & De Fusco, 1978).
Lyn Lofland (1973) says that urbanites operate according to a mini max principles minimize involvement with others, maximize social order. A good example of this principle is provided by research on pedestrian behavior (Wolf, 1973). Films of urban pedestrian were analyzed, and wolff found they consistently followed certain rules. As predicted by Lofland, these rules promoted non contact and cooperation. When pedestrians are headed on a comsion course with one another, one of them will move aside when the distance between them is about 2,1 m (7 feet) when the sidewalk density is low, and at about 1,5 m (5 feet) when the sidewalk density is high. Wolff found half a dozen other common patterns that pedestrians use as they make their way along a sidewalk full off strangers, including the “ step and slide” pattern, the “head over the shoulder” pattern, and the “spread effect”.
Sometimes strangers become familiar. In an interesting study, Stanly Milgran (1977) describes how some members of the anonymous mass confronting us become known quantities, even though we never talk to them. Do you see the same bag lady or jogger or oddly dressed person frequently? Even in a large city, certain individuals, both normal and odd, regularly cross our paths. Miligram calls such individuals our familiar strangers.
In one study, his students photographed groups of commuters waiting for the subway or bus. The photographs were then showed to some of the commuters in the picture, who were asked about the other individuals in the picture. About 90 percent of them recognized at least one person, the average person pointed out four others that they recognized but had never spoken to. Many commuters said they often think about these familiar strangers, noticing when they get a new coat or trying to figure out what kind of life they lead. One of Milgram’s respondents said she once helped a women who had collapsed on the street. Why? The women had been one. Of the familiar strangers for years. (See Fig. 9-8)
Sometimes the meanness and anonymity of city streets is overemphasized. There is crime and fear of crime, but Wolff’s and Milgram’s studies show that we definitely take each other into account, sometimes in a positive or helpful way.
The Environmental Psychology of Shopping
Shopping is an essential human activity. It has always had social and recreational aspects as well as the utlitarian function of obtaining the basic necessities of life. Many forces shape our shopping habits, among these are physical setting influences such as location of the store, decor, lighting, weather, sounds,crowding, smells, and displays.
Many unresearched or poorly researched cliams about shopping environments have been made, but recently more and better studies are being done. Retailers have become conscious of environmental psychology (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). The most researched variable has been store location.
Location. an old adage in the retail trade is that the tree most important keys to retail success are location, location, and location. Research tends to substantiate this claim, although of course location isn't quite the entire story. when other factors are equal, shoppers choose the closest store that stocks what they want to buy. Also, in general, shoppers will select the largest store. These two physical variables, size and location, explain much variance in consumer choice of stores (Hawkins, Best & Coney, 1983).
Another key variable in this gravitation model is the attractiveness of the product. For especially attractive products (usually the more expensive ones), the gravitational effect due to size and location is weakened and shoppers will travel father. For example, in one study of outshopping (the practice of leaving our community to buy goods) researchers found that 34 percent of furniture and 33 percent of cars were purchased away from a small city, but only 4 percent of food and groceries were (Williams, 1981).
Layout. Large stores may draw more shoppers, but not every shoppers is happy with the usually impersonal environment in these retail settings. Robert sommer and his colleagues compared the social and physical qualities of supermarkets with those of farmer’s markets. In farmer’s markets shopper more often arrive in groups and spend more time interacting with the sellers and with other shoppers (Sommer, Herrick, & Sommer, 1981).
The researchers observed that the spatial layout of supermarkets (block shape, aisle orientation, linear checkout arrangements is a key factor in their sacrifice of friendliness in favor of traffict efficiency.
The length of aisles may affect buying behavior. One study found that when aisles were sorther, shappers often just looked down the aisle oather than walked down it (May, 1989). Long aisles cannot be so easily surveyed, so shoppers walk down them and often fall victim to the impulse to buy an aitem they are attracted to but did not intend to buy before entering the store.
As more of us register our dissatisfaction with setting that encourage alienation, shopping environment design will become more sensitive to the social needs of shoppers.
Display. Purchasing is affected by how goods are displayed. Most research has been done in grocery stores. Shelf height, end aisle placement, and location within the store all may affect normal buying as well as impulse buying (Cohen, 1981). For example, items placed on the end of an aisle will sometimes stimulate sales of that item. However, because shoppers searching for that product no longer need to travel down those long aisles where the item normally is located, overall stores sales may suffer. If the shopper does make the journey down the aisle, the heigh of an item affect its sales. One survey report that sales of the same jars of applesuce increased fivefold when they were moved from waist level to eye level (Ledd & German, 1973). Basicslik e dairy products are usually placed at the back of the store so the shopper is drawn past nonessentials often occur. Another key layout variable is store cleanliness, clean stores attract more customers (Patricios, 1979).
Density. Crowding in the shopping environment is another physical setting influence on consumer behavior. Objective density affects the shoppers perceptions and cognitions about the store (Harrell, Hutt, & Anderson, 1980). Feelings of crowding often ensue, which lead to adaptive strategies such as leaving the store earlier than planned. The stopper’s attitudes toward the store may then take a negative turn.
In Sum. Neighborhood satisfaction is related to such physical factors as the availability of nearby green space, general upkeep, and noise. Yet these factors interact to some extent with personal characteristics (screening tendency, perception of control, and resindence type). Cities are stimulating, but their impact does not constitute an overload for everyone. We seem to adapt to some stressors (air pollution) more than others (Noise). Neighborhood social ties may be less important than they used to be, except for a few determined groups. Vandalism and street art are different in motive and expression. Vandals destroy settings out of a sense of revenge, artists enhance settings while expressing social concerns. Crime and fear of crime are important neighborhood problems that may be eased in part through defensible space design principles.
Climate is an especially complex variable, but aggression probably does increase with air pollution and with temperature. Yet sunshine combined with moderate temperatures seems to increase helping. Noise in the community reduces helping unless the victim’s need is serious.
Interaction among strangers on the street generally follows a mini-max principle. Frequent exposure to the same strangers, however leads to a kind of distant affection. Environmental factors in shopping include store location and layout, the display of goods, and shopper density. Research in the retail environment has been slow to begin, but has a bright future.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar