1975
DOI: 10.2307/2786605
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effects of Situational Variables on Judgments of Crowding

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1978
1978
1984
1984

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Users do not report crowd ing as limiting recreation behavior as often as might be expected (Smith et al in press). O n the other hand, if excessive numbers of users lead to a perceived decrease in personal freedom and a perceived scarcity of available recreation resources, a feeling of crowding may result (Cohen et al;Stokols 1972aStokols , 1972b and it may lead to displacement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Users do not report crowd ing as limiting recreation behavior as often as might be expected (Smith et al in press). O n the other hand, if excessive numbers of users lead to a perceived decrease in personal freedom and a perceived scarcity of available recreation resources, a feeling of crowding may result (Cohen et al;Stokols 1972aStokols , 1972b and it may lead to displacement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Physical environmental features associated with increased crowding include dark room colours, decreased visual complexity, the latter significant only when the projected activity in the setting was a social one (Baum and Davis, 1976), a lack of partitions, more doors and a square rather than a rectangular room shape (Desor, 1972). Social factors producing increased crowding include a lack of acquaintanceship between individuals, absence of interaction, and work rather than recreational behaviours (Cohen et al, 1975), with non-social settings generally being perceived as more crowded than social ones . However, individuals who are exposed to frequent involuntary social interaction in their daily lives have lower crowding thresholds than those experiencing less interaction Valins and Baum, 1973).…”
Section: Laboratory Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Class (ii) proposes indirect effects of crowding which are manifest through intervening variables (e.g. Desor, 1972;Cohen et al, 1975;Stokols et al, 1975;Schmidt et al, 1976). Those variables identified so far are diverse and include both characteristics of the individuals and physical and social properties of the setting (see section III).…”
Section: Ecological Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The original idea of negatively perceived crowding being solely caused by high user density has been disproven long ago (Absher & Lee, 1981)increasing use does not necessarily lead to lower satisfaction levels. According to further research, perceived crowding depends on a variety of factors such as usual social environments (Baum, Harpin, & Valins, 1975), nationality or origin (Doorne, 2000;Yagi & Pearce, 2007), visitor type (Manning, Valliere, Minteer, Wang, & Jacobi, 2000), the type of desired activity (J. L. Cohen, Sladen, & Bennett, 1975), previous experience (Absher & Lee, 1981;Grieser, Dawson, & Schuster, 2005;Kearsley & Coughlan, 1999;Manning et al, 2000), expectations (Absher & Lee, 1981;Ditton et al, 1983;Doorne, 2000;Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 1978), motivations (Ditton et al, 1983;Manning et al, 2000), the number of expected and actual encounters (Manning et al, 2000;Shelby, 1980), coping techniques (Kearsley & Coughlan, 1999;Schneider & Hammitt, 1995), and other aspects regarding the quality of the experience (Ditton et al, 1983;Glasson, Godfrey, & Goodey, 1995;Shelby, 1980). However, the main factor in determining the perception of other visitors is the environment itself and the particular gaze that it encourages in individuals.…”
Section: Social Carrying Capacity and Perceived Crowdingmentioning
confidence: 99%