Social and Spatial Density Effects on Spacing Behaviour in Preschool Children

Abstract

STUDIES of social spacing in man and other animals have recently increased in number. Hediger (1964) initially defined two intraspecific spacing measures: personal distance, referring to the distance maintained between individuals of a species, and social distance, referring to the distance from its peers which, if exceeded, an animal apparently begins to feel uncomfortable. These spacing concepts have been extended and applied to other forms of behaviour in animals by many workers (Leyhausen, 1965;Chance, 1967; McBride, 1968a, b, etc.). McBride (1968a, b) examined space available and group size effects on spacing behaviour per se, but other studies have focused on "density"-related behavioural and physiological responses, e.g. effects on territory size and changes in dominance hierarchy, frequency and inteasity of .social (particularly agonistic) encounters, adreno-cortical functioning, and population growth and movement (Snyder, 1961;Theissen, 1961Theissen, , 1964Southwick, 1967; McBride, 1968a, b; Myers (undated) ). Many of these investigators conclude with speculations about human responses to increasing human population size in presently available spaces. Yet empirical evidence on variables affecting human spacing behaviour remains sparce. This is so even though an array of studies incorporating Hediger's (1964) spacing concepts exists, forming a good empirical i")ase for further investigations. For instance, Hall (1962Hall ( , 1965 investigated human "proxemic" behaviour, i.e. behaviour referring to "spatial relationships between individuals and between individuals and surroundings". Later he refined these spatial relationships into four precisely defined social distances (intimate, personal, social and public) and related them to cross-cultural differences in inter-individual spacing (Hall, 1966). Sommer (1959Sommer ( , 1969 and Felipe and Sommer (1966) investigated the effects of "invasions" of personal space on subsequent social interaction. Horowitz et al. (1964) studied comfortable limits of inter-individual approach; these distance limits defined an area around each individual, the "body-buffer" zone. Horowitz (1968) investigated the size, shape and penetrability of the body-buffer zone in psychiatric in-patients; Kinzel (1964) studied its variability in violent and non-violent prisoners. Machotka (1965) described five conspheric spatial zones surrounding the human body.Comparison between existing studies which involve "density" and spacing behaviour in humans are difficult, as there is little agreement on definitions and numbers of variables involved. This is evident in studies of children's spacing behaviour. King's (1966) study of approach distance in pre-school children depends upon undefined "friendly" and "unfriendly" acts. Other studies oi personal space in

Behavioral and Physiological Consequences of Crowding in Humans1

“…Psychological stress (see Lazarus, 1966) takes into account the fact 25 that stress reactions in more complex organisms, including humans, are less dependent upon the direct impact of the stimulus and more contingent upon mediating cues subject to the organism '.s interpretation (Dubos, 1965;Glass and Singer, 1972 Several observational studies with children under different densities have found that they interact significantly less under high densities (Loo, 1972;McGrew, P., 1970;McGrew, W. , 1972;Preisser, 1972). Children play less together and talk less to each other when the amount of space their nursery school or primary school contains is reduced.…”

“…He found that it was not high density which was crucial in affectii^g dis- Several observational studies with children under different densities have found that they interact significantly less under high densities (Loo, 1972;McGrew, P., 1970;McGrew, W. , 1972;Preisser, 1972). Children play less together and talk less to each other when the amount of space their nursery school or primary school contains is reduced.…”

Changes in Children’s Spacing Behaviour with Nursery School Experience

“…The nursery comprised a carpeted, rectangular play room, 6.7x11.0 m, containing standard nursery equipment: painting easels, slide, Wendy House, table toys, book corner, water play, building blocks, etc. [McG rew, 1970]. The floor was demarcated with contrasting carpet tape into a grid of 15 squares approxi mately 2.2 x 2.2 m each.…”

Peer Interaction and Activity Setting in a High-Density Preschool Environment

“…Leo's finding of decreased aggression was in relation to high spatial density, which might have effects different from those of social density. McGrew (11) distinguished between social density-increasing the group size in a constant space-and spatial density--decreasing the amount of space for a constant number of persons. He found that social density had a greater disruptive effect on non aggressive social interaction than did spatial density.…”

“…The relationship of size and density is exremely complex. While there is accumulating evidence of the adverse effects of high density on children's social behavior, such as increased aggression and less social interaction (4,7,10,11,18,19), it has been argued that it might be more strategic to conduct research on how size and density shape program formation rather than on direct child effects because in real life situations "size and density shape the very establishment of the program before children have an opportunity to react to size per se" (6, p. 142). Another consideration is that density data must be interpreted in their cultural context (9,12,15).…”