For the social sciences, particularly those concerned with man's relations to other men, the physical environment has been conceived as a given, rather than as a source of parameters for understanding human behavior. Urban settings, for example, are distinguished from suburban or rural settings, or the "ghetto" from the more affluent areas of a community, but more for their contrasting properties as social systems or complex social contexts than for the differences between them as organized physical settings. The scientific literature abounds in descriptions of ghettos as a prelude to examining them as sociocultural systems generating given sets of values and relevant behaviors. But systematic studies of the behavioral consequences of ghettos as physical settings are rare indeed.Even at a more circumscribed level of analysis-a neighborhood, an apartment, or a business office-the physical setting is no less taken for granted. It is assumed to set the stage for and perhaps define the actors' roles with respect to particular human relationships and activities; but for any given setting there are countless variations in design and substance that are generally ignored in the attempts to establish the factors that facilitate or hinder the prescribed behaviors.It is reasonable to ask why [the] physical setting has been neglected in the theory and research of social scientists. In our judgment, it is rooted in more Harold M. Proshansky received his PhD in social psychology from New York University in 1952. He is currently a Professor of Environmental Psychology and Social Psychology in the Graduate Division of the City University of New York, where he also serves as Dean of the division. His major research during the last 10 to 12 years has been in the field of environmental psychology, with particular interest in privacy and territoriality in hospital, school, and other urban settings.William H. Ittelson received his PhD in 1950 from Princeton University. He is currently a Professor of Environmental Psychology and Codirector of the doctoral program in environmental psychology of the Graduate Division of the City University of New York.

No abstract

The changing nature of cities has raised serious questions concerning the quality of neighborhood and community life. It is essential to reflect on the meaning of neighborhoods and their function for urban dwellers. The role of group membership in place meanings is considered, using an environmental perspective that acknowledges the importance of places to an individual's sense of identity. A small case study of a Hasidic sect with a distinctive life style provides an opportunity to assess the contribution of group affiliation to connections to a neighborhood. Sources of commitment to an area are discussed as are the qualities of group affiliations that affect this commitment. A conception of generic and specific place meanings, based on individual and group experiences, is proposed.

The appropriate bedroom size in a psychiatric ward poses a question that constantly plagues designers, administrators, and physicians. Historically, solutions have ranged through almost all possible combinations. In the past, the major conflicting pressures in arriving at a solution have been costswhich dictated large, multiple-occupancy rooms-and therapeutic considerations-which argued in favor of single or small rooms. Recent developments in design and construction techniques, however, have tended to diminish cost differences, while at the same time new therapeutic approaches have pointed to possible advantages of larger rooms. [A preliminary report on studies of bedroom size, Ittelson, Proshansky, & Rivlin, 1970, has already been published.] SETTINGThe study reported here was conducted in the psychiatric wards of three large metropolitan hospitals which will be referred to as "private," "city," and "state." Two are devoted to providing general medical and surgical services for their patients, and each has a relatively small psychiatric service: in the William H. Ittelson received his PhD in 1950 from Princeton University. He is currently a Professor of Environmental Psychology and Codirector of the doctoral program in environmental psychology of the Graduate Division of the City University of New York.Harold M. Proshansky received his PhD in social psychology from New York University in 1952. He is currently a Professor of Environmental Psychology and Social Psychology in the Graduate Division of the City University of New York, where he also serves as Dean of the division. His major research during the last 10 to 12 years has been in the field of environmental psychology, with particular interest in privacy and territoriality in hospital, school, and other urban settings.

Este artigo examina alguns dos pressupostos que guiaram os primeiros trabalhos em Psicologia Ambiental e os revisa à luz de perspectivas contemporâneas. Muitos desses pressupostos continuam a ter relevância, mas são necessárias algumas modificações e acréscimos para dar conta do desenvolvimento em idéias e pesquisa ao longo dos anos. É preciso: ir além da pesquisa multidisciplinar, engajando-se no pensamento interdisciplinar e pesquisa em colaboração com pessoas de outras disciplinas; ampliar a atenção com as questões éticas; examinar o papel da tecnologia na vida das pessoas; e reconhecer a natureza holística das transações pessoa-ambiente levando em consideração a diversidade criada por idade, gênero, nível de capacidade/incapacidade, cultura e economia.