- Email: [email protected]
The role of plausibility in influencing environmental attributions
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
20, 86-96 (1984)
The Role of Plausibility in Influencing Environmental Attributions STEPHEN WORCHEL Texas A&M
University
AND ELIZABETH
HUNTER
University
BROWN
of Virginia
Received February 7, 1983 The aim of the study was to examine how plausibility influences attributions about the cause of perceived arousal. Subjects watched one of three arousing (humorous, sexual, aggressive) or a nonarousing televised program under conditions of appropriate or inappropriate interpersonal spacing. The subjects then completed a questionnaire indicating how crowded they felt and rating the movie on a number of dimensions. The results indicated that under close interpersonal distances, subjects felt less crowded while watching the arousing movies than while viewing the nonarousing movie. There were no differences in the experience of crowding between the movie conditions under the far interpersonal distance conditions. In addition, subjects rated the arousing movies as more arousing under close as opposed to far interpersonal distance conditions. Further, the humorous movie was viewed as more funny, and the violent movie was rated more violent under the close as opposed to the far conditions. Finally, there was a tendency to enjoy the arousing movies more under the close conditions, while the reverse effect was found for the nonarousing movie. It was argued that the arousing movies reduced the experience of crowding under close interpersonal conditions because subjects attributed their arousal to the movies rather than to the spatial restrictions. It was further suggested that the results showed that individuals will attribute their arousal to salient stimuli in their environment that could plausibly be sources of arousal. The results not only offer support for an attribution model of crowding, but they also show that depending on the individual’s attribution, spatial conditions that can give rise to crowding may increase enjoyment of events in the environment.
This research was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Research Grant (S-23854) awarded to the first author. Requests for reprints should be sent to Stephen Worchel, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
OO22-1031/84 $3.00 Copyright All rights
Q 1984 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
86
PLAUSIBILITY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
87
Prior to the 1970s the concepts of crowding and density were used as synonyms. While this wedding of words was linguistically convenient, it proved empirically troublesome. A number of investigators (Freedman, 1975; Stokols, Rail, Pinner, & Schopler, 1973) found that high density not only failed to produce predicted negative behavioral effects, but it did not always create the negative emotional overtones associated with crowding. These disconcerting results led Stokols (1972) and others (Lawrence, 1974; Altman, 1975) to separate density and crowding and give each concept its own identity. Crowding was defined as a negative psychological state or feeling, while density was a simple physical measure of the amount of space available to an individual. The liberation of crowding from density invited investigators to explicate crowding. Research demonstrated that many factors including loss of control (Baum & Valins, 1977; Rodin & Baum, 1978), lack of privacy (Altman & Chemers, 1980), cognitive overload (Stokols, 1978), and overmanning (Wicker, 1979) can result in the experience of crowding. One of the interesting points in common with these approaches is that their focus is not exclusively on spatial variables. Rather, they implicate a wide variety of psychological and social factors as the basis for crowding. Following a similar approach, a number of investigators (Patterson, 1976; Worchel & Teddlie, 1976) suggested that crowding often results from a cognitive process associated with emotions. They argued that crowding occurs when the individual becomes aroused and attributes this arousal to spatial restrictions. In other words, crowding is a label for perceived arousal. Worchel(l978) suggested that the source of arousal is violation of personal space. More recently, Gochman and Keating (1980) found that arousal not necessarily associated with spatial conditions can lead to increased feelings of crowding; subjects who were frustrated in a high-density situation reported feeling more crowded than subjects who were not frustrated in the same situation. In essence, the attribution model suggests that even when there exist sufficient spatial conditions for crowding, the attributions individuals make about their state of arousal will determine whether or not they actually feel crowded. There has been some support for the attribution explanation. Worchel and Teddlie (1976) placed groups of subjects in either large or small rooms in which their personal space was either violated or not. In some conditions, pictures were arranged on the walls to distract subjects from paying attention to other people in their environment. The results indicated that crowding was more closely related to interpersonal space than to density, and that the pictures reduced the amount of crowding. It was argued that by reducing the salience of other people, subjects would be less likely to attribute physical closeness as the cause of their arousal. In a follow-up study, Worchel and Yohai (1979) placed subjects in conditions where their personal space was either violated or not violated. In some
88
WORCHEL
AND
BROWN
cases subjects were told that an inaudible noise was being played in the room. Some subjects were led to believe that the noise would arouse them, and others were told that the noise would relax them. It was argued that the arousing noise explanation in the violated personal space condition would reduce crowding; subjects in this condition should attribute their arousal to the noise rather than to the spatial violations. The results supported the predictions. As can be seen, the attribution model focuses on the process through which crowding is experienced rather than on any specific environmental conditions related to crowding. In some cases, this focus makes it difficult to develop a priori predictions about when crowding will result in a specific environment. For example, without examining issues such as stimulus salience or focus of attention, one cannot predict with certainty when crowding rather than some other psychological state will be experienced in a given setting. On the other hand, not being tied to a specific environmental condition greatly enhances the range of situations in which the attribution model can be used to explain behavior. For example, the model anticipates that extra-environmental conditions that arouse individuals can increase their perceptions of crowding. In such a case, the arousal created by the environment and that created by the extra-environmental conditions can be attributed (or misattributed) as crowding. Indeed, Gochman and Keating (1980) found that frustration in high-density environments increased crowding. In addition, the model can serve as the basis for predicting that the same environmental conditions that can result in the unpleasant experience of crowding can also be experienced and reacted to as a positive condition. The model argues that diametrically opposed feelings can result because the psychological experience is the result of the attribution rather than the specific environmental conditions. Schachter and Singer (1962) demonstrated that similar arousal states could be experienced as anger or euphoria depending on the label given to that arousal. Similarly, aroused individuals may experience crowding if they attribute their arousal as resulting from others being too close. Theoretically, this same arousal could be experienced as excitement if it were attributed as resulting from the presence of a sexually arousing person in the room. Demonstrating that similar environmental conditions can be experienced as either crowding or as positive affect would stand as strong support for the attribution model. Previous research (Worchel & Teddlie, 1976; Worchel & Yohai, 1979) has shown that nonspatial environmental manipulations can reduce the experience of crowding. However, this research has not shown that the arousal associated with these environmental conditions can be given a qualitatively different label, especially a positive one. In addition, this previous research is plagued by a possible alternative explanation based on demand characteristics (Orne, 1962). In each of
PLAUSIBILITY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
89
these studies, the experimenter explicitly called subjects’ attention to a stimulus that could explain their arousal. This intrusion may have biased subjects’ responses in the desired direction. In demonstrating that similar environmental conditions can lead to different attributions, it is important to address the issue of the factors that determine why individuals choose certain stimuli to use as the basis for explaining their arousal. For example, subjects in the Cochman and Keating (1980) study were faced with a high-density environment and with a frustrating situation. What factors led them to attribute their arousal as crowding rather than as being extreme frustration? Numerous investigators (Taylor & Fiske, 1978; McArthur, 1982) have argued that the more salient a stimulus is, the more likely it is to be used as the basis for attributions. Research (Taylor & Fiske, 1975; McArthur & Post, 1976; Wicklund, 1973) has suggested that almost any characteristic that focuses an individual’s attention on a stimulus increases the likelihood of that stimulus being used as the source of attributions. Another factor that may even be more important in guiding attributions may be summarized under the heading of plausibility. Kahneman and Tversky (1971) and Nisbett and Ross (1980) have suggested that individuals take into account the probability that a stimulus could be responsible for an action in making their attributions. Although much of this theorizing was concerned with person perception, the extrapolation could be made to argue that a stimulus, even a salient one, is unlikely to be used as the basis for self-attributions about arousal if that stimulus could not plausibly be the cause of arousal. A demonstration of the role of plausibility in self-attributions is particularly important because it would show that cognitive as well as stimulus or attentional factors guide such attributions. Based on this discussion, the aim of the present study was twofold. One goal was to demonstrate the role of plausibility in the self-attribution process. The second goal was to fortify the attributional explanation of crowding by showing that a given spatial condition could be experienced either as crowded or as a positive state depending on the attributions made in the setting. Holding salience constant, it was predicted that the attributions made in the setting would be determined by the plausibility that various stimuli could be taken as responsible for arousal. Groups of subjects watched a film under conditions where their interpersonal seating distances were either appropriate or inappropriately close. The films they saw could either be interpreted as plausibly arousing (humorous, aggressive, or sexual) or as not plausibly arousing. It was predicted that subjects in the inappropriate distance condition would attribute their arousal to the film and, hence, not experience crowding when the film was plausibly arousing. However, they would experience crowding when the film could not plausibly be responsible for their arousal. Support of these predictions would also show that attributions about the cause of
90
WORCHEL
AND BROWN
arousal are independent of the qualitative nature of the plausibly arousing stimuli. In other words, the direction of attribution should not be affected by whether the perceived arousal results from humor, aggression, or sex. METHOD
Subjects Four hundred and forty-four male introductory psychology students participated study entitled ‘Critic’s Delight.” Subjects were run in groups of six people.
in a
Procedure When the group of subjects arrived, they were informed that the purpose of this study was to compare how people perceive and evaluate different television programs from different periods in television history. This study was being conducted to examine how technological and artistic advances had affected the television viewer. Subjects were told that the experimenter was attempting to analyze if people could actually perceive these evolutionary differences and, if so, the degree to which they enhanced the viewing pleasure of the audience in addition to their psychological enjoyment. Therefore, subjects would be asked to view a short program and fill out a questionnaire rating the film. Subjects were also asked not to move their chairs once they entered the experimental room to ensure that each viewer’s angle of perception remained stationary. Following the introduction, subjects were led into the experimental room (5 x 4 m) which contained nine armless chairs arranged in three rows of three chairs each. A video recorder and monitor were on a table in the front of the room. In the close condition, the chairs in the rows were touching and the rows were IO in. apart. Pretesting had shown that this arrangement violated subjects’ personal spaces. In the far condition the chairs in the rows were 12 in. apart the the rows were 18 in. apart. Again, pretesting found that this spacing did not violate personal space. Subjects were instructed to sit in the back two rows of chairs so that they all experienced frontal and lateral spatial restrictions. After being seated, subjects were shown one of four 20-min programs in a lighted room. Pretesting had shown that the programs were roughly equal in interest. Three of the programs were arousing. The humorous episode was a segment from the television series. “Welcome Back Kotter.” The arousing violent film was a boxing match in which one fighter was badly beaten. The sexually arousing program depicted explicit sex acts. The nonarousing film was a clip taken from “P. M. Magazine” showing ecological evolution in the Florida Everglades, The resulting design was a 2 (close-far) x 4 (humorous. violent, sexual, and interesting film) factorial. During the film, the experimenter was absent from the room so as not to inhibit subject’s reactions. After the film was completed, the experimenter returned and asked subjects to complete a questionnaire without talking to one another. After this task was completed, the experimenter collected all questionnaires. The subjects were then informed the experiment was over and carefully debriefed.
RESULTS
Since groups, rather than individuals, were randomly assigned to conditions and there was limited opportunity for interaction between group members, group means were used as the unit of analysis. A 2 x 4 multivariate analysis run on the combined data yielded significant effects for both main effects and the interaction and univariate analyses were used to examine the specific hypotheses.
PLAUSIBILITY
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
91
ATTRIBUTIONS
Crowding
One of the main predictions was that the arousing movies would serve as an alternative source for the attribution of arousal and, thereby, reduce the experience of crowding under close interpersonal conditions. Subjects were asked to indicate on a lo-point scale, “How crowded did you feel As can be seen from the results presented in during the experiment?” Table 1, the data were generally supportive. The main effect (F(l.66) = 26.10, p < .OOl) for distance showed that subjects felt more crowded under close than far interpersonal distance conditions. This effect was, however, qualified by an interaction (F(3.66) = 2.54, p < .06). The interaction resulted because of the large difference in crowding between close and far conditions in the nonarousing movie conditions (F( 1.66) = 24.33, p < .OOl) compared to the arousing movies. In fact, there were no significant differences between the close and far conditions for any of the arousing films. Looking within the two distance manipulations, the results show significantly greater crowding in the close-arousing films compared to the close-nonarousing film (F(l.66) = 7.12, p < .Ol) but no differences between the two types of films within the far conditions (F(l.66) = 1.62, p = ns.). Film Arousal
It was argued that the arousing films would reduce the experience of crowding because subjects would attribute their arousal as being caused by the films rather than the spatial conditions. In order to examine this prediction, subjects were asked to indicate on a lo-point scale, “How arousing did you find the movie?” As can be seen from Table 2 the results offered some support for this prediction. The main effect for interpersonal distance was not significant. However, the significant main effect (F(3.66) = 19.18, p < .OOl) for the type of film was qualified by a significant interaction (F(3.66) = 4.18, p < .Ol). The interaction was TABLE 1 MEAN RATINGS OF CROWDING Televised program Interpersonal Close
distance
Humorous
Sexual
Violent
Nonarousing
6.34”
6.80 (9)
7.31”
7.17 (10) 8.16
(8)
(8)
5.43 (8) 8.39 (10)
WY Far
7.89 (9)
” Subjects asked to rate, “How crowded did you feel during the experiment? (1 = very crowded, 10 = not crowded). ’ Number of groups in parentheses.
92
WORCHEL
AND BROWN
TABLE MEAN
2
RATINGS OF FILM
AROUSAL
Type of program Interpersonal
distance
Humorous
Close
6.02”
(12) Far
4.06 (8)
a Subjects rated, “How very arousing).
Sexual
Violent
6.71 (10) 6.21 (8)
6.02 (91 5.00 (9)
Nonarousing 2.94 (8) 3.52 (10)
arousing did you find the movie?” (1 = not arousing; 10 =
the result of subjects rating the arousing films as more arousing under close than far conditions, while the opposite pattern occurred in the nonarousing film condition. Other Film Ratings
Subjects were also asked to rate other specific qualities of films. Two of the most relevant questions asked for ratings of how funny (1 = funny, 10 = sad) and aggressive (1 = aggressive, 10 = not aggressive) subjects perceived the films. As can be seen from the results in Table 3, the interpersonal distance conditions differentially affected the ratings of the films depending on the subject matter of the films. Specifically, subjects rated the humorous film as more funny under close than far conditions (F(1.66) = 7.60, p < .Ol). Distance, however, did not affect the funniness ratings of any of the other films (F < 1). On the other TABLE MEAN
FILM
3
RATINGS OF FUNNY
AND AGGRESSIVE
Type of program Interpersonal distance
Rating
Humorous
Sexual
Violent
Close
Funny” Aggressiveb Interest’ N
2.26 6.71 3.42
(12)
4.85 5.06 4.32 (10)
Far
Funny Aggressive Interest N
3.33 6.67 4.78
5.08 4.52 4.07
(8)
(8)
5.83 2.07 4.47 (91 5.81 3.10 4.02 (9)
’ 1 = funny; 10 = sad. b 1 = aggressive; 10 = not aggressive. ’ 1 = very interesting; 10 = not at all interesting.
Nonarousing 4.97 6.78 5.15 (8) 5.08 7.17 3.84 (10)
PLAUSIBILITY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
93
hand, only ratings of the violent film were affected on the questions regarding aggressiveness. There was a nonsignificant tendency to see the violent film as more aggressive under close than far conditions (F(1.66) = 1.98, p < .IS).
Two other ratings of the films were illuminating. Subjects were asked how enjoyable they found the film. A significant main effect for type of film (F(3.66) = 4.44, p < .OS) was qualified by a significant interaction (F(3.66) = 4.94, p < .Ol). The interaction occurred because of a significant increase (F( 1.66) = 5.81, p < .05) in enjoyment in the close compared to the far condition on the humorous film while there was a significant decrease (F( 1.66) = 8.73, p < .Ol) on the nonarousing film. The differences between the close and far conditions on the sex and violent films were not significant, although the direction mimicked that found with the humorous film. A similar pattern of results was found when subjects were asked how interesting they found the films (Table 3). Although there were no significant main effects, a significant interaction (F(1.66) = 5.23, p < .Ol) was again the result of a significant increase (F(1.66) = 8.41, p < .Ol> of interest in the funny film in the close condition and a decrease (F(1.66) = 7.05, p < .05) in this rating for the nonarousing film. No significant differences were found between the close and far conditions for the sex and violent film and there were no differences between any of the films in the far condition. Comfort
In order to examine subjects’ general psychological state, they were asked to indicate how comfortable they felt during the experiment. The significant main effect (F(1.66) = 4.58, p < .05) showed that subjects felt more comfortable in the far than close interpersonal conditions. This pattern of results was found for all the films except the humorous film where there was a nonsignificant reversal. Further, only on the sexual film were subjects significantly (F(1.66) = 4.32, p < .05) more uncomfortable in the close than far distance condition. An interesting aside on this effect was that a number of subjects commented that they were uneasy when viewing the sexually arousing film in groups. Their general concern was with how others would interpret their responses to the films. These comments were especially voiced when watching these films under close interpersonal distance conditions. DISCUSSION
The data from the present study suggest a number of interesting points. First, they offer the strongest evidence for the attribution model of crowding. It seems that perceived arousal created by spatial and nonspatial sources is pooled and then given a qualitative label. Attributing the source of arousal to a nonspatial variable (such as the lllms) reduces the experience of crowding that would otherwise be experienced in the environment.
94
WORCHEL
AND
BROWN
This point is most strongly made by the higher ratings of crowding in the close-nonarousing movie condition than in the close-arousing movie conditions. Further, the data suggest that the reduction of crowding is achieved because some of the perceived arousal is attributed to alternate sources. The support for this position is found in the increased attributions of arousal to the arousing movies under close as compared to far conditions. The data also indicate the wide lattitude in the attribution process. That is, each of the arousing films, whether humorous, sexual, or violent, reduced the experience of crowding and tended to be the recipient of arousal attributions. With some exceptions, which we will discuss, the actual quality of the arousal does not determine the attribution process. This point is important for two reasons. First, it does show the flexibility of attributions. Second, it refutes a possible alternative explanation that would argue that crowding is reduced because certain conditions create an overall positive feeling in subjects. That is, it could be argued that the humorous film reduced crowding because it placed subjects in a positive mood. However, the violent film which was clearly not seen as funny had a similar effect on crowding ratings as did the humorous film. Also attesting to the latitude of the attribution process, the data indicate that the close interpersonal distance condition can either be experienced as a negative state (crowding) or as a positive condition (enhanced enjoyment of the film). In addition to offering support for the attribution model, this finding has some intriguing practical implications. Given that crowding is experienced as a negative state, one may be tempted to eliminate the spatial and other environmental conditions that give rise to crowding. However, the present results suggest an alternative approach would be to manipulate the environment so that attributions other than crowding are made. This approach may, in fact, be superior because the data indicate that the close spatial interpersonal conditions may even enhance enjoyment in the environment. The key factor in determining attributions and response to the environment in the present study was the plausibility that the stimuli could be perceived as creating arousal. In all the conditions, subjects’ attention was focused on the film. The films were chosen to be equal in interest, and a test of events recalled in the film after the experimental session revealed no differences. While some question may still be raised, the data suggest that the film was the salient stimulus in all conditions. However, only the arousing films could plausibly be viewed as creating arousal. And only in the case of the arousing films were subjects apt to make attributions to the film. In addition, the data reveal the very interesting finding that the specific attributions made by subjects were influenced by the quality of the film. That is. the humorous movie became more funny under arousing conditions, but the violent movie did not. On the other hand, there was a tendency to see the violent movie as more violent under these same arousing conditions; this tendency was not evidenced
PLAUSIBILITY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
95
for the humorous or sexual movie. Thus plausibility seems to affect attributions at a number of levels. First, it influences the stimulus to which subjects attribute their perceived arousal. Second, it affects the nature of the attribution by determining what characteristics can be attributed to a stimulus. Another issue concerning stimulus quality involves differences in responses to the sexual film and the other arousing films. Although the sexual film reduced the experience of crowding in the close conditions, subjects responded differently to it compared with the other arousing movies on other questions. Unlike the other arousing films, watching the sexual film under close interpersonal distances increased, rather than decreased, discomfort. Further, the tendency to attribute arousal to the sexual film was not as pronounced as the other arousing films under close conditions. This pattern of results was unexpected and there are at least two possible explanations for it. First, the flexibility of the attribution process may not be as great as predicted. It may be that only certain “types” of arousal can be pooled. However, discussions with subjects suggested a second explanation. According to postexperimental interviews, the sexual film tended to make some subjects self-conscious about their responses to the film, and increased their concern about how others were perceiving them. This self-consciousness was enhanced by the close interpersonal distances. Thus, while they perceived their own arousal, they did not attribute this arousal as being due to either crowding or sexual arousal. Rather, they interpreted this arousal as being the result of their concern with the perceptions of others. While there is no specific data to support this conclusion, it is consistent with ratings of comfort and subjects’ self-reports. One final point deserves some attention before closing. The present study and model of crowding has been concerned with how individuals attribute perceived arousal. The basic question is how people respond to this perceived arousal. Another interesting question that remains outside the scope of the model at present concerns the relationship between actual and perceived arousal. This issue has been the center of some debate for a number of years (Valins, 1966; Pennebaker, 1982) and remains unresolved. However, despite the importance of this question, it does not bear directly on the issue of whether or not the experience of crowding is mediated by attributions. The attribution process, itself, is set into motion by the perceptions of arousal, and, as the present study demonstrates, this perceived arousal may be given a wide variety of labels and have diverse effects depending on the situation. REFERENCES Altman, I. The environment Altman, I., & Chemers, 1980.
and social behavior. M. Environmenr and
Monterey, Calif.: culture. Monterey,
Brooks/Cole, 1975. Calif.: Brooks/Cole,
96
WORCHEL
AND BROWN
Baum, A., & Valins, S. Architecture and social behavior: Psychological studies in social density. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. Effect of objective self-awareness on attributions of causality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 17-31. Freedman, J. L. Crowding and behavior. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. Gochman, I. R., & Keating, J. Misattributions to crowding: Blaming crowding for nondensity caused events. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1980, 4, 157-175. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Subjective probability: A judgment of representiveness. Cognitive Psychology, 1971, 3, 430-454. Lawrence, J. E. Science and sentiment: Overview of research on crowding and human behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 712-720. McArthur, L. A., & Post, D. Figural emphasis and person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 13, 520-535. McArthur, L. Z. Physical distinctiveness and self-attribution. Personality and Social Psychology Buflefin, 1982, 8, 460-467. Nisbett, R., & ROSS, L. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the social psychology experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 776-783. Patterson, M. An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 1976, 83, 235-245. Pennebaker, J. The psychology ofphysical symptoms. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982. Rodin, J., & Baum, A. Crowding and helplessness: Potential consequences of density and loss of control. In A. Baum & Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human responses ro crowding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978. Schachter, S., & Singer, J. E. Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 1962 69, 379-399. Stokols, D. On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 275-278. Stokols, D. A typology of crowding experiences. In A. Baum & Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human responses to crowding. Hillsdale. N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978. Stokols, D., Rall, M., Pinner, B., & Schopler, J. Physical, social and personal determinants of the perception of crowding. Environmenf and Behavior, 1973. 5, 87-110. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 439-445. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske. S. T. Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Press, 1978. Valins, S. Cognitive effects of false heartrate feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1966. 4, 400-408. Wicker, A. W. Undermanning theory and research: Implications for the study of psychological and behavioral effect of excess population. Representive Research in Social Psychology, 1973, 4, 185-206. Wicker, A. W. An introduction to ecological psychology. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1979. Worchel, S. The experience of crowding: An attributional analysis. In A. Baum & Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human responses to crowding. Hillsdale. N.J.: Erlbaum. 1978. Worchel, S.. & Teddlie, C. The experience of crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976. 34. 30-70. Worchel, S., & Yohai, S. M. The role of attribution in the experience of crowding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1979, 15, 91-104.
OF EXPERIMENTAL
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
20, 86-96 (1984)
The Role of Plausibility in Influencing Environmental Attributions STEPHEN WORCHEL Texas A&M
University
AND ELIZABETH
HUNTER
University
BROWN
of Virginia
Received February 7, 1983 The aim of the study was to examine how plausibility influences attributions about the cause of perceived arousal. Subjects watched one of three arousing (humorous, sexual, aggressive) or a nonarousing televised program under conditions of appropriate or inappropriate interpersonal spacing. The subjects then completed a questionnaire indicating how crowded they felt and rating the movie on a number of dimensions. The results indicated that under close interpersonal distances, subjects felt less crowded while watching the arousing movies than while viewing the nonarousing movie. There were no differences in the experience of crowding between the movie conditions under the far interpersonal distance conditions. In addition, subjects rated the arousing movies as more arousing under close as opposed to far interpersonal distance conditions. Further, the humorous movie was viewed as more funny, and the violent movie was rated more violent under the close as opposed to the far conditions. Finally, there was a tendency to enjoy the arousing movies more under the close conditions, while the reverse effect was found for the nonarousing movie. It was argued that the arousing movies reduced the experience of crowding under close interpersonal conditions because subjects attributed their arousal to the movies rather than to the spatial restrictions. It was further suggested that the results showed that individuals will attribute their arousal to salient stimuli in their environment that could plausibly be sources of arousal. The results not only offer support for an attribution model of crowding, but they also show that depending on the individual’s attribution, spatial conditions that can give rise to crowding may increase enjoyment of events in the environment.
This research was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Research Grant (S-23854) awarded to the first author. Requests for reprints should be sent to Stephen Worchel, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.
OO22-1031/84 $3.00 Copyright All rights
Q 1984 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
86
PLAUSIBILITY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
87
Prior to the 1970s the concepts of crowding and density were used as synonyms. While this wedding of words was linguistically convenient, it proved empirically troublesome. A number of investigators (Freedman, 1975; Stokols, Rail, Pinner, & Schopler, 1973) found that high density not only failed to produce predicted negative behavioral effects, but it did not always create the negative emotional overtones associated with crowding. These disconcerting results led Stokols (1972) and others (Lawrence, 1974; Altman, 1975) to separate density and crowding and give each concept its own identity. Crowding was defined as a negative psychological state or feeling, while density was a simple physical measure of the amount of space available to an individual. The liberation of crowding from density invited investigators to explicate crowding. Research demonstrated that many factors including loss of control (Baum & Valins, 1977; Rodin & Baum, 1978), lack of privacy (Altman & Chemers, 1980), cognitive overload (Stokols, 1978), and overmanning (Wicker, 1979) can result in the experience of crowding. One of the interesting points in common with these approaches is that their focus is not exclusively on spatial variables. Rather, they implicate a wide variety of psychological and social factors as the basis for crowding. Following a similar approach, a number of investigators (Patterson, 1976; Worchel & Teddlie, 1976) suggested that crowding often results from a cognitive process associated with emotions. They argued that crowding occurs when the individual becomes aroused and attributes this arousal to spatial restrictions. In other words, crowding is a label for perceived arousal. Worchel(l978) suggested that the source of arousal is violation of personal space. More recently, Gochman and Keating (1980) found that arousal not necessarily associated with spatial conditions can lead to increased feelings of crowding; subjects who were frustrated in a high-density situation reported feeling more crowded than subjects who were not frustrated in the same situation. In essence, the attribution model suggests that even when there exist sufficient spatial conditions for crowding, the attributions individuals make about their state of arousal will determine whether or not they actually feel crowded. There has been some support for the attribution explanation. Worchel and Teddlie (1976) placed groups of subjects in either large or small rooms in which their personal space was either violated or not. In some conditions, pictures were arranged on the walls to distract subjects from paying attention to other people in their environment. The results indicated that crowding was more closely related to interpersonal space than to density, and that the pictures reduced the amount of crowding. It was argued that by reducing the salience of other people, subjects would be less likely to attribute physical closeness as the cause of their arousal. In a follow-up study, Worchel and Yohai (1979) placed subjects in conditions where their personal space was either violated or not violated. In some
88
WORCHEL
AND
BROWN
cases subjects were told that an inaudible noise was being played in the room. Some subjects were led to believe that the noise would arouse them, and others were told that the noise would relax them. It was argued that the arousing noise explanation in the violated personal space condition would reduce crowding; subjects in this condition should attribute their arousal to the noise rather than to the spatial violations. The results supported the predictions. As can be seen, the attribution model focuses on the process through which crowding is experienced rather than on any specific environmental conditions related to crowding. In some cases, this focus makes it difficult to develop a priori predictions about when crowding will result in a specific environment. For example, without examining issues such as stimulus salience or focus of attention, one cannot predict with certainty when crowding rather than some other psychological state will be experienced in a given setting. On the other hand, not being tied to a specific environmental condition greatly enhances the range of situations in which the attribution model can be used to explain behavior. For example, the model anticipates that extra-environmental conditions that arouse individuals can increase their perceptions of crowding. In such a case, the arousal created by the environment and that created by the extra-environmental conditions can be attributed (or misattributed) as crowding. Indeed, Gochman and Keating (1980) found that frustration in high-density environments increased crowding. In addition, the model can serve as the basis for predicting that the same environmental conditions that can result in the unpleasant experience of crowding can also be experienced and reacted to as a positive condition. The model argues that diametrically opposed feelings can result because the psychological experience is the result of the attribution rather than the specific environmental conditions. Schachter and Singer (1962) demonstrated that similar arousal states could be experienced as anger or euphoria depending on the label given to that arousal. Similarly, aroused individuals may experience crowding if they attribute their arousal as resulting from others being too close. Theoretically, this same arousal could be experienced as excitement if it were attributed as resulting from the presence of a sexually arousing person in the room. Demonstrating that similar environmental conditions can be experienced as either crowding or as positive affect would stand as strong support for the attribution model. Previous research (Worchel & Teddlie, 1976; Worchel & Yohai, 1979) has shown that nonspatial environmental manipulations can reduce the experience of crowding. However, this research has not shown that the arousal associated with these environmental conditions can be given a qualitatively different label, especially a positive one. In addition, this previous research is plagued by a possible alternative explanation based on demand characteristics (Orne, 1962). In each of
PLAUSIBILITY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
89
these studies, the experimenter explicitly called subjects’ attention to a stimulus that could explain their arousal. This intrusion may have biased subjects’ responses in the desired direction. In demonstrating that similar environmental conditions can lead to different attributions, it is important to address the issue of the factors that determine why individuals choose certain stimuli to use as the basis for explaining their arousal. For example, subjects in the Cochman and Keating (1980) study were faced with a high-density environment and with a frustrating situation. What factors led them to attribute their arousal as crowding rather than as being extreme frustration? Numerous investigators (Taylor & Fiske, 1978; McArthur, 1982) have argued that the more salient a stimulus is, the more likely it is to be used as the basis for attributions. Research (Taylor & Fiske, 1975; McArthur & Post, 1976; Wicklund, 1973) has suggested that almost any characteristic that focuses an individual’s attention on a stimulus increases the likelihood of that stimulus being used as the source of attributions. Another factor that may even be more important in guiding attributions may be summarized under the heading of plausibility. Kahneman and Tversky (1971) and Nisbett and Ross (1980) have suggested that individuals take into account the probability that a stimulus could be responsible for an action in making their attributions. Although much of this theorizing was concerned with person perception, the extrapolation could be made to argue that a stimulus, even a salient one, is unlikely to be used as the basis for self-attributions about arousal if that stimulus could not plausibly be the cause of arousal. A demonstration of the role of plausibility in self-attributions is particularly important because it would show that cognitive as well as stimulus or attentional factors guide such attributions. Based on this discussion, the aim of the present study was twofold. One goal was to demonstrate the role of plausibility in the self-attribution process. The second goal was to fortify the attributional explanation of crowding by showing that a given spatial condition could be experienced either as crowded or as a positive state depending on the attributions made in the setting. Holding salience constant, it was predicted that the attributions made in the setting would be determined by the plausibility that various stimuli could be taken as responsible for arousal. Groups of subjects watched a film under conditions where their interpersonal seating distances were either appropriate or inappropriately close. The films they saw could either be interpreted as plausibly arousing (humorous, aggressive, or sexual) or as not plausibly arousing. It was predicted that subjects in the inappropriate distance condition would attribute their arousal to the film and, hence, not experience crowding when the film was plausibly arousing. However, they would experience crowding when the film could not plausibly be responsible for their arousal. Support of these predictions would also show that attributions about the cause of
90
WORCHEL
AND BROWN
arousal are independent of the qualitative nature of the plausibly arousing stimuli. In other words, the direction of attribution should not be affected by whether the perceived arousal results from humor, aggression, or sex. METHOD
Subjects Four hundred and forty-four male introductory psychology students participated study entitled ‘Critic’s Delight.” Subjects were run in groups of six people.
in a
Procedure When the group of subjects arrived, they were informed that the purpose of this study was to compare how people perceive and evaluate different television programs from different periods in television history. This study was being conducted to examine how technological and artistic advances had affected the television viewer. Subjects were told that the experimenter was attempting to analyze if people could actually perceive these evolutionary differences and, if so, the degree to which they enhanced the viewing pleasure of the audience in addition to their psychological enjoyment. Therefore, subjects would be asked to view a short program and fill out a questionnaire rating the film. Subjects were also asked not to move their chairs once they entered the experimental room to ensure that each viewer’s angle of perception remained stationary. Following the introduction, subjects were led into the experimental room (5 x 4 m) which contained nine armless chairs arranged in three rows of three chairs each. A video recorder and monitor were on a table in the front of the room. In the close condition, the chairs in the rows were touching and the rows were IO in. apart. Pretesting had shown that this arrangement violated subjects’ personal spaces. In the far condition the chairs in the rows were 12 in. apart the the rows were 18 in. apart. Again, pretesting found that this spacing did not violate personal space. Subjects were instructed to sit in the back two rows of chairs so that they all experienced frontal and lateral spatial restrictions. After being seated, subjects were shown one of four 20-min programs in a lighted room. Pretesting had shown that the programs were roughly equal in interest. Three of the programs were arousing. The humorous episode was a segment from the television series. “Welcome Back Kotter.” The arousing violent film was a boxing match in which one fighter was badly beaten. The sexually arousing program depicted explicit sex acts. The nonarousing film was a clip taken from “P. M. Magazine” showing ecological evolution in the Florida Everglades, The resulting design was a 2 (close-far) x 4 (humorous. violent, sexual, and interesting film) factorial. During the film, the experimenter was absent from the room so as not to inhibit subject’s reactions. After the film was completed, the experimenter returned and asked subjects to complete a questionnaire without talking to one another. After this task was completed, the experimenter collected all questionnaires. The subjects were then informed the experiment was over and carefully debriefed.
RESULTS
Since groups, rather than individuals, were randomly assigned to conditions and there was limited opportunity for interaction between group members, group means were used as the unit of analysis. A 2 x 4 multivariate analysis run on the combined data yielded significant effects for both main effects and the interaction and univariate analyses were used to examine the specific hypotheses.
PLAUSIBILITY
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
91
ATTRIBUTIONS
Crowding
One of the main predictions was that the arousing movies would serve as an alternative source for the attribution of arousal and, thereby, reduce the experience of crowding under close interpersonal conditions. Subjects were asked to indicate on a lo-point scale, “How crowded did you feel As can be seen from the results presented in during the experiment?” Table 1, the data were generally supportive. The main effect (F(l.66) = 26.10, p < .OOl) for distance showed that subjects felt more crowded under close than far interpersonal distance conditions. This effect was, however, qualified by an interaction (F(3.66) = 2.54, p < .06). The interaction resulted because of the large difference in crowding between close and far conditions in the nonarousing movie conditions (F( 1.66) = 24.33, p < .OOl) compared to the arousing movies. In fact, there were no significant differences between the close and far conditions for any of the arousing films. Looking within the two distance manipulations, the results show significantly greater crowding in the close-arousing films compared to the close-nonarousing film (F(l.66) = 7.12, p < .Ol) but no differences between the two types of films within the far conditions (F(l.66) = 1.62, p = ns.). Film Arousal
It was argued that the arousing films would reduce the experience of crowding because subjects would attribute their arousal as being caused by the films rather than the spatial conditions. In order to examine this prediction, subjects were asked to indicate on a lo-point scale, “How arousing did you find the movie?” As can be seen from Table 2 the results offered some support for this prediction. The main effect for interpersonal distance was not significant. However, the significant main effect (F(3.66) = 19.18, p < .OOl) for the type of film was qualified by a significant interaction (F(3.66) = 4.18, p < .Ol). The interaction was TABLE 1 MEAN RATINGS OF CROWDING Televised program Interpersonal Close
distance
Humorous
Sexual
Violent
Nonarousing
6.34”
6.80 (9)
7.31”
7.17 (10) 8.16
(8)
(8)
5.43 (8) 8.39 (10)
WY Far
7.89 (9)
” Subjects asked to rate, “How crowded did you feel during the experiment? (1 = very crowded, 10 = not crowded). ’ Number of groups in parentheses.
92
WORCHEL
AND BROWN
TABLE MEAN
2
RATINGS OF FILM
AROUSAL
Type of program Interpersonal
distance
Humorous
Close
6.02”
(12) Far
4.06 (8)
a Subjects rated, “How very arousing).
Sexual
Violent
6.71 (10) 6.21 (8)
6.02 (91 5.00 (9)
Nonarousing 2.94 (8) 3.52 (10)
arousing did you find the movie?” (1 = not arousing; 10 =
the result of subjects rating the arousing films as more arousing under close than far conditions, while the opposite pattern occurred in the nonarousing film condition. Other Film Ratings
Subjects were also asked to rate other specific qualities of films. Two of the most relevant questions asked for ratings of how funny (1 = funny, 10 = sad) and aggressive (1 = aggressive, 10 = not aggressive) subjects perceived the films. As can be seen from the results in Table 3, the interpersonal distance conditions differentially affected the ratings of the films depending on the subject matter of the films. Specifically, subjects rated the humorous film as more funny under close than far conditions (F(1.66) = 7.60, p < .Ol). Distance, however, did not affect the funniness ratings of any of the other films (F < 1). On the other TABLE MEAN
FILM
3
RATINGS OF FUNNY
AND AGGRESSIVE
Type of program Interpersonal distance
Rating
Humorous
Sexual
Violent
Close
Funny” Aggressiveb Interest’ N
2.26 6.71 3.42
(12)
4.85 5.06 4.32 (10)
Far
Funny Aggressive Interest N
3.33 6.67 4.78
5.08 4.52 4.07
(8)
(8)
5.83 2.07 4.47 (91 5.81 3.10 4.02 (9)
’ 1 = funny; 10 = sad. b 1 = aggressive; 10 = not aggressive. ’ 1 = very interesting; 10 = not at all interesting.
Nonarousing 4.97 6.78 5.15 (8) 5.08 7.17 3.84 (10)
PLAUSIBILITY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
93
hand, only ratings of the violent film were affected on the questions regarding aggressiveness. There was a nonsignificant tendency to see the violent film as more aggressive under close than far conditions (F(1.66) = 1.98, p < .IS).
Two other ratings of the films were illuminating. Subjects were asked how enjoyable they found the film. A significant main effect for type of film (F(3.66) = 4.44, p < .OS) was qualified by a significant interaction (F(3.66) = 4.94, p < .Ol). The interaction occurred because of a significant increase (F( 1.66) = 5.81, p < .05) in enjoyment in the close compared to the far condition on the humorous film while there was a significant decrease (F( 1.66) = 8.73, p < .Ol) on the nonarousing film. The differences between the close and far conditions on the sex and violent films were not significant, although the direction mimicked that found with the humorous film. A similar pattern of results was found when subjects were asked how interesting they found the films (Table 3). Although there were no significant main effects, a significant interaction (F(1.66) = 5.23, p < .Ol) was again the result of a significant increase (F(1.66) = 8.41, p < .Ol> of interest in the funny film in the close condition and a decrease (F(1.66) = 7.05, p < .05) in this rating for the nonarousing film. No significant differences were found between the close and far conditions for the sex and violent film and there were no differences between any of the films in the far condition. Comfort
In order to examine subjects’ general psychological state, they were asked to indicate how comfortable they felt during the experiment. The significant main effect (F(1.66) = 4.58, p < .05) showed that subjects felt more comfortable in the far than close interpersonal conditions. This pattern of results was found for all the films except the humorous film where there was a nonsignificant reversal. Further, only on the sexual film were subjects significantly (F(1.66) = 4.32, p < .05) more uncomfortable in the close than far distance condition. An interesting aside on this effect was that a number of subjects commented that they were uneasy when viewing the sexually arousing film in groups. Their general concern was with how others would interpret their responses to the films. These comments were especially voiced when watching these films under close interpersonal distance conditions. DISCUSSION
The data from the present study suggest a number of interesting points. First, they offer the strongest evidence for the attribution model of crowding. It seems that perceived arousal created by spatial and nonspatial sources is pooled and then given a qualitative label. Attributing the source of arousal to a nonspatial variable (such as the lllms) reduces the experience of crowding that would otherwise be experienced in the environment.
94
WORCHEL
AND
BROWN
This point is most strongly made by the higher ratings of crowding in the close-nonarousing movie condition than in the close-arousing movie conditions. Further, the data suggest that the reduction of crowding is achieved because some of the perceived arousal is attributed to alternate sources. The support for this position is found in the increased attributions of arousal to the arousing movies under close as compared to far conditions. The data also indicate the wide lattitude in the attribution process. That is, each of the arousing films, whether humorous, sexual, or violent, reduced the experience of crowding and tended to be the recipient of arousal attributions. With some exceptions, which we will discuss, the actual quality of the arousal does not determine the attribution process. This point is important for two reasons. First, it does show the flexibility of attributions. Second, it refutes a possible alternative explanation that would argue that crowding is reduced because certain conditions create an overall positive feeling in subjects. That is, it could be argued that the humorous film reduced crowding because it placed subjects in a positive mood. However, the violent film which was clearly not seen as funny had a similar effect on crowding ratings as did the humorous film. Also attesting to the latitude of the attribution process, the data indicate that the close interpersonal distance condition can either be experienced as a negative state (crowding) or as a positive condition (enhanced enjoyment of the film). In addition to offering support for the attribution model, this finding has some intriguing practical implications. Given that crowding is experienced as a negative state, one may be tempted to eliminate the spatial and other environmental conditions that give rise to crowding. However, the present results suggest an alternative approach would be to manipulate the environment so that attributions other than crowding are made. This approach may, in fact, be superior because the data indicate that the close spatial interpersonal conditions may even enhance enjoyment in the environment. The key factor in determining attributions and response to the environment in the present study was the plausibility that the stimuli could be perceived as creating arousal. In all the conditions, subjects’ attention was focused on the film. The films were chosen to be equal in interest, and a test of events recalled in the film after the experimental session revealed no differences. While some question may still be raised, the data suggest that the film was the salient stimulus in all conditions. However, only the arousing films could plausibly be viewed as creating arousal. And only in the case of the arousing films were subjects apt to make attributions to the film. In addition, the data reveal the very interesting finding that the specific attributions made by subjects were influenced by the quality of the film. That is. the humorous movie became more funny under arousing conditions, but the violent movie did not. On the other hand, there was a tendency to see the violent movie as more violent under these same arousing conditions; this tendency was not evidenced
PLAUSIBILITY
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
95
for the humorous or sexual movie. Thus plausibility seems to affect attributions at a number of levels. First, it influences the stimulus to which subjects attribute their perceived arousal. Second, it affects the nature of the attribution by determining what characteristics can be attributed to a stimulus. Another issue concerning stimulus quality involves differences in responses to the sexual film and the other arousing films. Although the sexual film reduced the experience of crowding in the close conditions, subjects responded differently to it compared with the other arousing movies on other questions. Unlike the other arousing films, watching the sexual film under close interpersonal distances increased, rather than decreased, discomfort. Further, the tendency to attribute arousal to the sexual film was not as pronounced as the other arousing films under close conditions. This pattern of results was unexpected and there are at least two possible explanations for it. First, the flexibility of the attribution process may not be as great as predicted. It may be that only certain “types” of arousal can be pooled. However, discussions with subjects suggested a second explanation. According to postexperimental interviews, the sexual film tended to make some subjects self-conscious about their responses to the film, and increased their concern about how others were perceiving them. This self-consciousness was enhanced by the close interpersonal distances. Thus, while they perceived their own arousal, they did not attribute this arousal as being due to either crowding or sexual arousal. Rather, they interpreted this arousal as being the result of their concern with the perceptions of others. While there is no specific data to support this conclusion, it is consistent with ratings of comfort and subjects’ self-reports. One final point deserves some attention before closing. The present study and model of crowding has been concerned with how individuals attribute perceived arousal. The basic question is how people respond to this perceived arousal. Another interesting question that remains outside the scope of the model at present concerns the relationship between actual and perceived arousal. This issue has been the center of some debate for a number of years (Valins, 1966; Pennebaker, 1982) and remains unresolved. However, despite the importance of this question, it does not bear directly on the issue of whether or not the experience of crowding is mediated by attributions. The attribution process, itself, is set into motion by the perceptions of arousal, and, as the present study demonstrates, this perceived arousal may be given a wide variety of labels and have diverse effects depending on the situation. REFERENCES Altman, I. The environment Altman, I., & Chemers, 1980.
and social behavior. M. Environmenr and
Monterey, Calif.: culture. Monterey,
Brooks/Cole, 1975. Calif.: Brooks/Cole,
96
WORCHEL
AND BROWN
Baum, A., & Valins, S. Architecture and social behavior: Psychological studies in social density. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. Effect of objective self-awareness on attributions of causality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 17-31. Freedman, J. L. Crowding and behavior. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. Gochman, I. R., & Keating, J. Misattributions to crowding: Blaming crowding for nondensity caused events. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1980, 4, 157-175. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Subjective probability: A judgment of representiveness. Cognitive Psychology, 1971, 3, 430-454. Lawrence, J. E. Science and sentiment: Overview of research on crowding and human behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 712-720. McArthur, L. A., & Post, D. Figural emphasis and person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 13, 520-535. McArthur, L. Z. Physical distinctiveness and self-attribution. Personality and Social Psychology Buflefin, 1982, 8, 460-467. Nisbett, R., & ROSS, L. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the social psychology experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 776-783. Patterson, M. An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 1976, 83, 235-245. Pennebaker, J. The psychology ofphysical symptoms. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982. Rodin, J., & Baum, A. Crowding and helplessness: Potential consequences of density and loss of control. In A. Baum & Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human responses ro crowding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978. Schachter, S., & Singer, J. E. Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 1962 69, 379-399. Stokols, D. On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 275-278. Stokols, D. A typology of crowding experiences. In A. Baum & Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human responses to crowding. Hillsdale. N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978. Stokols, D., Rall, M., Pinner, B., & Schopler, J. Physical, social and personal determinants of the perception of crowding. Environmenf and Behavior, 1973. 5, 87-110. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. Point of view and perceptions of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 439-445. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske. S. T. Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Press, 1978. Valins, S. Cognitive effects of false heartrate feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1966. 4, 400-408. Wicker, A. W. Undermanning theory and research: Implications for the study of psychological and behavioral effect of excess population. Representive Research in Social Psychology, 1973, 4, 185-206. Wicker, A. W. An introduction to ecological psychology. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1979. Worchel, S. The experience of crowding: An attributional analysis. In A. Baum & Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human responses to crowding. Hillsdale. N.J.: Erlbaum. 1978. Worchel, S.. & Teddlie, C. The experience of crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976. 34. 30-70. Worchel, S., & Yohai, S. M. The role of attribution in the experience of crowding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1979, 15, 91-104.