' ' ”153.3

 

 

 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN

QUALITATIVE MEASURES OF FAMILY

LIVING SPACE.

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CANDACE LYNN BABBITT
1970

THE?

LIBRARY .

Michigan Stat:
University

 

 

  
 
  

'3 am Home ;
.- am BINDER! INC. 1: I
‘3 LIBRARY BINDERSM
illuWPOflJlfl‘I i
L

  
    

ABSTRACT

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN QUALITATIVE MEASURES
OF FAMILY LIVING SPACE

BY

Candace Lynn Babbitt

Empirical evidence and inferences from authorita-
tive experiences have resulted in a general heightened
awareness of the reciprocal relations between man and his
environment. The prospect of increased p0pulation density
creates a sense of urgency in acquiring specific knowledge
upon which to base public and private decisions regarding
the human environment. Housing is one aspect of the micro-
environment which requires study to interpret the needs of
human beings into the qualitative dimensions of physical
shelter. In such a context, traditional standards consist-
ing of square feet of floor area, number of rooms per person
or number of bedrooms per occupant are incomplete bases for
determining housing adequacy.

Three factors which emerged from background readings
as possible qualitative indices of housing adequacy were
chosen for the focus of this study. These factors were

activity density, infringement and personal space.

Candace Lynn Babbitt

Activity density consists of activity time multi-
plied by the number of people present. The instrument
entitled Activity Load was developed to measure this var-
iable. Infringement on activities occurs when two or more
conflicting activities are carried on in the same space.

It was thought that identifying a high degree of infringe-
ment with activities would help delineate the nature of the
shaping force of the density factor. Information from the
Activity Load instrument and the Child's Personal Space
instrument were combined to obtain a measure of infringe-
ment. The child's personal space is that space or area
that is identified by the child as being used most often or
exclusively by himself. The Child's Personal Space instru-
ment was develOped to measure this variable.

To test the viability of these measures, a pilot
study was undertaken in June of 1969. The purpose of the
study was to gain some knowledge which would be helpful in
establishing measures of housing quality. Information was
gathered from a sample of eighteen families who lived in
university married student housing and had one child in
nursery school. The sample was divided into two groups on
the basis of family size: one group of families had an
only child and the other group had two or more children.
Thus, the human density of the families' living environment
was different. Residents in married student housing were

chosen for the study because not only the families but also

Candace Lynn Babbitt

the living units had a high degree of homoqeneity. This
kept the basic physical parts of the environment relatively
constant. Families with nursery school children were chosen
because several authors have stated that environmental
influence may be greatest during the early developmental
years. The child's attendance in nursery school offered

the possibility of administering tests which could describe
trends in developmental levels.

The reliability and validity of the instruments were
not statistically tested because of the small sample size.
Methodology was critically reviewed immediately after the
sample was taken and extensive revisions in the instruments
were made. A coding procedure was deve10ped and the data
wasganalyzed by using a three-way repeated measures analysis
of variance and a chi-square. Results showed activity
density to be significant for groups and area of the home
at the<,Ol level, for time period at the<$05 level and for
the interaction of area and time at the .05 level. There-
fore, it was thought that activity density was a viable
measure of space use. Infringement on the child's activ-
ities was significant at the(.01 level and all other var-
iables and interactions were not significant. Although
these findings may indicate that the method followed is not
apprOpriate for measuring differences in the living envi-
ronment due to infringement, the evaluation of the method-

ology suggested serious deficiencies in the instrument might

Candace Lynn Babbitt

account for the lack of significant findings. Differences
in the child's personal space between groups was signif-
icant at the .01 level (approaching .001). The high sig-
nificance of this measure indicated that it was perhaps the
most sensitive to differences of the density factor in the
living environments of the two groups.

Conclusions were drawn from the methodological
evaluation and the findings of the pilot study. On this
basis, the instruments were criticized and revised. In
consideration of the observable weaknesses reported in the
evaluation of the instruments and the findings from the
data, no firm conclusions can be stated. However, it was
believed there was sufficient support for recommending
further study based upon the revised forms of the

instruments.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN QUALITATIVE MEASURES

OF FAMILY LIVING SPACE

BY

Candace Lynn Babbitt

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Textiles, Clothing,
and Related Arts

1970

Copyrighted
by

Candace Lynn Babbitt

AC KNOWLEDGMEN T S

Several people deserve my sincere thanks for their
help in this study. The main source of ideas and meaning-
ful criticism has been Dr. Gertrude Nygren. Dr. Robert
Rice and Dr. Robert Boger have contributed a great deal
throughout the preparation of this study as committee
members. Thanks is also expressed to William Brown and
Robert Wilson for directing the statistical analysis of
the data.

Special appreciation is expressed to my sister,
Virginia, who spent many days of her twelfth summer coding

endless piles of data--just because it was mine.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O I O I O O O O O O 0 O O O O V
Chapter

I O INTRODUCT ION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 8

I I I 0 THE PROBLEM O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 7
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

IV 0 STUDY METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O C I O C O 5 2

DevelOpment of Instruments and Procedures . 52
Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . 59
Methods of Gathering Information . . . . . 61
Coding Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . 73

V 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 9
Methodological Results and Implications . . 79
Results of the Pilot Study . . . . . . . . 91
Implications for Revision of the
Instruments From the Statistical Findings . 104

VI 0 CONCLUSIONS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l 0 8

Revision of the Instruments . . . . . . . . 108
Implications of the Study . . . . . . . . . 130

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
APPENDICES C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C O O O 135
Appendix A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 135

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

iv

Table

1.

LIST OF TABLES

Biographical Profile of the Sample . .
1a. Family Composition . . . . . . .
1b. Economic-Educational Situation .
1c. Housing Experience . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Summary Table for
Activity Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Activity Density Means for Group, Area of the
Home and Time Period of the Day . . . . . .

Activity Density Means for the Seven by Nine
Area of the Home x Time Period of the Day
Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Summary Table for
Infringement on the Child's Activity Areas .

Mean Scores for Infringement on the Child's
Activity Areas by Activity Area . . . . . .

Chi-square for Exclusive vs. Shared Personal
Object Space for the Only Child Group (61)
and the Two or More Children Group (G2) . .

Page

93
93
95
96

98

100

101

102

103

104

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to develop, evaluate
and revise certain qualitative measures of family living
space and to report the feasibility of these measures by
conducting a pilot study.

A heightened sensitivity to factors contributing
to the quality of the physical living environment places
increased importance on recent research findings which
suggest the relationship of the physical environment to
human responses. The prospect of increased population
density creates a sense of urgency on the need to define
and explore the possible relationships between human
behavior and the physical living environment. Extensive
research has been done with animal populations to determine
environmental conditions for optimal development. In con-
trast, relatively little consideration has been given to
the behavioral effects of the physical living environment
upon human beings. Curiously, some authoritative literature
may suggest the possibility of ecological concepts but

proceed to study personal and interpersonal behavior with

little consideration for possible modifying environmental
effects. (see Review of Literature, p. 13).

Barker suggests that human behavior is largely
determined by the spatial experiences to which man is
constantly subjected.1 Several authors have suggested that
the most influential and irreversible effects of environ-
ment upon human behavior occur in the early developmental
years. Environmental influence is said to be particularly
significant during the ages of two to five years when the
child starts to internalize those things with which he
identifies. This process is the beginning of the deve10p-
ment of the ego or self.2 Sensorimotor skills are estab-
lished by the end of the second year and provide the
foundation for achievement in school.3 The development of
these skills is aided by contact and interaction with the
environment. All learning and development is modified by
the child's contact with his environment.4 The importance
of the early years was witnessed by the Head Start research
team in the Department of Family and Child Sciences at
Michigan State University. Their observations indicate
that three to four year olds have been exposed to a deprived
environment for too long to benefit permanently from the
program.5

Although there would seem to be abundant information
available on the physical needs and space requirements of

children, the reverse is true of the information on their

social and psycho-educational spatial needs. In order to
avoid making serious errors in the future, researchers
should begin to develop a criterion or criteria for the
amount and type of space required for an adequate living
environment during the developmental years.

To date, the measures of housing space most em-
phasized have dealt with the amount of square footage and
physical condition of the dwelling. Spatial adequacy has
been described by person-room density and the extent of
sharing facilities with non-family members. Space require-
ments for particular activities have been determined on the
basis of dimensional or quantitative demands. There are
numerous circumstantial factors which may have a modifying
effect on the quantity and density of living space which
must be examined to reach a realistic definition of housing
adequacy. For this, we need more refined methods of study-
ing spatial needs.

Even without complete affirmation of empirical
research, there is evidence to indicate that high density
in living spaces in United States homes does not constitute
optimal living conditions. Density has been sighted by
several authors as one of the most important factors
affecting family life and it may be the most debilitating
factor arising from the housing of low-income families.
Density to the level of crowding has been said to cause

stresses, strains and frustrations in family living because

it: influences attitudes toward privacy and the self,
produces irritation in intra-family relations, and invites
the intrusion of non-family members. For these reasons,
crowding has been associated with a high level of dissatis-
faction in the home.6

It has been hypothesized that under conditions of
crowding the child's develOpment is affected because:
there is no place for private serious discussions with
children, family members spend time away from home because
there is not enough space for everyone to live comfortably,
thus placing children out of the reach of parental control
and there is no space for toys, projects and favorite
possessions.7 Density and spatial factors may well be valid
primary concerns for researchers of family life due to the
seriousness of the results implied.

The present crisis in housing is beginning to be
acknowledged as a force which may alter American life.
Although the problem touches nearly everyone, the poor are
affected the most (they must pay a higher percentage of
their income for housing than do other Americans). Difficulty
in finding satisfactory housing at a reasonable price has
contributed to a feeling of frustration in the nation,
particularly in the ghetto. It has been estimated that
new housing in the past four years has fallen more than
1,000,000 units shy of the amount needed. The housing

industry itself is beset by conflicts and restraints which

make the housing that is produced cost more than it should.
Presently, the government is involving private industry in
an effort to improve the technology of low and moderate-1
income housing.8 With these conditions present, it is
imperative that we have knowledge available to make intel—
ligent decisions concerning the design of new housing
spaces.

Private and governmental agencies are making and
will continue to make decisions regarding personal living
environments with insufficient knowledge for doing so. We
seem to rely on intuition, custom, fashion or just luck.9
For intelligent future planning we need new concepts and
a better understanding of human needs.10 Our basic design
difficulty is our lack of precise knowledge in understanding
or predicting human response to various physical spaces.11
We need a viable framework on which to base decisions so
that we may make intelligent use of future techniques and
materials that will be available for building.12

Frequent references in current periodicals and
authoritative literature to the possibility of detrimental
effects from impacted living environments (especially
during early developmental years) prompted this study.
(see Review of Literature). Because no appropriate
instruments were located and there were numerous limita-
tions in research methodology in the area of concern, a

pilot study was undertaken. The study was limited to

developing several qualitative methods of describing space

as a basis for future research in housing.

FOOTNOTES, CHAPTER I

lRoger Barker, Ecological Psychology, (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1968)) p. 9.

2James S. Plant, Personality and Cultural Patterns,
(Cambridge: Harvard Univers1ty Press, 1937), p. 120.

3Justin Pinkunas, Fundamental Child Psychology,
(Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company), p. 119.

4Kenneth Francis and Eva A. Fillmore, The
Influence of Environment Upgn the Personality of Children,
TIowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1934): p. 7.

5The State Journal [Lansing, Michigan], April 14,
1969, pp. A-1 and A-l6.

6Nathan Glazer, "Housing Policy and the Family,"
Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXIX, No. l, 142.

7James S. Plant, "Some Psychiatric Aspects of
Crowded Living Conditions," American Journal of Psychiatry,
V (March, 1930), 13-18.

8"Why Housing Costs Are Going Through the Roof,"
Time, (October 31, 1969), 82-88.

9Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension, (New York:
Doubleday, 1966), p. 100.

10Humphrey Osmond, "Some Psychiatric Aspects of
Design," Who Designs America, ed. Laurence B. Holland,
(Garden City: Anchor Books, 1966), pp. 281-317.

11Ser: School Environments Research, (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1965), p. 58.

12Osmond, op. cit., p. 316.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Environment and Behavior

Literature in human development often suggests a
cause-effect relationship between man's environment and
behavior. Those studies which are substantiated with
empirical research data have dealt mainly with the envi-
ronment as it effects physical health (Chapin, Wilner),
deviant behavior (Schorr), and social interaction
(Festinger). However, the basis for determining social
and psychological environmental effects during the process
of normal human development is still limited. The follow-
ing is a brief review of the more outstanding research
done to date.

In 1954, The Johns Hopkins Longitudinal Study of
the Effects of Housingion Health and Social Adjustment was
undertaken. Physical health and disease were most clearly
linked to poor housing and crowded conditions. The better
housed respondents had less illness and fewer accidents.1
The housing variable was also associated with children's

school performance but less clearly than physical health

and disease. Although the better housed did not always
receive higher grades, they were more likely to be promoted
at a normal pace than were the poorly housed.2 Data also
showed directional trends supporting the presence of hous—
ing influences on social-psychological adjustment. These
influences were, in the order of importance:

reactions to housing and space

relations with neighbors

personal and family relations

attitudes and behavior toward neighborhood and community

social self-concept and aspirations

psychological state3

In addition to the influences on social-psychological
adjustment, the better housed respondents expressed more
positive reactions to specific aspects of the housing envi-
ronment.4 Eight percent of the sample said that no one in
the family was bothered by a lack of space and that it was
not an issue in family dissention.5 Greater space and
aesthetic improvement in the home were related to common
family activities and the mother's reactions to and
discipline of her children.6
In France, the team of Chombart de Lauwes studied

overcrowding in the working class. To establish an index
for crowding, they measured the number of square meters
of living space per person. It was found that when the
space per person reached a certain level (8-10 sq. meters
per person) social and physical pathologies doubled.

Illness, crime and crowding were distinctly linked in this

study.7

10

Concepts and methods for studying "the environment
of human behavior" were developed at the Midwest Psycholog-
ical Field Station. Using the traditional person-centered
approach, long records of children's behavior in real-life
settings were made. It was found that some aspects of
children's behavior could be better predicted from a knowl-
edge of the places they inhabited than from a knowledge of
the behavior tendencies of the particular children.8 The
work at the Field Station indicated that environment is
itself a phenomenon worthy of investigation and not just
"as an instrument for unraveling the behavior-relevant
programming within persons." The environment was seen as
highly structured "with an improbable arrangement of objects
and events which coerce behavior in accordance with their
own dynamic patterning." Barker concluded that, " . . .
today environments are more varied and unstable than here-
tofore and their contribution to the variance of behavior
is enhanced."9

Contributors to School Environments Research at the
University of Michigan contended that, because man is always
in some kind of space, he is constantly subjected to a
sensing of space through his various sensory inputs and to
his interpretation of these inputs, "all of which relates

"10

to his subsequent behavior. The School Environments

Research report states:
. . .Man is constantly subjected to spatial experiences

over which he has little or no conscious control, it
becomes evident that space itself, enclosed or defined,

11

is one of the most important factors in the total
environment. This importance is recognized only when
we consider human behavior.1

John Dean, author of "Housing Design and Family Values,"
says that:

Evidence is beginning to accumulate suggesting that
families are influenced by their living environments
in all sorts of ways that neither the family nor the
architect nor the social scientist were formerly
aware of.12

In exploring the factors which contribute to home adjust-
ments, Riemer noted that:

. . .the process of home adjustment is dependent upon
a complicated framework of socio-psychological interac-
tions. The physical structure of the home is apt to
have its bearing upon family solidarity . . .13

Although there is no guarantee that good housing
alone will produce good behavior, bad housing does appear
to contribute to family disorganization and other subse-
quent social ills.l4 If individual and group behavior is
largely determined by the spaces man inhabits, then knowl-
edge of the environment-behavior mix, particularly in the
early years, is essential.15 In his research with Head
Start Children, Rice says:

Numerous research studies have dealt with the
influence of various aspects of the child's total
environment but the role of the physical dwelling has
been neglected for the most part. The research studies
which have sought to identify causal relationships
between housing and its effects on people have been
concerned largely with the effects of housing on disease
and health or on patterns of social interaction. Very
few have touched upon the impact of the housing envi-
ronment upon human development or more particularly,
the growth and development of the younger child.16

12

Recent research in child development has indicated

the importance of the early developmental years and the

irreversible consequences of environmental related expe-

riences during that time. During the first two to five

years, children internalize those parts of their envi-
ronment with which they can identify. This internalizing
process is the beginning of the development of the ego or
self.17 Learning and development are modified by the
child's contact and interaction with his environment.13
Contact and interaction - the investigation of the envi-
ronment - is aided by the development of early motor
patterns.l9 As the child moves through his home spaces he

begins assimilating and organizing experiences into envi-

ronmental interrelations. Each of these experiences

provide a basis for future development and exploration.20
The provision of space and objects for exploration will
naturally encourage the growth of coordination.”-

The most important early environmental effects may

be those which convert the childs inherited potentialities

into personality traits. When environmental forces evoke

a. czreative response, they become formative influences.22
F131: the environment to be a positive influence it must

Provide learning stimuli from birth on. This is partic-
ularly important for the development of sensorimotor skills

WI"lich are established by the end of the second year and

provide a foundation for achievement in school.23

13

Head Start researchers at Michigan State have found that:

Continued exposure to a deprived environment has
deleterious effects upon a child's capacity to learn.
Research of the Head Start Program has revealed that
three to four year-olds who have been exposed to
environmental deprivation are too old to benefit from
the program.24

In his research on the intellectual development of lower-
class, disadvantaged children, Beller States that:
Children from crowded homes made fewer realistic demands
for help from the teacher and were less effective in
evoking a reaction from the teacher to their demands.
These children from more crowded homes also made less
constructive use of the help they received from the
teacher in response to their requests. When engaged
in their own activity, the same group of children were
less distracted by other children. This first cluster
of findings strongly suggests that the child from a
lower-class, crowded home has a less intensive rela-
tionship with the teacher . . .25
It would seem that the preceeding information on
cflnild development coupled with the increasing implications
<1f environmental effects would present an exciting chal-
Jxange to researchers. Yet most studies continue to be done
‘Wisthin the confines of a narrow specific discipline where

Possible interrelations continue to be speculated.

The Effects of Space

 

Man's sense of space is closely related to his
sense of self, which is in an intimate transaction
with his environment. Man can be viewed as having
visual, kinesthetic, tactile and thermal aspects of
his self which may be either inhibited or encouraged
to develop by his environment.26 Edward Hall

14

The process of human development involves expe-

riencing the social and psychological meanings of space.

Spatial experiences take on personal significance in the

process of acculturation and identity validation. Con-

sciously or unconsciously, man is involved in a spatial

experience every moment of his life. He is continuously

influenced by the nature of structural barriers and by the

lpeople and objects within them. The spatial experience

Inay differ with the area, volume and nature of the enclosing

kbarriers. Man's spatial experience may be altered by activ-

:ities, the number of people and things involved, cultural

aissociations and backgrounds, and the reasons for being

vvithin a particular space.27

Perhaps the most noticeable spatial experience is

<3rowding. Crowding can be so offensive and annoying that

it: is almost always consciously experienced. Crowding is

a. relative term which depends on the past experience of

true individual and how his culture or sub-culture have

defined it. It may refer to a lack of space or to density.

The density caused by crowding is less important
than the intensity of the social conflicts which are likely
'tC> result.28 The stresses, strains and frustrations of

IEEUMily living are often related to density and inadequate

SIPace in the home. To measure this, Bossard developed a

"53patial Index for Family Interaction" of x/sq. ft.; x

beting the number of interpersonal relationships. X is

15

determined by the formula x=y2—y/2 where y=the number of
persons. This gives a quantitative expression of the
spatial setting of intra-group relationships, an index of
the pressure of the physical nearness of the persons who
are interacting and an indication of the degree to which
.home space may be presumed to place pressure upon family
Inembers in their relations with each other.29
Crowding has been sighted by numerous authors as
<one of the most important housing features effecting family
ILife and it may be the main factor effecting low-income
housing.30 Research conducted by Wilner showed that when
the dwelling was in good condition, space was the foremost
11cmsing value expressed by residents. When the dwelling
vvas in poor condition, the condition was the foremost
inalue and space was second.31 To quote Wilner:
Space is the primary perceived cause of dis—
content among families of four persons or less . . .
overcrowding is associated with a high level of
dissatisfaction . . . low density with a low level

of dissatisfaction . . . as the condition of the
dwelling improves, spaceBgissatisfactions assume

primary importance . . .

Nathan Glazer, who is generally skeptical about
tiles idea that housing influences behavior, admits that if
tileere is any relationship at all, it is in the lack of
Space for family living. Glazer feels that crowding makes
the most serious modifications on family interaction and
tile process of socialization because it influences

Etttitudes toward privacy and the self, causes irritation

16

in intrafamily relations, and creates the intrusive
presence of non-family members.33 Crowding is one of the
major stress-producing conditions. In the home, stress
produced by crowding can affect child-rearing practices,
housekeeping and study habits.34 Blood, in his research
on crowding and child-rearing practices, found that prob—
lems arose with two children in a two-bedroom apartment.
There were more problems for the "permissive" than for the
"traditional" families.35 This difference may be accounted
for by the stringent limitations of traditional discipline
which places definite limitations on the right of individ-
ual family members to enter another's private areas with-
out permission. When living space is crowded and privacy
is difficult, conflicts often arise between family members.
Alvin Schorr notes that:

It is significant that the amount of space per person

and the way space is arranged to promote or interfere

with privacy have been related to stress.36
Schorr goes on to suggest that the generally high morale
among suburban families may be due to the fact that they
have more space and don't get in each other's way. Smaller
spaces which contain a number of activities simultaneously
make it difficult for family members to cope with every-
thing at once.37

The effects of crowding on child development were

first considered by Plant in the 1930's. He felt that

crowding influenced the family in three major ways. First,

“flvflb A A. r 5.4: Ejuvhwiwfl. .. w 7551.93.—

17

there was no place for private serious discussions with
children. Secondly, family members began to spend most
of their time outside away from the home because there was
not enough space for everyone to live comfortably thus
placing children out of the reach of parental control.
Thirdly, overcrowded homes have no space for toys, projects
and favorite possessions.38 Such home conditions have
potential negative effects on the development of the child.
These are:

l. A perception of oneself that leads to pessimism
and passivity
Stress to which the individual cannot adapt
Poor health
A state of dissatisfaction
Pleasure in company but not in solitude
Cynicism about peOple and organizations

A high degree of sexual stimulation without
legitimate outlet 39

\lChU'lubbJN
o. 00.0

In a masters thesis, Mary Winter compared the space
available for play activities in apartments and single family
dwellings. Winter states:

The child's need for play space means that, in an
apartment, more of the total space will be used for
play activities. As more space is used for the child's
activities, less space is available for parental.
privacy and entertaining. The child's opportunities
for privacy will also be limited, because there is not
a place where he can play within the dwelling that he
is not near his parents. 0

The most conclusive research done on the effects
of crowding involves animal populations. Opinions differ
on the validity of implying that animal behavior is indic-

ative of human behavior but the findings are suggestive

l8

and it may be well for us to bear in mind that the human
being is not infinitely plastic. Man may, under severe
and prolonged crowding, exhibit some of the same path-
ological behavior found in animals. James Plant, author
of some of the most impressive research in human crowding,
says:

Animals brought up in situations of high density,
incapable of eating, sleeping or procreating without
large numbers of other individuals being present,
have an increased incidence of a wide variety of
pathology . . .This finding in animals confirms
findings on input overload in human individuals and
groups.41

The conditions brought on by crowding do not aid

in the development of the kind of life valued by our
culture. For quality in human life, we must have an
environment which has spatial components to provide for
quiet, privacy, independence and initiative. For proper
development man needs the socializing effect of a normal

human group, not one suffering from stress. These are

not luxuries but real biological necessities.42

Territoriality

Recently, the fluid rhetoric of Robert Ardrey
(The Territorial Imperative, 1966) has brought to the fore
the behavioral concept known as territoriality. "A
territory," writes Dubos, "is an area of space, whether

of water or earth or air, which an animal or group of

19

animals defends as an exclusive preserve. The word is also
used to describe the inward compulsion in animate beings
to possess and defend a space."43
Territoriality has been recognized as an instinct
in animals for some time but never, before Robert Ardrey,
has the instinctive drive for territory been attributed to
man. Ardrey explains this omission by saying that "it has
been pressed aside by our political antipathies, by our
sexual preoccupations, by our romantic fallacies concerning
the uniqueness of man, by our contemporary dedication to
the myth that man is without instinct and a creature solely
of his culture."44 He goes on to state that man is "as much
a territorial animal as is a mockingbird singing in the
clear California night."45 . . ."as invested by the
unknown but measurable forces of the natural world as is
the planarian worm."46 And, furthermore, that "the
territorial nature of man is genetic and ineradicable."47
Ardrey fortifies his argument by stating:
The parallel between human marriage and animal

pairing requires no lecturer with a long, pointed

wand. The parallel between human desire for a place

that is one's own and animal instinct to stake out

such a private domain requires even less demonstration.48
This statement is followed by findings from empirical animal
research. Man's relationship to the lower animal forms.is

assumed by Ardrey without the validation of empirical human

research.

20

A number of scientists have questioned this approach
to the development of a territorial theory. Ashley Montagu,

(Man and Aggression, 1968), anthropologist and social

 

biologist, has edited a number of essays refuting Ardrey's
arguments on man's territorial instincts. The following
are excerpts from the essays:

Crook:

There is no doubt that Ardrey is right to emphasize
the fact that human.beings like animals show assertion
and aggression of many kinds in relation to the owner-
ship of objects and property and also in relation to
ethnic or national territory.--but must also consider
the cultural implications-n-socialization . . .

Geoffrey Gorer:

While territories are occupied and defended, the
occupier can be considered the proprietor, and the
territory its property. But this proprietorship
differs in many ways from "private property" as
understood in the modern world. It is not alienable
or heritable and must be continuously defended or
"earned." The data do not suggest that the territorial
instinct is a natural validation of the ownership of
transferable property by human beings. The demand for
territory as a private breeding ground does seem to be
nearly a human universal: even those societies which
have "long houses” or other types of extendedefamily
dwellings, provide a private breeding area by means of.
walls or partitions.. A society which fails to provide
adequate breeding areas for the newly mated may well
evoke deep feelings.50

J. P. Scott:

We have no knowledge whatever about the territorial
behavior of pre-cultural man, and even if we did there
has been ample opportunity for generic change to have
taken place within the past several thousand years.

We will have to make our judgements on territoriality
in human beings on the basis of modern man himself,
and here the anthropologists tell us that the impor-
tance of territory and private property varies
enormously between different cultures . . .In short,

21

there is no evidence that territory is or is not a
biologically determined universal condition in modern
man, but a great deal of evidence of important cultural
differences. There ma be some biological basis for
territorial behavior in people, but it is equally
possible that it is a human cultural invention.51

We need not equate man to the same natural world
as the planarian worm to realize that there are implica-
tions, if not absolutes, in the concept of territoriality.
Explanation and discussion is warranted as a backdrop for
comparison with possession and property rights in man.

The similarities between what has been observed in animal
territorial behavior and human behavior may not be, as
Ardrey says,derived from man's inherited instinct, but
parallels do exist and they are, therefore, an important
consideration in studying human spatial behavior.

To review, territoriality has been defined as
"behavior by which an organism characteristically lays
claim to an area and defends it against his own species."52
Irwin Altman elaborates this definition in terms of human
behavior:

Human territory encompasses temporarily durable
preventative and reactive behaviors including percep-
tions, use and defense of places, people, objects and
ideas by means of verbal, self-marker and environmental
prop behaviors in response to the actual or implied
presence of others and in response to properties of
the environment and is geared to satisfying certain
primary and secondary motivational states of individ-
uals and groups.

All territorial behavior, whether animal or human, exhibits

the following characteristics:

22

1. Reference to a place or geographical area within
which an animal (man) behaves for some amount of
time (situational contexts)

2. This functioning within a fixed geographical area
is usually associated with needs or drives such as
feeding, mating and child rearing. (organismic
factors) (Ardrey's argument is that these needs
are secondary to the need for territory.)

3. There is a characteristic territorial behavior
which includes marking, defense and threats to
intruders. (antecedent factors)

4. The territory is possessed by a behaving unit such
as an individual, family or larger group. (organ-
ismic factors)

The functions of a territory are:

l. to insure propagation of the species by regulating
density.

2. to provide a frame in which things are done.
3. to create proper spacing which insures against over
exploitation of the area which a species depends
on for its living. Thus, it protects the envi-
ronment.
4. to provide protection from predators.
5. to define and display status.54
Both animal and human territorial behavior involve
a specific area, marking activities, defense behavior and
dominance. However, animal territory is restricted to a
specific geographical area which, in humans, is more
variable and abstract. Human territory varies in size from
place to place and depending on the nature of situations
and intruders. A man may have loyalties to community and

nation which are much more abstract than the animal's

loyality to a specific place. Humans also have a tendency

23

to lay claim to and "possess" objects as well as areas.
Marking behavior is performed differently between animals
and man but serves essentially the same purpose. Animals
mark their territory with odors while humans use envi—
ronmental props such as signs, fences, nameplates, etc.
or such self-markers as body gestures, eye contact and other
non-verbal behavior. Intrusion is handled by humans ver-
bally, animals produce a physical threat display.55
Full—scale defense behavior is rare among humans
because of man's elaborate network of barriers and subtle
responses. The conditions which affect defense behavior
in man are: interpersonal compatibility, role relations,
social power and dominance relations. The degress of
crowdedness, group size and the design and arrangement of
space also cause differences in human defense behavior.
A territory may be possessed by individuals, pairs or groups
in both animals and man. However, man has a much broader
range of possessions because of his numerous social roles
and motives.56
In animal populations, possession of a territory
makes the holder stronger. The challenger is almost
always defeated and the intruder expelled. "Home ground"
gives the holder more energy and at the same time inhibits
the intruder. Aggression is thus limited because individ-
ual animals either avoid going where there will be disputes

or engage in rituals of dominance--subordination rather

 

 

 

 

. .
n.-
II-
I
r.“
v
n-
0
~.,.
6.
4
A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_\

  

24

than actual combat. Human territory is associated with
man's social heirarchy and satisfies certain personal and
social motive states. Research indicates that there is a
relationship between status and territorial behavior in
man.

A form of human group territoriality is observable
in the family home. Available space is assigned to dif—
ferent activities in such a manner as to achieve a minimum
of mutual interference. This organization of family life
can make even limited space functional. Families can
adjust their use patterns by spatial segregation, time
scheduling, functional differentiation of occasions or of
objects, the use of dominence and the exercise of controls.
All are measures to separate people by time and space. If
these adjustments are not made and agreed upon, an inharmo-
nious situation may develop. Family members begin to
"stake out area claims and defend these territories as
private domains." Family heirarchy is a defense mechanism.
As the conflict becomes more intense and more threatening
to the heirarchy, the areas become more delineated until
special segregation is institutionalized and accepted by
family members.57

In view of the implications and possible correlations
between animal and human territorial behavior, it is surpris-
ing that more research has not been done. In searching the

literature, Altman found less than a hundred studies on

25

territorial behavior. "Many of these were non-emperical,

and many were included only by stretching the meaning of

the concept." From past research, only the following is

known about territorial behavior in humans:

Territoriality in humans is an established
psychological fact. We must now know how it func-
tions, what its origins are and what key factors
affect it.

A frequent indication of human territory is occupa-
tion or consistent use. Only in certain instances
do humans use the defense behavior common in
animals. The existing research has been done

mostly on the territorial behavior of individual
persons, not on groups and not in normal situa-
tions. Self-marker or cognitive territoriality

has not been explored. "There has been insufficient
recognition of the multiple levels of territoriality
including self-marker, environmental prOps and
cognitive motivational behavior syndromes."

There have been a series of "demonstrations" of
the factors affecting territorial behavior in
humans. Affecting factors.seem to be individual
character such as.personality traits, normal-
psychotic conditions, interpersonal relationships
of dominance and social need compatability. The
importance of situational and environmental
determinants of territorial behavior are evident
in studies of.isolated.groups,.expectations.of
long v s. short.commitments-to.live with another
person, and defense of own v 3. public places.

Knowledge of territorial behavior is limited to
short time periods.r Little is known about the
dynamics of the entire process.. The emphasis.has
been on the current, visible characteristics of
territoriality. The development of territoriality
or the factors which influence its development
have not been examined, nor have the long term
effects, chancing patterns or losses of territo-
riality received attention.

Currently, the approaches to human territorial
phenomena depend heavily upon animal research for

26

concepts and theory. Most authors begin with a
review of animal research and end with the need
for research in humans.

6. There is little theoretical basis to studies of
human territoriality. Although there is agree-
ment that in animals the territorial drive is at
least partially genetic, instinctual or phys-
iological, it is not thought to have an innate
basis in humans.58

Privacy

Prior to the 18th century, there were no "bath"
rooms, "bed" rooms, or "living" rooms. Homes had no spaces
that were sacred or specialized. In the western world,
privacy, as we know it today, did not exist. People came
and went at will, furniture was put up, taken down and
moved around according to the mood of those present at the
time. Children and adults dressed alike, acted alike and
were treated alike. There was no childhood, no nuclear
family.

During the 18th century, rooms began to take on
separate functions. The French.distinguished "salle" from
"chambre." The English began to name their rooms according
to function-w-bathroom, bedroom, living room, etc. Thus
separated and defined, these new spaces provided privacy
for family members. It was at this point that the family
pattern we know today began to develop. Since then, the
concept of the nuclear family has been further expressed
and reinforced in the form of the house with private spaces

being provided for family members.59

27

Privacy is the right of an individual to decide
what information about himself.he would like to communicate
to others and under what conditions.60 It is a result of
the desire to hold back knowledge of experiences and
intentions. Desire for privacy expresses the human need
to be only partially known to others. It is a device for
controlling other's perceptions and beliefs about the
self.61 "The right to privacy is the right to personal
dignity."62

Privacy enables a person to assume non—public.
postures and thus prepares him physically for public.life.63
Psychotherapists and students of personality growth.havefl
found that people maintain their physiological and spir-
itual well-being better when they have a private place.

In groups, privacy both reflects and helps to maintain
Istatus divisions. The ability to invade anothers privacy
lies long been an indication of status.64

Because of its unique human behavioral states,
[neon Pastalan has suggested that privacy is the human
expression of territoriality. He has defined each of the
fcjur states and functions of privacy n-solitude, intimacy,
atuonymity and reserve-n-in terms of Altman's definition
015 human territorial behavior discussed earlier. To
reeview, these terms are:

l. Behavioral forms (use and defense)
Situational contexts (fixed place)

Antecedent factors (intrusion by another)

2
3
4 Organismic factors (sex, food, etc.)65

28

Pastalan contends that each of these characteristics is
present in all four states of privacy.66 The major
difference between animal and human territorial behavior
is the defense display. While animals have aggressive and
ritualized displays for defending their territory such
overt behavior is seldom seen in humans. It may be that.
the human behavioral form for protection and defense is
not aggression but, instead, a drawing in and privatizing
of the self from intruders or intrusions. This places

new importance on the need for privacy in humans, partic-
ularly during the more vulnerable developmental years, and
on the consequences of a lack of privacy.

Children are particularly susceptible to invasions
of privacy, especially by adults, because of their subor-
dination. Adults often invade the privacy barriers of the
young by misunderstanding and impatience. Often adults
are not aware of their intrusion, but children suffer
from it.67

Parental obligations concerning the care of a

child override the child's rights to seclusion.and
place him in a position of social nakedness wherein he
has no control over his appearance to others. How-
ever, to be subject to limitless intrusions is to
exist in a state of dishonor, as implied in the rule
against coming too close.6

Being subordinate, children cannot make the same demands

for privacy as adults. This does not mean that privacy

and separateness are not important to the child. Each

state of development has it's own unique mode of privacy

29

which "may be defined in terms of the ego's relationship
to those from whom privacy is sought and the manner in
which withdrawal is accomplished."69
Because of the importance of privacy during the
developmental years and the childs vulnerability to
intrusion, emphasis will be placed on the child's needs
in the following discussion of the need for privacy.
Privacy is needed for autonomy, emotional release,.

self-evaluation and limited and protected communication.

Personal Autonomy

Our society places a high value on the individual-
The development of the individual has been linked to the
need for autonomy.70 Autonomy begins to appear at age
two to three and, unless discouraged, continues to develop
throughout life. For the identity of the self to become
clear, the individual must be able to be alone for reverie
and daydreaming. It is important that physical barriers
separate the child from others during these times. "A
sense of being a person is gotten from group interaction.
A sense of selfhood develops apart from the group in
private."71 Reverie and daydreaming help to integrate
past and present purposes and values and develop inter-
personal competence which.renews sociability.72 An indi-
vidual cannot develop autonomy if his intimate thoughts are

constantly interrupted. Therefore, space is needed for

30

physical privacy. Respect by others for privacy also
facilitates autonomy.73 Speaking of the child's need for
privacy, Young says:
Without privacy there is no true individuality. There
are only types. Individual personality is a process
of growth, not a discovery, not a product stamped out
by a machine. For that process, solitude is as
necessary as companionship, quiet as important as
activity.74
If no space is available for privacy and the child
is constantly in the company of others, he may become so
oversocialized that he will feel frightened and lost when
left alone.75 This destroys his sense of individuality
and an incomplete personality develops. To quote Plant:
Our work in suburban and rural districts has convinced
us that periods of being alone, of playing alone, of
having the privacy of one's own room, are important

fostering agents in a feeling of individuality, of
self—sufficiency.76

Emotional Release

No individual can constantly maintain a public

facade. The tension would be too great. At times when

one can no longer contain the emotional overload of role
playing, privacy is sought for emotional release without
"losing face." In situations of severe stress, a private
place is crucial. When children are unable to escape.stress
situations due to a lack of space, they develop a hostility
‘toward their environment. James Plant compares introverted

and.extroverted children by the introvert's hostility

 

 

 

31

toward his environment. Extroverts, on the other hand,
are characterized by a "friendliness" toward their envi—
ronment.7'7 Lack of privacy and the constant presence of
other individuals produces mental strain in children. If
there are no times when the child can "get away from it
all," relax and let down his guard against others he will

become fatigued and develop a negative attitude.78

Self Evaluation

Time for introspective thought away from informa-
tion input is needed by everyone for re-evaluating, self-
evaluating, developing judgement and creative thought. As
emotional involvement increases, the need for private
facilities to conceal chosen habits or activities also
increases. Overexposure of the parentechild relationship
making all habits and activities known negates any mutual
admiration.79 This overexposure to others, especially to
adults, has a disruptive effect on the development of the
childs judgement.80 Because the child is constantly
exposed to his adult models, he sees them in all situae
tions as they really are, not as he would idealize them to
be. There is a lack of goal—images in the adults closest
to the child. Hero images become unknown people outside
of the family who are de-personalized.81 Thus, the child
does not have intimate goaleimages whose judgement he

respects and can adapt as his own at some later date.

1L .w...x.h.m.¢i~b.lqfl. a. 3.4.1:. z... H.174

32

Nelson Foote supports Plant's theory by suggesting
that children who have their own space for private play
and solitude develop better empathy, judgement and crea-
tivity. He argues that children who have the time and
space for their own private endeavors will have more
intellectual or emotional identification with others.
.Although exposure to others is important in developing
empathy, over-exposure has the opposite effect.82

There is a critical point beyond which closer

contact with another person will no longer lead to an
increase in empathy. . . .Up to a certain point,
intimate interaction with others increases the capacity
to empathize with them. But when others are too con-
stantly present, the organism appears to develop
protective resistance to responding to them. As the
number of persons one must deal with increases, it is
necessary to respond to them impersonally.33

In privacy there is also the opportunity for self-
exxploration and experimentation. The ability to withdraw
iJnto fantasy and make-believe enhances the development of
<=reativity in children.84

Practice in make believe and utilization of imaginary,
absent or hypothetical audiences increases the prob-
ability of creativity. Respect for one's own voluntary

fantasy and ability to withdraw are the principle cases
in point.35

Limited and Protected Communication

Two aspects of communication are provided by
Private space. First, the opportunity for intimacy with
(filosen others and, secondly, a place to withdraw and limit
CRMmmunication by physical barriers. ,Withdrawal into

pl‘ivacy may also be accomplished by means of facial

33

expressions and body gestures.36 "Withdrawal into privacy

is often a means of making life with an unbearable (or
sporatically unbearable) person possible." Without the
opportunity for distraction and relief, intimacy can
produce hostility as well as affection.87 When intimacy
is desired for family communication,.it is essential that
it can be shared without fear of intrusion. When there is
:no place for private serious discussions between parent

(and child, communication on important matters.becomes

impersonal. 83

Measuring Space

The first challenge researchers of spatial behavior
and ecology must meet is the establishment of a viable
<3r1teria for defining environmental parameters. Once
developed, these parameters will serve as a valuable

13ackground for comparative behavior. To quote Barker:

An initial practical problem of ecological research
is to identify the natural.units of the phenomenon
studied. The essential.nature of the units with which
ecology deals is the same whether they.are physical,
social, biological or behavioral units:

(a) they occur without feedback from the
investigation: they are self-generated.

(b) each unit has a time-space.locus.

(c) an unbroken boundary separates an internal
pattern from a differing.external pattern.

The problem of identifying and describing the
ecological environment of behavior is an empirical
one. It is necessary to observe-and-describe.the.
environment in order to develop theories.that can
later guide further empirical investigation.

34

To date research in family ecology has been severely
hindered by the lack of effective ways to measure and
describe family living space. The implications of CIOWd?
ing, territorial behavior and privacy are exciting
.challenges for future research. But without a viable
basis for defining the environmental space variable there
is no stage for behavioral study. Past standards for

lneasuring living space are grossly incomplete when coupled

‘flith social and psychological variables. These standards

Imave been set by the American Public Health Association
:in.an effort to define crowded living. They are:

l. the amount of square footage
—-400 sq. ft. for one person
--750 sq. ft. for two persons
--1000 sq. ft. for three persons

--etc.

2. the number of people per bedroom
--1 bedroom for two people
--2 bedrooms for three people
--3 bedrooms for four people
--etc.

Two (but no more) persons may share a bedroom if
they are (l) a married couple, (2) children of the
same sex or opposite sex under six years of age, (3)
older children of the same sex, (4) an adult and a very

young child.

3. the person per room ratio
--one per room is uncrowded 0

None of these measures are entirely adequate. .The

anMount of square footage does not take into account how

true space is divided or arranged.91 It is also an unreal—.

iStic measure in actual practice. We do not speak of a

I..-

|-;V‘

-
..ud

 

-~-4.

I-v.

Dv.‘

'v

35

2500 square foot home but of "seven rooms" or "three
bedrooms." Research on consumer space preferences indi-
cated that consumers do not "prefer" floor area because
they cannot envision the space from measures in square
footage. Instead, they "prefer" rooms - a standard much
more relevant to the accommodation of activities and
furniture.92 The room concept, although the most commonly
used, does not take into full account the amount of usable
space within the rooms. For example, the floor area of a
bedroom determines how many people can comfortably use it.
If, however, it is necessary for some other family members
to walk through a bedroom to gain access to other living
areas, its adequacy is, to a degree, limited. The person
per room ratio not only ignores size and arrangement but
does not consider the functions for which the rooms were
designed. A six room house with only one room which will
function as a bedroom may result in more crowding than a
smaller house which has three separate sleeping areas.93
The term "use crowding" is used to describe a room which
has been designed for one function but is also used for
other different functions to the point of overuse.94

Use crowding may exist undetected by measures which do not
take into account the number of functions that have been
assigned to the spaces of a living unit. The amount of
space available to accommodate family demands determines

whether or not there is use crowding. Numerical measures

 

.-

 

VA

III

 

 

-.I. N

 

is

36

of crowding do not take these factors into consideration
and assume that all families engage in the same activities
at the same time and prefer the identical life style.95
Nelson Foote suggests that an ideal measure of
space would take into account: (1) total floor area, (2)
room count, (3) bedroom count, (4) total number of occupants
and (5) age, sex and relationship of the occupants.96 To
these could be added cultural background, attitude toward
'the home, family activity priority and life style. These
Ineasures consider the cultural, sociological and psycholog-
:ical modifications of living space to develop a more valid
aassessment than physical and biographical data. Crowding
:is a relative term which precludes the establishment of
absolutes of physical and biographical data. Variations
<1n.the three standard methods of measuring and evaluating
Iliving space have been developed. However, none of the
‘rariations found take into account all of the variables
thich must be accounted for to have a meaningful measure.
Kremer and Leaman used photography to study the
hOme activities of children as they related to spatial
requirements. An oilcloth grid was placed on the floor
(If the home and space use was recorded by a camera taking
l30th single and multiple exposures of specific activities.
Tame resulting "data" was numerous pictures of children
erlgaged in activities on or around an oilcloth grid. The

Profundity of these data may account for the fact that the

37

methodology, not the findings, was reported. The only
stated conclusion was that "the space used seemed to be
determined by the space available and the placement of the
furniture in the room."97
Woodworth made a critical evaluation of three
laboratory techniques used to measure activity space needs.
The techniques evaluated were: (1) observation against a
grid background, (2) direct measurement by "freeZing," and
(3) movable wall panels. She found that the grid observa-
tion method was the least variable and also the most
preferred by the subjects. "Freezing" showed the next
least variability and the movable wall panel the most
variable able method.98 Although these findings may be
useful in the evaluation of physical space for physical
activities, they do not contribute to the development of
a criteria for the evaluation of living space for human
(physiological, sociological, psychological) activities.
There have been several studies done which use the
three space measuring techniques evaluated by Woodworth.
These studies have been concerned with physical spatial
requirements and have concentrated on the economics of
space - i.e., the amount of space required for convenience
and efficiency for household activities and storage. These
physical requirements do not contribute to the more sub-
jective problem of determining the adequacy of living

space in terms of human needs and demands. Also, they

38

are appropriate only when small samples are required for
useful findings.

Hasler used the number of persons per bedroom ratio
to study the use and adequacy of space in prefabricate
houses. The houses were ranked for adequacy by yes-no
answers on specific topics based on the criteria of: (1)
no more than two people per bedroom, (2) a separate bed—
room for children over nine of the opposite sex, (3) a
separate bedroom for married couples, and (4) two brothers
or two sisters were allowed in the same bedroom regardless

of their age.99

This study is subject to the same criticism
as the person per room ratio - i.e., that it does not take
into account the size, arrangement of space and human
modifications of the rooms being considered. As such, it
would seem to be an inadequate basis for the assessment of
the quality of prefabricated houses.

Zimmer made recommendations for housing features
which should be altered or used to provide for safety and
convenience in the care of the preschool child.100 Numerous
specific physical features of the home were identified but
the optimal spatial arrangement of these features was not
developed. There was no attempt to explore the concept of
space, i.e., the spatial experiences of the family, as a
feature to be altered or used in the care of the preschooler.

An explanatory investigation to develop a hypothet-

ical frame of reference for crowding research was done by

39

Reimer. Respondents were asked questions about family
home activities to find what housing features were "a
source of continuous annoyance." The responses were
grouped under (1) space factors, (2) plan (arrangement
factors), and (3) equipment. Results were compared by use
of the person per room ratio. "The percentage of com-
plaints is four-doubled (8% to 33%) as we proceed with
homes with less than a half a person to homes with more
than one person per room. Family size, on the other hand,
does not show any clear relationship to the number of
complaints about the family home." Highly crowded families
offered less consideration to the problems of floor plan
and room arrangement.101

The significance of Reimer's study is that the
person per room ratio, family activities and housing factors
that had "been a source of continuous annoyance" were
linked to establish a more meaningful criteria for crowd-
ing. Any functional evaluation of living space must try
to relate such physical features as the number of rooms,
their size, arrangement and use to the more intangible
factors of family activities, attitudes, needs and demands.

With these factors in mind, the following pilot
study was conducted in an effort to develop a more meaning—
ful measure of family living space. Interest in this
problem was initially generated by the literature which

suggests a correlation between the near environment and

40

human behavior. Of particular interest was the possibility
that spatial factors which were previously ignored may have
an impact on family life. For this reason, the degree of
privacy or personal space and spatial density were explored
as possible definitive measures. Having no previously
tested instruments for guidance, the major effort in the
study was to develop, evaluate and define viable research

techniques.

FOOTNOTES, CHAPTER II

1Daniel M. Wilner and others, The Housing
Environment and Family Life, (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1962), p. 243.

 

2;§i§., p. 251.
3;p;g., p. 247.
4;p;g., p. 248.
5;p;g., p. 142.
5;pgg,, p. 249.

7Edward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension, (New York:
Doubleday, 1966), p. 161.

8Roger G. Barker, Ecolo ical Psychology, (Stanford,
California: Stanford Univers1ty Press, 1968), pp. 3-4.

 

91bid.’ p. 3.

loSer: School Environments Research, (Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University ofMichigan, 1965), p. 161.

llIbid., p. 60.

12John P. Dean, "Housing Design and Family Values,"
Land Economics, (May, 1953), 130.

l3Svend Riemer, "Sociological Theory of Home
Adjustments," American Sociological Review, VIII (June,
1943).

14Robert Rice, "The Effects of Project Head Start
and Differential Housing Environments Upon Child Devel-
opment," The Family Coordinator, (January, 1969), p. 32.
15Barker, op. cit., p. 9.

16Rice, op. cit., p. 32.

41

42

17James S. Plant, Personality and the Cultural
Pattern, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937),
p. I20.

18Kenneth Francis and Eva A. Fillmore, The
Influence of the Environment Upon the Personality of
Children, (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1934),
p. 7.

19Newell C. Kephart, "Perceptual—Motor Aspects of
Learning Disabilities," Exceptional Children, XXXI, 202.

20Will Beth Stephens, "Diaget and Inhelder-Appli-
cations of Theory and Diagnostic Techniques to the Area
of Mental Retardation," Education and Training of the
Mentally Retarded, I (1966), 2.

21Nelson Foote and Leonard S. Gottrell, Identit
and Inter ersonal Competence, (Chicago: The Un1vers1ty
Press, 1955 5), p. 67.

22Rene Dubos, So Human An Animal, (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968): p. 92.

23Justin Pikunas, Fundamental Child Psychology,
(Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, I965), p. 119.

 

24The State Journal [Lansing, Michigan], April 14,
1969, pp. A-1 and A-16.

25Kuno E. Beller, "The Evaluation of Effects of Early
Educational Intervention on Intellectual and Social Develop-
ment of Lower-Class Disadvantaged Children," Critical
Issues in Research Related to Disadvantaged Children,
TPr1nceton, New Jersey: Educational; Testing SerV1ce,
1969). PP. 37- 38.

 

26Ha11, op. cit., p. 60.

27Ser: School Environments Research, 9p: cit., p.

 

59.
28Dubos, op. cit., p. 153.
29James Bossard, "Spatial Index for Family Inter—

action," American Sociological Review, xVL (2), pp. 243-
245.

 

30Alvin L. Schorr, Slums and Social Insecurity,
(London: Thomas Nelson Ltd., 1964), p. 8.

31

 

Wilner, op. cit., pp. 226-228.

43

321bid., p. 229.

33Nathan Glazer, "Housing Policy and the Family,"
Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXIX (l), 142.

 

34Schorr, op. cit., p. 2.
35Ibid., p. 14.

36Ibid., p. 5.
37Ibid., p. 13.

38James S. Plant, " Some Psychiatric Aspects of

 

(March, 1930) 5, 13-15.

39Plant, "Some Psychiatric Aspects of Crowded
Living Conditions," op. cit., p. 20.

40Mary Winter, "Apartments and Single-Family
Dwellings As They Affect the Play Activities of Preschool
Children," (unpublished Master's thesis, University of
Pennsylvania, 1966).

41Plant, "Some Psychiatric Aspects of Crowded Living
Conditions," op. cit., p. 27.

42Dubos, op. cit., pp. 90, 92, 168.
43Ibid., pp. 90-92.

44Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, (New
York: Delta Books, 1966). p. 102.

 

45;pid., p. 5.

45;p;g., p. 110.
47Ipid., p. 116.
43;p;g., p. 110.

49Ashley Montagu, Man and Aggggssion, (London:
Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 155.

5OIbid., p. 80.
51Ibid., pp. 56-57.

52Hall, op. cit., p. 7.

44

53Irwin Altman, "Territorial Behavior In Humans:
An Analysis of the Concept," (paper read at the Conference
On Explorations of Spatial-Behavioral Relationships As
Related to Older People, Institute of Gerontology, May,
1968, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan).

54Ibid.

551bid.

551bid.

57Dean, op. cit., p. 139.

58Altman, op. cit.

59Ha11, op. cit., pp. 97-98.

60Leon A. Pastolan, "Privacy As An Expression of
Human Territory," (unpublished paper, University of
Michigan, 1969).

61Sidney M. Jourard, "Some Psychological Aspects of
Privacy," Law and Contempory Problems, (Spring, 1966) 31,
307.

62Leontine Young, Life Among the Giants, (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 133.

63Barry Schwartz, "The Social Psychology of Privacy,"
The American Journal of Sociology, LXXIII (1967-68) 745.

64Ipid., p. 742.

65Altman, op. cit.
66Pastalan, op. cit.

67Young, op. cit., p. 131.
68Schwartz, op. cit., p. 748.
69Schwartz, op. cit., p. 749.
70Pastalan, op. cit.
71Schwartz, op. cit., p. 752.
72Foote, op. cit., p. 150.

73Ibid., p. 79.

p. 213.

45

74Young, op. cit., p. 130.
75Dubos, op. cit., p. 154.

76Plant, Personality and Cultural Pattern, 0p. cit.,

 

77Ibid., p. 115.
781bid., p. 227.
79Schwartz, op. cit., p. 744.

80Foote, 0p. cit., p. 92.

81Plant, Personality and Cultural Pattern, op. cit.,

 

pp. 214-218.

82Foote, op. cit., p. 73.
83Ibid., p. 73.

 

34;ppg., p. 92.

852219., p. 92.

86Pastalan, op. cit.
87Schwartz, op. cit., p. 741.

88Plant, "Some Psychiatric Aspects of Crowded

Living Conditions," op. cit., p. 13.

89Barker, op. cit., pp. 10-11.
90Foote, op. cit., p. 216.
91;p;g., p. 216.

92Wilner, op. cit., pp. 230-231.
93Foote, 0p. cit., p. 216.
94Schorr, op. cit., p. 9.
95;p;g., p. 9.

96Foote, op. cit., p. 216.

97Josephine Kremer and Richard Leaman, "Photography

Aids in Studying the Space Used for Home Activities of
Children," Journal of Home Economics, V, 47.

46

98Mary Woodworth, "The Critical Evaluation of
Certain Laboratory Techniques Used to Measure Activity
Space Needs," (unpublished Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania
State University, 1956).

99Doris Hasler, "A Study of the Use and Adequacy
of Space in Prefabricated Houses," (unpublished Master's
Thesis, Perdue, 1958).

100Helen Zimmer, "Housing Arrangements Affecting
Certain Home Management Practices when Preschool Children
Are Included," (unpublished Master's Thesis, Oregon State,
1946).

101Svend Riemer, "Maladjustment To The Family Home,"
American Sociological Review, X (October, 1945) 643.

CHAPTER III

THE PROBLEM

The specific problem of this study was to develop

instruments which could be used to describe family living

space.

A.

The following were seen as subunits of this problem:
to initiate the development of a means of measuring
which determines the number and type of activities
and the number of people within specified areas

of the home by time period,

to initiate the development of an index of activity
density in the home by area and by time period,

to initiate the development of a means of identi-
fying the activity spaces of an individual child,
to initiate the development of a means of identi-
fying the degree of infringement on the child's
activity spaces,

to initiate the development of a means of clas-
sifying the degree of infringement on the child's
activities according to the time of day and type

of child's activity,

to initiate the development of a means of locating

object space of an individual child and determine

47

48

the number of personal object spaces which are

shared or individually possessed.

Definition of Terms

 

For the purposes of this study, the following

definitions were used:

1.

Activity load - is defined as the total number of
activity units in an area of the home.

Activity units - are defined as a measure of
activity by less than one half hour duration and
more than half hour duration (one and two units
respectively).

Activity density - is defined as the total number
of activity units multiplied by the number of
people present in the home while the activities
are being carried on.

Activity space - is defined as that area of living
space in which particular activities are carried
out.

Child's personal space - is defined as that space
or area which is identified by the child as being
used most often or exclusively by himself.

Child's personal object space - is defined as that
space or area which is identified by the child as

being used for keeping his personal objects.

10.

11.

12.

13.

49

Crowding - is defined as the existence of a
condition where the density of persons and/or
activities and/or objects in a given space is
undesirable to the inhabitants.

Heirarchy of space use - is defined as the family
order of priority which determines which activities
and family members have claim to the use of space
in the home.

Individual creative and play space - is defined as
that space or area which contains the preschool
child's activities of coloring, painting, playing
with toys and watching T.V.

Infringement - is defined as the simultaneous use
of a space for two or more conflicting activities.
Management — is defined as the handling, direction
or control of persons, activities and objects
within a living space.

Mother's attitude - is defined as the mother's
opinion of the subject in question.

Personal objects - are defined as articles which
have special meaning for an individual. Some
personal objects may be shared with certain
intimate persons, other personal objects may not.
Those which may not have a special meaning for

identity.1

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

50

Personal care space - is defined as that space or
area which contains the preschool child's activ-
ities of eating, dressing and sleeping.

Physical arrangements - are defined as the floor
plan and furniture placement of a living space.
Privacy - is defined as the right of an individual
to decide what information about himself he would
like to others and under what conditions.3
Private space - is defined as some locus that is
inviolable by others except at the person's
express invitation.2
Social activity space - is defined as that space

or area which contains the preschool child's

activity of playing with friends.

FOOTNOTES, CHAPTER III

1Barry Schwartz, "The Social Psychology of Privacy,"
The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. L XXIII 1967—68
741-752

2Sidney Jourard, "Some Psychological Aspects of
Privacy," Law and Contempgrary Problems, Vol. 31, (Spring
1966) 310.

Leon A. Pastalan, Privacy As An Expression of

Human Territory, (unpublished paper. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969.)

51

CHAPTER IV

STUDY METHODOLOGY

Development of Instruments and Procedures

 

The major work in the development of the instru-
ments was accomplished as an outgrowth of a two-term
graduate seminar in family housing. Readings and class
discussions focused upon the implications from theories
of social, intellectual and psychological develOpment
found in literature pertaining chiefly to the child in
the early years.1 Readings dealing with spatial concepts
were also discussed when they were relevant to developmen-
tal concepts. Major attention was devoted to identifying
propositions and theories implying a relation between the
social and psycho-educational levels of children and their
environment. In this manner, the members of the class
became aware of the absence of adequate instruments and
the need for measures more fully descriptive of the
qualities of the home spatial environments. It became
obvious that progress in understanding man and his envi-
ronment was dependent upon defining the elements of that

environment.

52

53

The possibility of detrimental effects from impacted
living environments focused importance on the amount and
quality of private spaces in the living environment. The
desirable amount and quality of private space is thought
to be culturally defined. Therefore, the discussion is
limited to North American living environments. For the
purposes of this study, private space has been defined as
some locus that is inviolable by others except at the
holder's express invitation. Three factors were thought
to be important in considering the amount and quality of
private space: crowding, physical arrangements and
management.

Crowding has been defined as the existence of a
condition where the density of persons and/or activities
and/or objects in a given space is undesirable to the
inhabitants. It was thought that crowding may inhibit a
person's private space because:

1. With a high density of persons;

(a) there is no shield from observation by others

(b) there is an increased possibility for inter-

action and, therefore, intrusion by others

(c) there is an increased possibility of the

presence of unwanted others
2. With a high density of activities;
(a) there is less space for each other activity

to be carried on

54

(b) there is the possibility of unwanted
interruption or distraction from other
activities

(c) there is the possibility of conflict from
incongruous activities occuring simultaneously

3. With a high density of objects;

(a) the space available for activities may be
limited

(b) there is a lack of places where personal objects
can be kept withoutheing handled or seen by
unwanted others

Physical arrangements (floor plan and furniture

placement) affect private space because:
1. they may or may not shield a person and his
personal objects from others2
2. they determine certain possibilities for inter-
action and withdrawal and create the setting for
rituals that support privacy needs3
Management may affect private space because the
handling, direction or control of persons, activities and
objects within a living space may or may not produce
situations which support a persons need for private space.

Several authors suggested that the above factors

were related to frustrations in family life and dissatis-

faction with the living environment. In addition, there

were numerous references to the importance of the living

55

environment during the early developmental years.4 (see
Review of Literature, p. 12)

The available methods of measuring living space
are quantative in nature (i.e., person per room ratio,
amount of square footage, etc.).5 These measures appeared
to be inappropriate for this study as they did not con-
sider factors which may modify living space. Therefore,
it was necessary to develop original instruments. These
instruments were: The Biographical Information Instrument,
the Activity Load Instrument and the Child's Personal Space
Instrument. The author is responsible for the final stages
of the Activity Load Instrument and wholly responsible for

the Child's Personal Space Instrument.

Biographical Information

 

Students reviewed the biographical instruments of
a number of past housing studies and made adaptations from
their content and structure to fit the demands of the
study. In addition to these adaptations, questions
relevant to this study were composed. The resulting
biographical instrument was, therefore, a combination of
several past biographical studies and original questions.

(See Appendix)

56

Activity Load Instrument

 

Most directly related to the development of the
instrument was Bossard's "Spatial Index for Family Inter-
action" as it is a more qualitative expression of living
space than the other measures available. The index is:
x/sq.ft., x being the number of interpersonal relationships,
x=y2-y/2 and y=the number of persons.6 Bossard takes into
account interpersonal relationships as one of the human
factors which might modify living space. This concept of
relating space to interaction suggested that the density of
activities and of people occupying a space could alter the
way that space is perceived and used by it's inhabitants.
For example, if activities were inhibited by restricted
space, the participants may experience frustration that
would lead to a certain type of interaction. On the other
hand, if the space was adequate for the desired activities,
the participants would experience a different type of
interaction. Therefore, the Activity Load instrument was
developed to record the number of people present in a space
plus the location, type and duration of activities. From
this information, activity units were derived.

Activity density was computed during coding by
multiplying the activity units times the number of people
present in the home. Activity units were chosen as the
multiplican because they were an indication of the density

of activity. The multiplier, the number of people present,

57

was chosen because of the suggestion from Bossard's index
that human interaction modified living space. It was
believed that the activity density index would give an
indication of factors affecting the adequacy of living
space for family activities.

The interview schedule was administered to 32
families who lived in University married housing. All of
the respondents had one child in nursery school. This
sample was chosen because the married housing units had
approximately the same amount of floor area and similar
external environments. Of the 32 families interviewed,
eighteen were chosen for reporting in this study. The
sample was divided into two groups; the first group of
families had one child, the second group had two or more
children.

A coding procedure was developed to organize
information into data for computer statistical analysis.
Frequency distributions were used to describe the sample
population and served as a basis for the chi-square
computation. The coded data was analyzed by using a
three way repeated measures analysis of variance with a
conservative test and, for child's personal object space,
a chi-square. Differences between the two groups and/or
the interaction of variables was determined by an F test
for activity density and infringement and a chi-square

was used for child's personal object space.

58

The methodology of the study was critically reviewed
and suggestions for revision were made. The instruments
were analyzed for their efficiency, reliability and validity
and numerous revisions were made. Three new instruments,
Housing Evaluation, Activity Priority and Area Crowding were

designed to supplement the revised instruments.

Child's Personal Space Instrument

 

The objective in the development of the Child's
Personal Space instrument was to explore the concept of
privacy and private space for personal objects. The child
was chosen as the respondent because of the frequent ref-
erences in the literature to the importance of privacy and
private space during the early developmental years. Age
of the respondents was a seriously limiting factor in the
development of this instrument because of the difficulty
in communicating abstract concepts (privacy and proprietor-
ship) to preschool children. Therefore, the instrument was
limited to the location of activities and personal objects.
An indication of the degree of proprietorship was obtained
by noting shared or exclusive use. Eight common activities
of children and six artifacts often associated with a pre-
school child were chosen as the indices for this informa-
tion. Selection of the artifacts was dictated by the need
to insure that they were objects likely to be present in

the homes of the respondents and by the need to have items

59

with which the preschool child could identify and respond.
The selection of the activities was subject to the same
restrictions.

The transparency method used to record activity
load was employed to record a portion of the child's
responses. By using this method, transparencies could be
overlaid for an indication of when and where the child's
activities were occuring simultaneously with the activities
of other family members. A criteria was developed to deter-
mine if the other activities were infringing on the child's

7

activity. (See Criteria for Coding Infringement, p. 69)

Selection of the Sample

The sample of families described in this investiga-
tion was obtained and selected from the cooperative nursery
school at Michigan State University. Children accepted at
the nursery school in September, 1969 were selected accord-
ing to the following criteria:

1. Residence in university married housing (thus the
space per family was nearly constant).

2. Sex (half male and half female).

3. Age (2 yrs.,10 mo. to 4 yrs.,10 mo. at the begin-
ning of the school year).

4. Sibling status (half only children and half with

siblings).

60

Out of 40 families who were originally considered
to be eligible for the study, ten moved before the inter-
views could be scheduled, one mother did not understand
English well enough to communicate, one was on vacation at
the time of the interview and two families refused to
cooperate. In the remaining group of 26 families, nine
had only children and 17 had two or more children. Of
the families with only children, five had another child
within six weeks prior to the interview date. These
families were kept in the only child group because it was
felt that a six week old or younger infant would not have
a significant portion of personal space for a long enough
period to alter the nursery school age child's space usage.
Although this situation was not ideal, the scarcity of only
children families made it necessary to make allowances to
maintain the cell formation.

All of the 17 families with two or more children
were interviewed to have the opportunity to gain experience
with the instruments. However, in the analysis of the data,
one of these families was eliminated because both parents
were foreign born and had markedly different living patterns.
Nine families were selected randomly from the sixteen remain-
ing families with two or more children, to create a cell
equal in number to the only children families. Therefore,
the final sample size was 18: nine families with an only

child and nine with two or more children.

61

When the parents registered their child in the
nursery school in the Fall of 1968, they were informed
that they would be asked to participate in some type of
research involving their child. In the Spring of 1969, a
letter describing the project was sent to the parents by
the director of the nursery school. Following the letter,
each family was called by an interviewer to arrange for
one hour of interview time in the home with the mother

and the pre-school child.

Methods of Gathering Information

This research was initially undertaken by two
graduate seminar classes in Housing which met Winter and
Spring terms of 1969 at Michigan State University. There-
fore, it was the responsibility of the students in the
class to gather the information from the selected sample.
The students also developed the interview technique to be
employed and had at least some familiarity with all of the
instruments before the interviews were begun. All of the
eight graduate students were assigned families to inter-
view. When scheduling permitted, two students formed a
team to gain additional interview experience. Team inter-
views were not always possible since the interviews were
done during final exams. Although varying the number of
interviewers could possibly effect the results, the situa-

tion was unavoidable.

62

Prior to the interview, students were given a

packet which contained:

A.

The Instruments Used in This Study
1. The Biographical Information instrument
2. The Activity Load instrument
a. A floor plan of the home (in one-fourth
inch scale with a grid drawn in)
b. Nine activity load information transparencies
c. One extra activities information transparency
d. A list of family activities to be used for
completing (c)

3. The Child's Personal Space instrument
a. Two personal space information transparencies

Other Instruments

1. Two copies of the Visual Impression instrument
2. Two copies of the Personal Attitude instrument
3. One copy of the Activity Performance instrument

Interview Equipment
1. One clipboard
2. Two felt tipped marking pens; one blue, one red

The Other Instruments contained in the interview

schedule were left with the family for completion and were

to be picked up at a prearranged later date. These instru-

ments were not used in this study.

The interview procedure was a follows:

The interviewer introduced himself or herself and
briefly explained the project as "an attempt to
measure family living space." Interviewers were
instructed not to state any hypothesis or volunteer
more information than necessary to avoid comments
which might influence the responses.

If two interviewers were present, one administered

the Biographical Information instrument while the

63

other drew furniture placement on the floor plan.

If one interviewer was present, the respondent was

given the Biographical Information instrument to

complete while the interviewer placed the floor
plan on the clipboard and drew in furniture place-
ment on the floor plan.

3. The interviewer explained the Activity Load instru-
ment to the respondent saying:

We would like to know what activities you perform
during a typical day. As I say the time periods, tell
me what your family is doing, how many of you are pres-
ent, and approximately how long the activity lasts.
Then point to the area that is being used on the floor
plan.

The interviewer then placed a transparency over the

floor plan on which the furnishings had been marked.

One of the nine transparencies was used to indicate

the responses for each time period, starting with

7:00 - 9:00 A.M. and ending with 11:00 - 1:00 A.M.

The tenth transparency was used for additional

activities which might not occur during a typical

day - for example, laundry. The interviewer wrote
the following information on the transparency as

it was reported by the respondent; the time period,

the activities being performed and the number of

persons present.

As the mother pointed to the areas on the floor

plan that were being used, the interviewer marked the area

by the following code; diagonal lines (////) for more than

64

1/2 hour use and cross-hatched lines (XXfiX) for more than
1/2 hour use. If the mother seemed to give very general.
answers, interviewers were instructed to ask for a more
specific indication of the location of space use. (For
example, "Do you use the table, too?")

Upon completion of the recording of a typical day
of activities by two-hour time periods, the interviewer
read a check list of activities and asked the mother to
indicate any activities engaged in which had not been
mentioned. This information was entered on the tenth
transparency provided for "Extra Activities." If two
interviewers were present, one administered the Activity
Load instrument while the other played with the child in
an attempt to establish some rapport before asking the
questions contained in the Child's Personal Space instrument.

4. If two interviewers were present, the one who had
been playing with the child conducted the interview
with the child. The interviewer asked the child

to help draw a map of his home. It was explained

that he was to locate areas while the interviewer

drew the map. The exact vocabulary of the ex-
planation was left to the judgment of the inter-
viewer. It was felt that following an exact
explanation or set of directions might not be the
best means of communicating with a pre-school child.

Therefore, it was the responsibility of the inter-

viewer to employ whatever devices or wording was

65

deemed necessary to gain the cooperation of the
child. Once the explanation was satisfactory to
both interviewer and child, the interviewer placed
a new transparency over the floor plan. For each
of the eight child's activities listed on the
schedule the interviewer said, "Let's pretend you
are going to (paint). Where would you go?" After
the child had led the interviewer to the requested
activity area, it was marked by number on the
transparency using the red marking pen. This
procedure was also followed for questions 9 - 11
using the exact wording stated ("Show me where you
___"). The remaining five questions were not
marked on the transparency. These questions were

asked by the interviewer who checked the appro-

priate answer blank. This ended the interview with

the child.

Administration of the first eight questions on the
Child's Personal Space instrument was repeated with the
mother as the respondent. A new transparency and

a blue marking pen were used for recording. The
mother was asked to point to areas on the floor

plan to indicate where the child performed eight
specified activities.

The interviewer asked the mother to complete the

remaining questionnaires (Visual Impression,

66

Personal Attitude and Activity Performance) at
home at her leisure. Arrangements for collecting
these were made before the interviewer left the
home.

The total interview time was approximately one
hour for two interviewers and slightly more for
one interviewer. However, after the author had
completed six interviews alone the time was re-

duced to about 50 minutes.

Coding Procedure

 

Biographical Information Instrument

Since the instruments were not pre-coded, it was

necessary to assign code numbers after the information

was collected, and to transfer them to code sheets for

card punching.

Activity Load Instrument

The completed Activity Load instrument contained:
The floor plan of the home on a one inch scale
grid on which furniture placement was indicated.
Ten marked transparencies, nine of which were for
two-hour time periods during the day starting with
7:00 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. through the day to 11:00 P.M.
- 1:00 A.M., the tenth marked transparency was for

activities which might not occur daily such as laundry.

67

Line markings on the transparency indicated the

length of time an area of the home was in use during a

specific two-hour time period. Diagonal lines indicated

less than one-half hour use while cross-hatched lines

indicated more than one—half hour use. In addition, the

number of people present during the time period and the

activities performed were written on the transparency.

Coding procedure for activity load was as follows:

1. The coder placed the first transparency (7:00 A.M.

- 9:00 A.M.) over the floor plan.

2. Starting with area 1 (living room, door side),

the coder counted the number of activity units.

Diagonal lines were counted as one activity unit.

Cross-hatched lines were counted as two activity

units.

which were:

Area

Area

Area

Area

Area

Area

Area

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

3. The number

This was done for each of the seven areas

living room, door side
living room, other side
dining area

food preparation area
bathroom

child's bedroom
parent's bedroom

of people present in the home during the

time period was recorded.

68

The coder removed the first transparency and placed
the second (9:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M.) over the floor
plan. The number of activity units in each area
and the number of people present in the home were
recorded. This process was repeated for nine
transparencies.*

When the coding process was completed, the code

sheets contained information on the activity units of each

area and the number of people present by time period.

Activity density was computed for each area by multiplying

activity load by the number of people. An activity density

score was obtained for each area by time period. (See

Development of the Activity Load Instrument, p. 56).

Child's Personal Space Instrument

The completed instrument contained:

The floor plan of the home on a one-fourth inch scale
grid upon which the furniture placement was indicated
The responses to Child's Personal Space questionnaire
Two marked child's personal space transparencies,

one completed by the child and one completed by

the mother

*Since the tenth transparency, Additional Activities, was
returned blank in several schedules, it was discarded.

69
Infringement Coding

Infringement on the child's activity space was
coded by combining the activity load transparencies with
the child's personal space transparency. The Opportunity
for infringement on the child's activities was interpreted
by the coder according to a three-point scale (1 for no
infringement, 2 for possible infringement and 3 for
probably infringement). The child's activities included;
painting, coloring, playing with toys, playing with friends,
watching T.V., eating, sleeping and dressing. The fol-
lowing is the criteria used to interpret the opportunities
for infringement on the child's activity space.

Activities

I
(1) Painting, (2) Coloring, (3) Playing with toys and
(4) Playing with friends:

Code 1 - no infringement
If the area designated as the child's activity space
was not being used for any other activity or being
used for another activity which did not seem to
interfere with the child's activity.

Code 2 - possible infringement
If the area designated as the child's activity space
was being used for another activity which might
interfere with the child's activity.

Code 3 - probable infringement
If the area designated as the child's activity space

was being used for two or more conflicting activities
which seemed to interfere with the child's activity.

Activity (5) Watching T.V.

Code 1 - no infringement

 

.VV .hflmfe. hull-II V

. L

70

If the area designated as the child's activity space
was not being used or was being used for one other
activity with which the sound from the television
would not seem to interfere or if other family members
were also watching T.V.

Code 2 - possible infringement

If the area designated as the child's activity space
was being used for activities with which the sound
from the television might interfere.

Code 3 - probable infringement

If the area designated as the child's activity space
was being used for activities which would clearly
present Opportunity for interference from the noise
from the television.

Activity (6) Eating
Code 1 - no infringement

If the area designated as the child's activity space
was not being used or was being used for a family

meal or was being used for one other activity which
would not seem to interfere with the child's eating.

Code 2 - possible infringement

If the area designated as the child's activity space
was being used for an activity which might interfere
with the child's eating.

Code 3 - probable infringement

If the area designated as the child's activity space
was being used for one or more activities which would
clearly present opportunity for interference with the
child's eating.

Activity (7) Sleeping
Code 1 - no infringement
If the area designated as the child's activity space
was not being used or was being used for another

activity which would not seem to interfere with the
child's sleep.

71

Code 2 - possible infringement

If the area designated as the child's activity space
was being used for an activity which might interfere
with the child's sleep or at bedtime if two children
shared a bedroom.

Code 3 - probable infringement
If the area designated as the child's activity space
was being used for one or more activities which would
clearly present opportunity for interference with the
child's sleep or at bedtime if three or more children
shared a bedroom.

Activity (8) Dressing

Code 1 - no infringement
If the area designated as the child's activity space
was not being used for another activity or was being
used for one other activity which would not seem to
interfere with dressing or was used as a dressing area
by another but was not in use at the time.

Code 2 - possible infringement
If the area designated as the child's activity space
was being used for an activity which might interfere

with the child's dressing or might accommodate other
family members dressing at the same time.

Code 3 - probable infringement
If the area designated as the child's activity space
was being used for other activities which would clearly
present opportunity for interference with the child's
dressing or was being used for dressing by two or more
family members.
Coding procedure for infringement on the child's
activity space was as follows:
1. The coder placed both transparencies over the floor
plan to check for inconsistencies between the

mother's and the child's reports or the child's

personal space. (Mother's and child's reports were

72

found to be consistent in all but two families. These
two instruments were discarded as invalid informa-
tion.)

The coder placed the transparency with the child's
responses over the floor plan.

The first activity load transparency (7:00 - 9:00
A.M.) was placed over the child's transparency.
The coder read the notations on the activity load
transparency to learn what activities were being
carried on and the number of people present in the
home.

Beginning with child's first activity space
(painting), the coder identified the area used
and the other activities present. Judgment was
then made on the opportunity for infringement by
referfing to the three point scale criteria for
that activity. Thus, a measure of infringement
was obtained.

The same process was followed for each of the
eight activities of the child.

The number of people present in the home during
each time period was recorded.

The coder removed the first activity load trans-
parency and placed the second activity load
transparency (9:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M.) over the

child's personal space transparency.

73

9. The infringement coding process was repeated for
each of the nine time periods.

When the infringement coding process was completed,
the code sheets contained information on three categories
of Opportunity for infringement on the child's activities
for each activity area and for each of the nine time

periods of the day.

Personal Object Space Coding

Since the Child's Personal Space instrument was
not pre-coded, it was necessary to assign code numbers
after the information was collected and to transfer them

to code sheets for card punching.

Limitations of the Study

The emphasis of this study was on the development
of three instruments to measure family living space in
qualitative dimensions. The variables chosen for study
were activity density, infringement on activity space and
personal Object space. However, the independence of these
variables cannot be completely tested in this design due
to the number Of variables which were recognized as
possible modifying factors but were not controlled.

The variables which were recognized but not

controlled were: managerial skills of the parents, philosophy

74

toward practices of child rearing, past housing experiences,
elaboration of the space (i.e., the addition or embellish-
ment of living space) and the attitude toward the space.

A measure Of elaboration of the space was attempted but
deleted because the instrument was too crude to produce
meaningful data. It was thought that the development of
instrument(s) to measure elaboration of space would be a
viable subject for research. However, due to the complexity
of the subject, space elaboration should be the subject of

a separate study and the information gained here could be
useful for such an endeavor. The managerial skills of the
family, past housing experiences and attitude toward the
space were also considered to be additional determinants

of the quality of the living space which might effect the
responses to the information requested. However, due to

the small sample size it was impossible to control for
differences.

Since the problem of this study is, in fact, the
development of certain qualitative measures to describe
family living space, the major focus of the study is, by
necessity, the evaluation of these measures. It was not

the intent of this study to complete the development of

 

these measures but to initiate the development. Therefore,
the evaluation of these measures will involve non-statis-
tical approaches to factors which may have influenced the

reliability and validity of the instruments. (Again, the

75

small sample size made statistical approaches to reliability
and validity unrealistic.) The logistical feasibility of
the instruments was evaluated in view of the insights gained
during interviewing and informal conversations with the
respondents. An additional analysis of the instruments was
possible by collecting empirical data in the pilot study

and utilizing appropriate statistical procedures. The
statistical results were used as an indication of the
sensitivity of the instruments — that is, whether or not
they could detect differences in the living space Of
families with only three members and families with four

or more members.

Because of the above procedural limitations, the
results Of the study include both non—statistical and
statistical findings which provided a basis for revision
and further development of the instruments. Therefore,
the results have been broken down into two sections. The
first results section is concerned with the non-statistical
approaches to factors which may have influenced the relia-
bility and validity of the instruments and the logistical
feasibility of the instruments. This section is titled
"Methodological Results and Implications." The second
results section is concerned with the statistical results
of the pilot study as an indication of the sensitivity of

the instruments. This section is titled "Results of the

76

Pilot Study" and "Implications for Revision of the
Instruments from the Statistical Findings."

Since the problem of this study is the develOpment
Of certain qualitative measures of family living space,
the conclusions will be drawn from the evaluation of those
measures. Therefore, the conclusions Of the study will be
concerned with the revision of the instruments.

In addition to the procedural limitations, there
were several other additional limitations in the study
which should be noted. The sample size made it necessary
to collapse cells which were originally divided by sex,
age, and family composition to two cells determined on the
basis of family composition (Only Child group and Two or
More Children group). Also, because of the time diffi-
culties, two interviewers could not always be scheduled
for each family. This resulted in some inconsistencies in
the interview technique.

The interviewers were inexperienced and could not
be trained extensively enough in the specific technique
required in this study. This resulted in some inconsist-
encies in recording the information. However, since cost
was a very real limitation, it was impossible to hire
professional interviewers.

The instruments were not pre-coded and there was
some difficulty in standardizing the responses into codable

form. This may have eliminated some of the information

77

that the instruments were sensitive enough to pick up.

The failure to pre—code was due to the fact that the study

'was originally designed as a class project and not as

thesis work.

FOOTNOTES, CHAPTER IV

1*Robert Lance, instructor, Child Development,
College of Home Economics, Michigan State University
attended the first term seminars and contributed much
invaluable assistance in directing the readings.

2Barry Schwartz. "The Social Psychology of Privacy"
The American Journal of Sociology, p. 746.

3Leon A. Pastalan. Privacy As An Expression of
Human Territory Unpublished paper. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969.

 

 

4Ser: School Environments Research, p. 59.
5Foote, p. 216: Schorr, p. 9; Riemer, p. 643.

6James Bossard. "Spatial Index for Family
Interaction," American Sociological Review (Vol. XVL) 2,
1961.

7Dr. Leon Pastalan, Professor of Architecture,
University of Michigan,attended a discussion on the
development Of the Personal Space instrument and Offered
suggestions and support for it's development.

78

filth! ELL-u. .Maémrrhwrxfir Val... -J
.1

CHAPTER V
RESULTS
Methodological Results and Implications

The instruments employed were first evaluated and
revised after the interviewing and coding process were
completed and before the findings were known because ser-
ious weaknesses in the methodology were apparent at this
point. As a consequence, this evaluation deals mainly with
insights gained from the experience Of acquiring and clas-
sifying the interview information.

Each of the instruments used in this pilot study
were pretested individually only twice before being admin-
istered to sample families. Due to tight scheduling, there
was not enough time for each interviewer to have a practice
session with all Of the instruments. The interviewers who
tested the instruments did so with friends who lived in
married housing and with one or more pre-school children.
University regulations restricting the use Of married hous-
ing residents for research interviewing prevented random
pre-testing. However, since the reason for conducting the

pilot study was to examine the methodology employed, the

79

«('34. .. x !

.1.

 

80

develOpment of technique was a major consideration of the
study.

The techniques were analyzed in View of the factors
which may have influenced the reliability and validity of

the instruments.

Reliability of the Information Gathered

To obtain reliable responses from the instruments
administered to the mother there were three factors which
had to be considered:

A. Respondent-centered factors
1. cooperation of the respondent
2. positive attitude toward the interview process
B. Instrument-centered factors
1. consistency in the recording procedure
2. consistency in the degree of accuracy or
thoroughness Of the responses solicited by the
Activity Load instrument

C. Coding-centered factors

Respondent-Centered Factors

Cooperation and Attitude of the
Respondent

 

 

It is important to consider the composition of the

sample when discussing the dependency upon the cooperation

81

of the respondents in this study. The main portion of the
interview involves collecting information from the mother,
the remainder of the interview time is spent with the pre-
school child. Three of the mothers were students and half
Of them had more than one child. The fact that they had
chosen to live in married housing probably indicates a
somewhat restricted budget, therefore, many of the activ-
ities and services performed outside the home in higher
income families must be accomplished by the family in the
space Of their apartments. Since there are no private play
areas where children may be easily supervised from indoors,
play activities of younger children are also often centered
in the apartment. In addition, there is the possibility
that the mother or other family members may have been sub-
ject to other research, although there are very strictly
enforced measures to restrict research in married student
housing. The combination of these factors suggest that the
mothers would prefer as little intrusion into their day as
possible.

The above conclusion was confirmed early in the
study during telephone conversations to arrange an inter-
view time. The mothers had been informed early in the year
that, if their child attended Spartan Nursery School, they
could expect to be asked to participate in some type of a
research study during the year. Prior to the phone call, a

letter was sent to each of the homes by the director of the

82

nursery school explaining the project briefly and stating
that they would be contacted by an interviewer. During the
phone call, the interviewer stated her name and asked if
the family had received a letter from the nursery school
director. The person making the call then requested a
convenient time for a team of two interviewers to come to
the home to conduct an interview which required approx-
imately one hour of their time. Even though the parents
had agreed to the terms of the nursery school request, were
given notice of the study by the director of the nursery
school, and were asked to name a time most convenient for
them, a substantial number of mothers only reluctantly
suggested "convenient" times for an interview. There was
nothing that could have been done in this study to change
the respondents initial attitude toward participating in a
research study. Since the possible sample was limited, any
detrimental effects arising from the respondent's reluctance
to participate were hopefully moderated by a tactful ap-
proach by the interviewer.

During the interview, it was Observed that some of
the mothers became impatient and, toward the end of the
hour, their COOperation appeared to decrease.- A possible
explanation for this behavior could be their original hesi-
tation to participate in combination with the tedious
nature of the information requested.. Since part of the

schedule requires a rather precise type of answer, it is

 

'O‘A'l‘ .
.i «n

‘(l

J

 

83

imperative that the questionnaire be designed to be as
efficient as possible. In this manner, one might presume~

the respondent's OOOperation for the total time needed.

Instrument-Centered Factors

Consistency in the Recording
Procedure

 

The line drawing technique used to record all of
the activity load information and most of the child's
personal space information varied markedly among interview-
ers. It is not known if line drawing variations can be
corrected for they appeared to correspond to the interview-
ers writing style (bold or precise). If the transparency
method were to be employed, variations in the recording
procedure would have to be prevented by selecting only
those interviewers who could develop an almost identical
marking style. Such a policy could be followed if those
with marking ability were also good interviewers. However,
this is a rather unrealistic expectation which could sev-
erely limit the number of qualified interviewers.
Consistency Of the Degree of Accurapy
pr Thoroughness Of the Regppnses
Solicited by the Activity Load
Instrument

Variations in responses were noticeable when com-

pleted instruments were compared across families. It was

thought that the Open-ended nature of the instruments gave

84

the respondents too much freedom in the degree of accuracy
or thoroughness of their answers. This problem could be
corrected by a tighter design which solicits more explicit
answers and provides a more efficient and reliable method
of recording those answers. In this way, responsibility
for the accuracy and thoroughness of the answers rests with
the interviewer who, with experience, should be able to

follow explicit instructions.

Coding-Centered Factors

Consistency in the Classification
of Responses

 

It was necessary to interpret the information ga-
thered when two transparency instruments--Activity Load and
Child's Personal Space--were overlaid during coding. To
determine the amount of infringement on the child's activ-
ities, it was necessary-for the coder to study the informa-
tion and then exercise considerable judgment as to the
amount of infringement present. Although the coding method
was tested with two other individuals who Obtained similar
results, there was no way of knowing how consistent the
interpretation would have been if several individuals had
participated in the actual coding. Interpretation diffi-
culties should be eliminated in the revised instrument
through the use of a more structured questionnaire and

pre-coded established categories.

85

Classification of responses to the open-ended ques-
tions was required in almost all of the coding of the in-

formation recorded on the transparencies. It was thought

that some useful information was lost in the process of
classifying responses. However, due to the abundance of
information collected from each family, it was necessary to
do so to handle the data. It was believed that the loss Of
useful information has been countered by revising the in-
struments to elicit more structured pre-coded responses.
Although a more structured instrument calls upon the re-
spondent to place his responses in categories, it was
thought that the respondents were in a favored position to
make these judgmental decisions.

It was thought that two factors might influence
reliability in the instruments administered to the child;
intervention by the mother (respondent-centered) and a lack
of communication from the choice of wording (instrument-

centered).

Intervention by the Mother

 

Several interviewers had difficulty with the mother
correcting or expounding on the child's responses. Although
there is no desire to collect incorrect information, the
child, not the mother, was the desired respondent to ques-
tions on his personal space. Therefore, the instructions
were revised to request that the mother not interfere with

the child's interview.

 

.
”AF!
v'V-Ic

Vs

IQ“

ny“

‘
NI.

9...

‘A
By.

86

A Lack of Communication From
the Choice OfEWording

 

Interviewers found that some children seemed to be
confused by the questioning. This was evident from facial
expressions or questions from the children. When the child
became confused, he seemed to lose interest in the instru-
ment and began to play with toys or go to his mother. This
lack of communication was a consideration in the revision
Of the instructions for the Child's Personal Space instru—
ment. Instructions were changed to allow interviewers the
freedom of rephrasing or explaining the questions to the
child. Changes in the written dialogue were also made.

Statistical computations Of reliability were not
done for this study because:

1. It was impossible to administer the instruments
twice to the same respondents.' Therefore, no coef-
ficient Of reliability or standard error of measure—
ment could be computed.

2. There was no equivalent form of the instrument with
which to correlate scores for a coefficient of
equivalence.

3. There was no valid criteria for arbitrarily dividing
the instruments into equal halves to correlate
scores. Since the data is subjective in nature,
there were no "right" or "wrong" answers. This
also eliminates the viability Of an analysis of

variance procedure to test reliability.

87

Due to these limitations, the discussion of reliability has
been limited to influences from experiences during the

collection and coding of the information.

Validity of the Information Gathered

Due to the exploratory nature of the subject, the
instruments were not refined well enough to subject them tO
a statistical analysis Of validity. However, the fact that
the interviewers were involved in the development of the
instruments allowed them to identify areas which they felt
were not valid in terms of the intended purposes of this
study. This led to several suggestions for deletion of
irrelevant questions in the Biographical Information in-
strument. In addition, interviewers had several sugges-
tions for improving the recording technique and refining
instructions so that the exact information needed was
solicited. These revisions are discussed in detail in

Methodological Results and Implications, p. 80.

The Time Factor

Time per interview is an important consideration if
the schedule is to be used for a larger, more significant
sample because time is directly related to the cost of col-
lecting and handling the information. There are two ways

in which the time factors could be reduced; by employing

88

experienced or trained interviewers and by a more efficient

design to facilitate recording and coding.

A More Efficient Design

An efficient design would reduce interview time and
allow for more interviews to be done per interviewer. If
interviewers are to be hired to collect information for a
larger sample, efficient use Of interview time would ob-
viously reduce costs. In the same way, coding time could
also be reduced. Contributing to the coding time in the
pilot study were difficulties encountered in dealing with
incorrectly placed or superfluous information, illegible or
confusing recording and a lack of uniformity of style.
Also, it would be impossible for someone who was not inti-
mately involved with the study to understand and code the
schedule. A more efficient coding process depends upon a
well designed schedule which solicits the exact information
required in a standard recording form (preferably pre-
coded) and on an organized format.

Experienced and/or Trained
Interviewers

 

In the pilot study, interviewing was done by class
members. Although there were two training sessions, the
students were inexperienced as interviewers and only two
had the Opportunity to actually pre-test the instruments.

As a result, there were difficulties with interview

89

procedure and recording technique which decreased as the
interviewers became more experienced. It was also noticed
that the more experienced interviewers spent from 15 to 20
minutes less time with each family. It is thought, there-
fore, that experience and/or training would reduce the time

and cost of conducting interviews.

Discussion of Other Methods
of Collecting Data

Those associated with this study have suggested
that perhaps the best way to collect the data would be by
using the direct observation method. This method could
possibly increase the reliability and validity Of the data
if a viable recording process for coding were devised.
However, interview experience has shown that direct obser-
vation may not Offer sufficient advantage to warrant chang-
ing the interview technique. Direct observation could be
used to gather the needed data if the sample were kept
small and there were funds available to obtain trained
interviewers for fifteen continuous hours of observing per
family which must be done to parallel the interview techni—
que. If, however, the sample size is to be increased to
allow for a larger number of subjects on a moderate budget,
the observation method is unrealistic. There must also be

a demonstrated need for this degree of accuracy in

90

determining the exact time and place of each family member's
activity to warrant the cost of the Observation method.

Information could be gathered by using cameras
placed in each room of the respondent's home with the
resulting film run at high speed before observers. However,
this is a costly procedure and would not be an appropriate
technique to use to gain information about the more personal
areas Of the home. Also, the camera technique would neces-
sitate employing interviewers to record the needed data
from the film. The needed bathroom and bedroom information
is easily Obtained by interview.

In considering both personal and camera Observation
there is always the possibility that the day chosen would
not be representative of the normal family activity pattern
and Observing more than one day adds to the time and cost
Of handling the data. Interview data obtained from the
mother was for "a typical day" and identifies the gross
activity in the home. It was thought that this was suffi-
cient for the purposes of this study as it was concerned
with general activity patterns rather than a finite measure
of space use or time.

The brevity and simplicity of the revised instru-
ments is also preferred over observation in gaining the
cooperation of the respondents. As mentioned previously,
it is important to consider that the respondents are all

mothers, some of whom are also students who care for young

91

children. A number of factors makes it apparent that the
mothers would prefer as little intrusion as possible into
their day. Although the interview took approximately only
one hour to administer, there was some evidence to indicate
that OOOperation was waining toward the end of the inter-
view. The direct observation method would require inter-
view time to gather the biographical information, add the
presence of a strange person to the household and confine
the mother to the apartment for entire observation period.
Camera observation would also require time and space for
setting up and removing equipment.

In View of the factors to be considered, it was
thought that the interview method was best suited for this
type of research if the results indicate that the instru-
ments are sensitive enough to detect the human and housing
variables. The interview method was used because it pro-
vided economy, enhanced the chances of respondent coopera-
tion and solicited the personal information needed for the

study.

Results of the Pilot Study

 

The questionnaires of eighteen interview schedules
provided the data used for analysis. Scores were derived

fronlthe instruments in the following manner:

92

1. Activitnyensityr-From the Activity Load instrument,
the Activity Density Index was determined by multi-
plying the activity load Of an area by the number
of people present (for each time period). (See
Development of the Activity Load Instrument, p. 56.)

2. Infringement--By combining the child's personal

 

space transparency with the activity load transpar-
encies, a score for infringement on the child's
activity spaces was determined. (See Infringement
Coding, p. 69.)

(For activity density and infringement, there was a
score for each area and time combination.)

3. Child's Personal Object Space--From the Child's
Personal Space instrument, scores were determined
by the frequency of response in two categories,
"exclusive" and "shared."

A predetermined coding guide was used to ready the
data for the computer. All statistical computations were
accomplished by computer processing with the exception of

the chi-square which was computed by hand.

Sample Profile

Table 1 shows the biographical profile Of the sample
by Family Composition (la), Economic-Educational Situation

(1b) and Housing Experience (1c).

93

Table l.--Biographical Profile Of the Sample

Table 1a.--Family Composition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Gl Gz
(N=9) (N=9)
Father's age 21-25 4
26-30 4 4
31-35 1
36-40 1 1
Mother's age 21-25 4
26-30 4 6
31-35 1 3
Marital status married 9 6
divorced l
separated 1
other 1
Children's age all 1- 5 yrs 9 4
all 1-10 yrs 3
all 1-15 yrs 2
Children's education all nursery or below 9 5
all 3rd grade or below 2
all 6th grade or below 2

 

94

Information on family composition is given in Table
la. It can be noted that the Two or More Children group
had three homes in which the father was not living with the
family, whereas all of the Only Children group families
were intact. As one might expect, parent's age tended to
be higher in the Two or More Children group than in the
Only Children group.

In Table 1b, the economic-educational frequencies
indicate that the Only Child group tended to have a higher
income than the Two or More Children group. Six of the
fathers in the sample were employed on a full-time basis,
seven were employed on a part-time basis and two were not
employed (both unemployed fathers were in the Only Child
group). All Of the mothers in the sample were full-time
homemakers but five were also students. Of the five stu-
dent mothers, two in each group were full-time students and
one mother in the Only Child group was a part-time student.
Six of the fathers in the Only Child group and all of the
fathers in the Two or More Children group had more than
four years of college education. Four of the mothers in
the Only Child group had four or more years of college
education compared to seven of the mothers in the Two or
More Children group.

In Table 1c, information designated as housing
experience revealed that both groups had nearly the same

average number of months at their present residence, nearly

95

Table 1b.--Economic-Educational Situation

 

I

 

61 G2
(N=9) (N=9)

 

Income 2,000-2,999 1
3,000-3,999
4,000-4,999
5,000-5,999

 

over 10,000 1
no response 1
Father employed full-time

part-time
not employed

 

 

 

 

Mother employed full-time 9 9
homemaker

Father student full-time 7 5
part-time

not a student 1 1

Mother student full-time 2 2
part—time

not a student 6 7
Father's education 3 yrs college

4 yrs college

 

more than 4 yrs college 6 6
Mother's education grade 11 or 12 1
1 yr college 1 l
2 yr college 2
3 yr college 1
4 yr college 2 6

more than 4 yrs college
beauty school 1

 

96

Table lc.--Housing Experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2
(N=9) (N=9)
Average number of months at present residence 26.84 25.88
Average number of months at previous
residence 16.44 28.33
Average number of months anticipated move
from University housing 11.11 12.11
Average number of moves in the last five
years 2.22 2.33
Last residence single family or duplex 6 6
apartment building 3 3
Average number of rooms in last residence 4.33 6.33
Average number of bedrooms in last residence 1.88 2.66
Last residence owned 2 l
rented 6 8

lived with parents 1

 

97

the same average number of months that they anticipated
moving from University housing and nearly the same average
number of moves in the last five years. However, the Two
or More Children group had a higher average number of
months spent at their previous residence. The groups were
divided equally on the basis Of the type of housing in
their last place Of residence which was; six of the Only
Child group and six of the Two or More Children group, had
previously lived in single family or duplex housing, three
of the Only Child group and three of the Two or More Child
group had previously lived in an apartment building of some
sort. The average number of rooms and bedrooms in the
previous residence was higher for the Two or More Child
group. Only three families in the sample had previously
owned their own home, the remainder had rented their hous-
ing with the exception of one family in the Only Child

group which had previously lived with parents.

Activity Density and Infringement

A three way repeated measures analysis of variance
with a conservative test (Weiner, 1962, p. 314) was used to
analyze the activity density and infringement data. The
three independent variables for activity density were:
group (G) [Only Child (G1) vs. Two or More Children (G2)],

area of the home (AH) (7 levels), and time period of the

98

day (T) (9 levels). The independent variables for infringe-
ment were the same as above except AH will be referred to
as Activity Area (AA) and has 8 levels.

Table 2 is the analysis Of variance summary table
for activity density. It shows the degrees of freedom for
the actual data. All of the conservative tests, main ef-
fects and interactions were, however, made using one num-

erator and sixteen denominator degrees Of freedom. It Can

Table 2.--Ana1ysis of variance summary table for activity

 

 

 

density
Regular Conservative
Source MS DF F Test Test

Groups (G) 1250.865 1 28.69 <.01 <.01
ERR (G) 43.588 16
Area of the home

(AH) 203.127 6 11.40 <.01 <.Ol
G x AH 26.783 6 1.50 NS NS
ERR (AH, G x AH) 17.809 96
Time (T) 53.336 8 4.83 <.01 <.05
G x T 12.923 8 1.17 NS NS
ERR (T, G x T) 11.035 128
AH x T 43.021 48 5.99 <.01 <.05
AH x T x G 10.657 48 1.48 <.05 NS

ERR (AH x T,
AH x T x G) 7.176 768

 

99

be noted that the G and AH main effects were significant
at the‘QOl level, T and the AH x T interaction was sig-
nificant at the:&05 level and .05 level respectively.

Table 3 shows the activity density means for group,
area of the home and time period Of the day.

Living room (other side) and the child's room had
the highest mean scores for activity density. Activity
density was highest at 7:00-9:00 A.M. and from 5:00 P.M.
to 11:00 P.M.

Table 4 shows the activity density means broken
down for the seven by nine interaction combination.

In brief, activity density was greatest for:

Living room (door side) from 3:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.
Living room (other side) from 1:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.
Dining area at meal times

Kitchen at meal times and from 3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.
Bathroom from 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.

Child's room from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., 11:00 A.M. to

3:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M.

Parent's room from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M.

to 1:00 A.M.

Table 5 is the analysis of variance summary table
for infringement on the child's activity areas. This table
also shows actual degrees of freedom. The conservative
test for infringement was made with the same degrees of

freedom as for activity density.

100

Table 3.--Activity density means for group, area of the
home and time period Of the day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only Child Two or more Children
(N=9) (N=9)
2.347 I 4.448
Area Means
Living room (door side) 2.370
Living room (other side) 5.062
Dining area 2.914
Kitchen 3.340
Bath 2.062
Child's bedroom 4.691
Parent's bedroom 3.346
Time Means
7:00- 9:00 A.M. 3.873
9:00-11:00 A.M. 2.556
11:00- 1:00 P.M. 3.246
1:00- 3:00 P.M. 2.476
3:00- 5:00 P.M. 3.079
5:00- 7:00 P.M. 4.278
7:00- 9:00 P.M. 4.167
9:00—11:00 P.M. 3.683
11:00- 1:00 A.M. 3.222

 

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7:36 movie mmm.m $1.4 Sod -~.m 234. swim a soon 9333
_moHJm -~.s ow~.n ooo.m ava.m _Moa.a N-.e_ ooo.m -~.. soon o.oanoo
ooo.a omo.m _omm.n bmH.m omm. ooo.H omm. omm.a mas.~ oumm
-~.H sea. oam.m _aow.o ave.i amm.a aammn HHH.~ mam—m ooooues
mg; mg; «was 3 «Sim 33. too: 8.14 E no.8 8:33
ooo.m _mom.o mom.m ~m~.o -~.m oom.n mmm.8 mmm.a omm.e Aooam noooov
II II. Soon mnfl>flq
amm.a mmm.a _amm.m -~.m Hawwm HHH.H mas.~ HHH.~ omm.a Leona uoooe
BOOM msw>wq
ooua oouaa oo.a oous oo.m ooum ooua oouafl ooua
-oouaa -oo.a noous nooum -oo.m nooua noouaa nooum -oous
.EJN .2.m .ZJN

 

 

mEfiu x 0E0: on»

msowumnwnfioo soauomumusfl use may no oowumm

mo mmnm.msws an nm>wm map How manna muwmsmo >ua>wuodln.v manna

102

Table 5.--Analysis of variance summary table for infringe-
ment on the child's activity areas

:—

 

Regular Conservative

 

Source MS DF F Test Test
Groups (G) 2.596 1 .57 NS NS
ERR (G) 4.496 16
Activity area (AA) 6.545 7 15.25 <.01 <.01
G x AA 0.121 7 .28 NS NS
ERR (AA, G x AA) 0.429 112
Time (T) 1.673 8 2.67 <.01 NS
G x T 0.299 8 .47 NS NS
ERR (T, G x T) 0.626 128
AA x T 0.487 56 3.35 <.01 NS
AA x T x G 0.136 56 .93 NS NS

ERR (AA x T,
AA x T x G) 0.145 896

 

103

It can be noted that the AA main effect was significant at
the <.01 level.

Table 6 shows the mean scores for infringement on
the child's activity areas by activity area. Ranked from
the most to the least amount of infringement present, the
child's activity areas are: dressing, sleeping, playing
with toys, playing with friends, painting and coloring,
eating and watching TV.

Table 6.--Mean scores for infringement on the child's
activity areas by activity area

 

 

 

Activity Area Activity Mean Score
1 painting 1.173
2 coloring 1.173
3 playing with toys 1.309
4 watching TV 1.049
5 playing with friends 1.179
6 eating 1.068
7 sleeping 1.579
8 dressing 1.593

 

Child's Personal Object Space

Frequencies were counted for instances of shared
and instances of exclusive personal Object space for Only

Child and Two or More Children groups separately. Table 7

104

shows this two-by-two breakdown. There is significantly
more exclusive personal Object space for the Only Child
group and more shared personal Object space for the Two or
More Children group (x2 = 10.042; p < .01).

Table 7.--Chi-square for exclusive vs. shared personal

object space for the Only Child group-(G1) and
the Two or More Children group (G2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exclusive Shared
G1
(N=9) 47 25 72
G2
(N=9) 28 44 72
75 69 144
x2 = 10.042

Level Of significance = .01

Implications for Revision of the Instruments
from the Statisticai Findings

Activity Density

Data from the Activity Load instrument showed
activity density to be significant for groups and area of
the home at the .01 level, for time period at the .05 level

and for the interaction of area and time period at the .05

105

level. Since the Activity Load instrument was sensitive
enough to distinguish differences in the living environment,
it was thought that activity density was a viable measure
of space use. Therefore, the activity density index was
not revised. However, the methodology was revised to make
the interview process more efficient. (See Revision of

Instruments, p.116.)

Infringement

Infringement was defined as the situation existing
when two or more conflicting activities occurred simultan-
eously in the same space. This was thought to be a valuable
approach to the study of the adequacy of living space be-
cause identifying a high degree of infringement with activ-
ities would help deliniate the nature of the shaping force
of the density factor. The child's indication of his
activity space in combination with the mother's indication
of the family activity space provided the researcher with
information from which infringement could be inferred.

Infringement on the child's activities was signif-
icant at the .01 level for activity-area. All other var-
iables and interactions (groups, group x activity area,
time, group x time, activity area x time, and activity area
x time x group) were not significant. The lack of signif-

icance may indicate that infringement is not a suitable

 

I
.Ar
OV.

Ii.

106

measure of the differences in the living environments of
homes with only children and homes with two or more Chil-
dren. However, it was thought that the theory-of activity
infringement was viable and, for this reason, a new in-
strument was designed to determine the presence of opportu-
nity for infringement on the child's activities.

There are two possible instrument-centered reasons
for the lack of significance in the infringement measure.
First, the measure was highly objective in that it relied
on a count Of the activity load designations in the area.
It is highly probable that infringement is a subjective
situational condition and not sensitive to Objective meas-
ure. Secondly, determination of the degree of infringement
was the result Of the coder's interpretation of the situa-
tion represented by the activity load marking.- Thus, the
coding procedure was subjective in nature and the coder may
have been a significant variable.

In View of these considerations.it was thought that
the validity and reliability of the instrument may account
for the lack of significant findings. (See Revision of

Instruments, p.123.)

Child's Personal Object Space

Differences in the Child's Personal Object Space

between the Only Children group and the Two or More

107

Children group was significant at the .01 level (approach-
ing the .001 level).

The high significance of this measure indicated
that it was perhaps the most viable measure of the differ-
ences in the living environments of the two groups. Be—
cause of this, the instrument was revised to be more
explicit and, hopefully, more sensitive to identification
of personal object space. (See Revision of the Instruments,

p.1280)

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS

Since the problem of this study was the development
of certain qualitative measures of family living space,
the conclusions will be drawn from the evaluation of those
measures. Therefore, the conclusions of the study will be

concerned with the revision of the instruments.
Revision of the Instruments
The Biographical Information Instrument

The Biographical Information instrument was re-
designed to include only information that is pertinent to
this study. The original instrument was designed by students
in a graduate seminar in family housing. Students reviewed
a number of past housing studies and made adaptations from
their content and structure to fit the demands of this study.
In addition tO these adaptations, relevant questions were
composed. The resulting instrument was a combination of
several past biographical studies and original questions.

In the revised form, questions have been deleted, reordered

or replaced for three reasons; (1) they were not used in

108

this ste

:vm- +I1e

uqH‘L-l ‘VI‘I

Jane)"
u- .
bovu'bLV

‘

"N r“ n
V‘Vn Vt: .

.ku 9‘
‘ f
“j a III

y

0
Lu
-f

0—1'
'1

b

L; J

‘.

,‘ ”Ii-~11

"VIU‘J
J

109

this study, (2) they appeared to cause negative reactions
from the respondents and (3) they were arranged ineffi-’
ciently for coding.

That portion of the original instrument which was
concerned with past housing experience has been replaced
by a Housing Evaluation Scale. This is a three point
rating scale to be completed by the mother which it is
thought will better accommodate the subjective nature Of
housing and attitudes. Originally, the housing infor-
mation was in only absolute physical terms--i.e., the
number and type of rooms, type of housing, and similar
questions. As a result, there was no indication of the
adequacy of space other than in the gross terms Of person
per room or person per bedroom. These measures did not
elicit reactions toward the adequacy or inadequacy of
the family living space. Since there is evidence that
no valid qualitative criteria has been developed for de-
termining housing adequacy (see Review Of Literature),
the mother's opinion of the adequacy of the family living
space was employed in the revised instrument. Ideally,
the attitude of both parents should be included, but past
experience in student housing indicated that responses by
fathers are nearly impossible to Obtain.

The Housing Evaluation instrument was designed to
replace the measures Of adequacy (person per room or per

bedroom) used in the original instrument. It is thought

3

110

that the families Opinion on the adequacy Of their living
space may be an important factor influencing how space

is used and the effects of that use on family life. For
example, families which have previously had less living
space may have an entirely different reaction to and mode
of space use than families accustomed to more living space.
This is an important consideration in discussing the ac-
tivity density in the home for, although two families may
have the same activity density, one may consider the situ-
ation Optimal while the other is dissatisfied. The Housing
Evaluation Scale introduces attitude toward living space

as a comparative factor which could make a significant
difference in space use and subsequent effects on the family.

The mother was chosen to represent family Opinion
on housing adequacy because, since all but two of the
fathers are students, the mother spends considerably more
time in the home than does the father. Therefore, it
was thought that the mother would have the most viable
Opinion of adequacy in all activity situations.

Both the revised Biographical Information instru-
ment and the Housing}EvaluatiOnfScale'have been-pretcoded.
The absence of pre-coding in the original instrument con-
tributed heavily to the time factor in processing the
data. The questions which were deleted or replaced and the
reasons for doing so are given on the schedule of Bio-

graphical Information, p. 139 of Appendix B.

5.
Y‘

't

111

The Activity Load Instrument and The Child's Personal

Space Instrument

Objective 1: To develop a economically feasible means of

determining the number and type of activities and the

number of people within areas of the home by time period.

Original Instrument:

l.

4.
5.

A one-fourth inch scale floor plan of the respon-
dent's home with a one-fourth inch scale grid
drawn over it

Ten blank transparencies

a. nine for two-hour time periods

b. one for activities which did not occur daily
A list of suggested activities to aid in com-
pleting the tenthytransparency

A clipboard

A felt tipped marking pen

Original'Procedure:

1.

The interviewer drew furniture placement on the
floor plan.

Instructions were read to the mother.

A transparency was placed over the floor plan for
each two-hour time period. The mother indicated
what areas were being used at that time. Area use

was recorded by the interviewer using diagonal

112

lines for less than one-half hour of use and
cross-hatched lines for more than one-half hour of
use.

The number of people present and the activities

were written at the bottom of the transparency.

Criticism Of the Original Instrument:

1.

The original instrument only recorded the space
used for activities. There was no indication of
factors which may modify space use such as manage-
ment and family heirarchy. When the original in-
strument was designed, the modifying potential of
these factors was not fully realized. Interview
experience suggested that management and family
heirarchy should be accounted for. Several in-
terviewers reported that they Observed differences
between families which were not evident when their
instruments were compared.

To illustrate one example, two families may have
approximately the same activity density score yet
one family may be subjected to controls to the
extent that they ameliorate conflicts in space
use. If the other family managed time, space and
activities poorly, they may experience a great
deal Of frustration in space use. These differ-

ences were noticed by some interviewers during

113

informal conversations with the mother which pro-
vided additional insight into their management Of
living space.

From the interview experience, the activity and
family member who had priority in a given area
were thought to be important considerations in
measuring space use. If three family members
were using the same space for different activi-
ties, the most important activity or dominant
individual affected how that space was used. In
married student housing where space is often lim-
ited, this is a very real consideration. It is
Of particular importance in looking at the child's
activity spaces, for children are Often subject
to the decisions Of parents and Older siblings.
There were variations in the recording procedure
due to the amount of information offered by the
respondent and line drawing differences among
interviewers. Some respondents indicated area
use in such detail that even five minute tasks
were recorded. Others indicated use only for
activities which they considered to be signifi-
cant. In both cases, the interviewer recorded
every response.

Line drawing by the interviewers tended to be as

114

varied as handwriting.. Some interviewers used
broad strokes while others were concise. There-
fore, two interviewers recording the same infor-

mation would not always have the same results.

*Variations in the recording procedure made it

‘difficult for the coder to correct for any super-

Revised“
1.
2.
3.
4.

Revised‘

1.

Revised’

1.

fluous information or line drawing differences.
In addition, the varied recording techniques

made transcription difficult.

Instrument:

Floor plan Of the home with areas numbered
Activity Load Instrument

Area Use Instrument

Activity Priority Instrument

Procedure: Activity Load

The mother refers to the floor plan for area
numbers.

The mother records the type of activity, duration
of the activity, and number of people present for

each area of the home by time period.

Procedure: Area Use

The mother refers to the floor plan for area

numbers.

For each time period listed, the mother is to rank

q I
4::st n
Ivy 1 '.

3.

Revised

1.

2.

115

the areas of the home from the most used to the
least used.

The number of people in each area is recorded.

Procedure: Activity Priority

For each time period the mother is to check (a)
the first and second activity priorities; (b) the
first and second family member priorities.

This is done for seven areas of the home.

Rationale for Revision:

1.

Essentially the same activity information is solic-
ited from the respondent as in the original Activity
Load instrument. However, to improve the chances

of obtaining reliability, validity and logistical
feasability of the instrument, the transparency
technique previously used for recording infor-
mation has been replaced by a questionnaire.

To include the possible modifying effects of manage-
ment, the Area Use questionnaire was developed.

The mother is asked to indicate which areas of the
home have the highest activity load by ranking

them from the most used to the least used. This is
thought to be a more valid indication than the

count of use units as previously employed. The
mother's Opinion is solicited because she is in

the home more than the father and better able to

116

respond to subjective questions than the pre-
school child.

3. A new instrument, Activity Priority, was designed
to gather information on family members and activ-
ities which have priority in spaceuse.~ Again the'
mother's opinion is solicited to represent family
norms. Information from the Activity Priority
instrument is useful in gaining insight into

the spatial restrictions placed on the child.

4. Coding is simplified by the use of a pre-coded
questionnaire. Time required for coding is
reduced and it is not necessary for the coder to

interpret several recording styles.

Objective 2: To develop an index of activity density in

the home by area and by time period

Original Procedure:

The activity density index was computed after
the information from the Activity Load transparencies
was coded. The index was computed by multiplying the

activity load of an area by the number of people present

in the home during the time period.

Criticism of the Original Instrument:

1. The total number of people in the home during

each time period was recorded. It was thought

Revised

1.
2.

Revised

1.

117

that this measure is too gross for computing the
activity density of specific areas. It is prob-
able that not all of the people present in the

home will be in the same area.

There was no information on the intensity or
nature of the activities. These and other sub-
jective factors may modify the actual activity
units of an area. In the original instrument,
units were assigned to areas by the number and
type of lines drawn on the transparency (diag-
onal lines = one activity unit: cross-hatched
lines = two activity units). Therefore, the
measure of activity load was only in use units
by time without regard for the circumstances

of usage.

Theoretically, the range of activity units are
unlimited. Since there was no highest or lowest
number of units, there was no standardized means

of comparison across families.

Instrument:

Floor plan of the home with areas numbered

Area Use Instrument

Procedure:
The instrument is to be completed by the mother

using the floor plan for reference to area numbers.

2.

118

See Revised Procedure, Objective 1.

Rationale for Revision:

1.

The number of people present in each area is
recorded in the revised instrument. This is a
more exact measure than the previous method of
recording the total number of people present in
the home. Therefore, the activity density index
should be more accurate.

To accomodate the subjective nature of space use,
the mother is asked to assign activity units by
ranking the areas of the home from the most used
to the least used. The area ranked most used
receives seven activity units. The area ranked
least used receives one activity unit. This
rank order provides a more realistic basis for
assigning activity units than the original
method of assigning units by time without regard
for the circumstances of usage. Therefore, the

activity load index should be more valid.

In the Area Use instrument activity units range
from 1 to 7. By employing a standard rating
scale, comparison across families is facilitated.
It was thought that the combined activity density
scores from the Activity Load instrument and the

Area Use instrument would offer a more realistic

119

indication of activity density of an area.

Objective 3: To develop a means of identifying the ac-

 

tivity spaces of an individual child

Original Instrument:

Child's Personal Space Instrument

Floor plan of the home with furniture drawn in
Two transparencies

Red marking pen

Blue marking pen

Clipboard

Original Procedure:

1.

Placing a transparency over the floor plan on
a clipboard, the interviewer asked the child
to lead him to the area of his home where the

activities named were performed.

As each area was located by the child, the in-
terviewer marked the location on the trans-
parency with a red marking pen. This was done

for eight activity areas.

A new transparency was placed over the floor
plan. The interviewer asked the mother to
point to areas on the floor plan to indicate

where her child performed each of the eight

120

activities. Each of these areas was marked with

a blue marking pen.

Criticism of the Original Instrument:

1.

Variations in recording technique (line drawing

on transparencies) were noticed when instruments

were compared across families. Line drawing

variations included:

a. recording only the number which corresponded
to the child's activity

b. recording the number and blocking out speci-
fic areas

c. notations made by the interviewer (i.e.
"Paints here sometimes")

These variations caused difficulties during

coding. It was necessary for the coder to do a

great deal of interpretation and catagorizing to

standardize responses across families.

To confirm the child's responses, the instrument
was also administered to the mother. Mother and
child almost always indicated the same activity

areas. Since differences between their responses

were very slight, it was felt that the instrument

need only be administered to the child.
Interviewers reported that, in some cases, the

child seemed to be confused by the questioning.

a

U
.9:

m:

121

This was evident from facial expressions or ques-
tions from the child. When this happened, the
child usually showed a marked loss of interest in
the interview.

Occasionally, the mother would correct or elabo-
rate on the child's responses. It was noticed
that the child was hesitant to respond after being
corrected. A possible explanation for the child's
subsequent hesitation could be that the mother
reinforced the child's lack of confidence in a

new situation by indicating that he did not respond

 

Floor plan of the home with areas numbered

Child's Activity Instrument

 

The mother was asked not to interfere with the

4.
as he should.
Revised Instrument:
l.
2.
Revised Procedure:
1.
child's interview.
2.

The interviewer asked the child to go to the
place where the activities named were performed.
As areas were located by the child, the inter-
viewer referred to the floor plan and recorded

the corresponding area numbers.

122

Rationale for Revisions:

1.

Variations in the recording technique were elimi-
nated by replacing the transparencies with a
questionnaire. Pre-coded boxes were provided

for checking answers. The pre-coded instrument
eliminated the need for the coder to interpret
and categorize responses.

Differences in transparency recording technique
could have been reduced by extensive training of
interviewers. However, if the instrument is to
be used for a larger sample, the cost of training
the number of interviewers required may be pro-
hibitive. Even with extensive training, the
transparency technique may not be reliable for

it is quite difficult to standardize marking
style. Therefore, it was thought that the most

reliable design would be a questionnaire.

Administration of the instrument to the mother
for conformation of the child's responses was
eliminated. It was apparent from the original
instrument that the child's responses were almost
always correct. Similar information from the
mother was superfluous.

To improve communication with the child, the

instructions to the interviewer state that the

123

dialogue of the schedule may be explained or
reworded until the child appears to understand
exactly what is being asked of him.
Intervention by the mother was eliminated by
including instructions which specifically re-
quest that the mother does not comment during

the interview with the child.

Objective 4: To develop a means of identifying the degree

of infringement within the child's activity spaces

Original Instrument:

Floor plan of the home with furniture drawn in
Child's Personal Space Instrument

Child's Personal Space Transparency

Red marking pen

Nine Activity Load Transparencies

Clipboard

Original Procedure:

The degree of infringement on the child's activity

spaces was established during coding.

1.

Each activity load transparency was placed over
the child's personal space transparency and the
floor plan. In this way, it was possible to see
what other activities were carried out in the

child's activity areas.

 

 

2.

124
The coder made a judgement on the degree of in-
fringement based on an established criteria.

(See Coding Procedure, p. 69 )

Criticism of the Original Instrument:

1.

Revised
1.

2.

Revised

1.

Infringement decisions were complicated by a lack
of circumstantial information such as home manage-
ment and the family heirarchy of space use. It
was necessary for the coder to hypothesize the
situations and make a value judgement on the de-
gree of infringement. Therefore, the reliability
of this technique was questioned.

Variations in recording made it difficult to stan-

dardize responses across families.

Instrument:
Floor plan of the home with areas numbered

Child's Personal Space Instrument

Procedure:

Immediately after the child has located the re-
quested activity area, the interviewer begins
questioning about the use of the area. Ques-
tioning is continued until the interviewer has
enough information to categorize the space as
"always," "sometimes," or "never" shared by

others. Although the exact dialogue of the

125

initial question is given ("Does anyone else
ever use this place?"), the interviewer is free
to probe further if the child's first answer does

not seem to be adequate.

The interviewer reads the child's responses to the
mother. She is asked to indicate whether or not
she has noticed other activities which interfere
with the child's use of space. This is done for

each of the child's activities.

Rationale for Revisions:

1.

It is felt that those participating in or ob-
serving the child's activities could make a more
valid decision on infringement than a coder. The
respondents are aware of the subjective factors
which may modify activity circumstances. There-
fore, the coder is not responsible for infringe-
ment decisions in the revised instrument. Instead,
the child is asked about space use by others and
the mother is asked if this use interferes with

the child's activity.

Line drawing on transparencies was eliminated so
there would be no variations in recording tech-
nique. Therefore, responses are standardized

across families.

126

Objective 5: To develop a means of classifying the degree

of infringement on the child's activities according to the

time of day and type of child's activity

Original Instrument:

1.
2.

All Activity Load transparencies

Child's Personal Space Instrument

Original Procedure:

1.

Coding for the degree of infringement (just dis-
cussed) was done by two-hour time periods.
In each time period, the child's activities were

identified and assigned an infringement code.

Criticism of the Original Instrument:

1.

Coding time was increased by the use of trans-
parencies. It was necessary for the coder to
study each transparency to locate the numbers
which corresponded to the type of child's
activity. These numbers were not recorded in
a consistent style; some had areas blocked out,
others had arrows or notations. It appeared
that several interviewers did not feel that the
prescribed recording technique was sufficient
for the information offered by the respondents.
Additional markings made by interviewers were

an attempt to include factors which may modify

127

space use and, therefore, infringement. However,
the additional information was not standardized

across families and could not be used.

 

 

Revised Instrument:
1. Floor plan of the home with areas numbered
2. Child's Activity Space Instrument

Revised Procedure:

1. The mother has been asked to indicate whether or
not she has noticed other activities which in-
terfere or conflict with the child's use of
space.

2. In addition, the mother is asked to indicate

the time(s) of day that interference or conflict

is most likely to occur.

Rationale for Revision:

1.

Coding is simplified by using a pre-coded ques-

tionnaire:

a. it is not necessary for the coder to trans-
cribe varying recording techniques.

b. only the information requested is recorded.

The revised format is a result of changes which

were necessary to accomodate the other objec-

tives of the instrument. There were no major

128

difficulties in classifying infringement by type
of activity and time period in the original in-

strument. The revised instrument is, however, a
more efficient means of recording and coding the

information.

Objective 6: To locate the personal object space of an
individual child and determine the number of personal

object spaces which are shared or individually possessed.

Original Instrument:

1. Child's Personal Space Instrument

Original Procedure:

1. The interviewer read questions to the child from the
instrument. Answers were checked in the appro—

priate box.

Criticism of Original Instrument:
l. Interviewers reported that, in some cases, the
child seemed to be confused by the questioning.

This was evident from facial expressions or
questions from the child. When the child be-
came confused, he usually showed a marked loss

of interest in the interview.

2, The object spaces chosen for the original in-

129

strument were: toy space, clothes space, favorite
toy space, dining chair, towel space and own
room. It is not known if all of the children re-
garded the space occupied by these objects as
personal. Therefore, the validity of the instru-

ment was questioned.

 

 

Revised Instrument:

1. Floor plan of the home with areas numbered

2. Child's Personal Objects and Space Instrument
Revised Procedure:

1. The interviewer asks the mother to name four
Objects that the child uses the most or feels
the most possessive of. The names of these ob-
jects are written in the appropriate blanks.

2. The interviewer asks the child to locate each
of the objects. Location is noted by referring
to the floor plan.

3. As each object is located, the interviewer asks

the child if anyone else keeps their things with

the object. Answers are categorized as "exclusive"

or "shared" space usage.

130

Rationale for Revision:

 

l. The wording of the questions to the child was
changed to be more explicit. Also, interviewers
were given the Opportunity to explain the ques-
tions if the child seemed to be confused. It
was thought that these changes would improve
communication with the child.

2. The mother is asked to select four of the child's
personal objects. It was thought that this would
reduce the possibility that the objects selected
would not be considered as personal by the child.

Thus, the validity of the instrument is improved.

Implications of the Study

This study has implications for those who desire to
have some empirical basis from which to make decisions re-

garding the adequacy of family living units. Authoritative

references indicated that the quantity of space required
to satisfy family living needs is subject to modification

by the family's activities and personal space demands of

its individual members. It therefore appeared that activ-
ity density and personal object space would be valid quali-
tative measures for defining housing adequacy. Currently,
analyzed quantitative measures of housing adequacy adequacy
(person per room, person per bedroom, and number of square

feet) do not seem to be sensitive enough criteria upon

131

which to design future housing decisions. As our
nation's housing becomes more compact and housing selec-
tions are limited, we will need new types of criteria on
which to base our decisions on the nature of the single-
family unit.

The present study concentrated on three measures
to describe the living environment; activity density,
infringement on activities and personal object space.
And although no conclusion can be drawn, some promising
approaches have been delineated. These are only three
of several variables which may also have a modifying
effect upon the physical dimensions of family living
space. Other variables requiring the development of
new instruments are measures of: elaboration of the
space, managerial skills of families, and attitude toward
the housing unit and neighborhood. In a more comprehen-
sive study, it would be possible to relate housing vari-
ables with behavioral and developmental patterns. The
results of such investigations would furnish concrete

guides for designing the living environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

132

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altman, Irwin. "Territorial Behavior in Humans: An Analysis
of the Concept". Paper presented at Conference on
Explorations of Spatial-Behavioral relationships
as Related to Older People, Institute of Geronto-
logy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
May, 1968.

Ardrey, Robert. The Territorial Imperative. New York:
Delta Books, 1966.

Barker, Roger G. Ecological Psychology. Stanford, Calif-
ornia: Stanford University Press, 1968.

Bossard, James. "Spatial Index For Family Interaction",
American Sociological Review. Vol. XVI, No. 2.
(1951), 243—245.

Dean, John P. "Housing Design and Family Values", Land
Economics. May, 1953.

Dubos, Rene. So Human An Animal. New York: Charles
ScribnefTs Sons,f1968.

Foote, Nelson N., Janet Abu-Lughod, Mary Mix Foley and
Louis Winnick. Housing Choices and Housing
Constraints. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.

 

 

and Leonard S. Gottrell. 'Identity'and'lnter-
ersonal Competence. Chicago: The University
Press, 1955.

 

Francis, Kenneth and Eva A. Fillmore. The Influence of
Environment Upon the Personality of Children.
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1934.

 

Glazer, Nathan. "Housing Policy and the Family", Journal
of Marriage and The Family. Vol. 29, No. 1.

Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. New York:
Doubleday, 1966.

Hasler, Doris. A Study of the Use and Adeguacy_of Space in
Prefabricated Houses. Masters thesis, Purdue, 1958.

133

Jourard, Sidney M. "Some Psychological Aspects of Privacy",
Law and Contempory Problems. Vol. 31, (Spring 1966).

 

Kephart, Newell C. "Perceptual-Motor Aspects of Learning
Disabilities", Exceptional Children. Vol. 31,
(December, 1964).

Kremer, Josephine and Richard P. Leaman. "Photography
Aids in Studying the Space Used for Home Ac-
tivities of Children", Journal of Home Economics.
Vol. 47, No. 5.

 

Montagu, Ashley. Man and Aggression. London: Oxford
University Press, 1968.

 

Pastalan, Leon A. "Privacy As An Expression of Human
Territory", Unpublished paper. University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969.

Plant, James S. "Some Psychiatric Aspects of Crowded Q
Living Conditions", American Journal of Psychiatry. *--'
No. 9, (March, 1930), 84948601 '

 

Pikunas, Justin. Fundamental Child Psychology. Milwaukee:
Bruce Publishing Company, 1965.

 

Rice, Robert. "The Effects of Project Head Start and
Differential Housing Environments Upon Child
Development", The Family Coordinator. January,

 

 

1969.

Riemer, Svend. "Maladjustment To The Family Home",
American Sociological Review. 8, No. 3, (June,
1943).

Schorr, Alvin L. Slums and Social Insecurity. U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Social Security Administration, Division of
Research and Statistics, Research Report No. l,
1964.

Schwartz, Barry. "The Social Psychology of Privacy",
The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LXXIII,
(1967-68), 741-752.

Ser: School Environments Research, Architectural
Research Laboratory, The University of Michigan,
1965.

Sommers, Robert. Personal Space. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

 

134

Stephens, Will Beth. "Diaget and Inhelder - Applications
of Theory and Diagnostic Techniques to the Area
of Mental Retardation", Education and Training
of the Mentally Retarded. I, No. 2 (April 1966).

The State Journal. (Lansing, Michigan), April 14, 1969,
pp. A-1 and A-l6.

 

VonEckardt, Wolf. A Place To Live. New York: Delacorte
Press, 1967. '

Wilner, Daniel M., Rosabelle P. Walkey, Thomas C.
Pinkerton and Matthew Taybeck. The Housing
Environment and Family Life. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1962.

 

Winter, Mary. Apartments and Single-Family Dwellings As
They Affect The Play Activities of Preschool
Children. Masters thesis, Pennsylvania State
UniverSity, 1966.

Woodworth, Mary. The Critical Evaluation of Certain
Laboratory Techniques Used to Measure Activity
Space Needs. Masters thesis, Pennsylvania State
University, 1956.

 

 

Young, Leontine.' Life Among the Giants. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966.

 

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

COMMUNICATION WITH RESPONDENTS

135

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48823

 

College of Home Economics
Department of Family and Child Sciences

De ar

A part of our research program in the Department of Family
and Child Sciences is a study currently being conducted in
the Spartan Nursery School. Group I (Mrs. Newsom's class)
and Group II (Mrs. Griffith's class) are being used in

this particular project.

Our focus is on the relationship between certain aspects
of a child's environment and his behavior and develop-
ment. More specifically, we are considering the possible
influence of family size in a situation in which the
general physical environment is held constant.

The children in these classes were selected on the basis
of age, number of siblings, and residence in university
luousing. Assessments of the children's reactions to situ-
ations and tasks is now being completed, and it is in this
regard that we have asked for your help. Such dimensions
as task initiation, verbalization, curiosity, perception
of self and others, abstract ability and social competence
are included in our assessment. Special child measures
jbeing used are the Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery, the
IPeabody Picutre Vocabulary Test, the Goodenough Draw-a-
Man Test, and the Information and Block design subtests of
the Weschler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence.
(Noservation of social interaction will be carried out

xvithin the class units.

.As with all our projects, extreme care is taken to protect
the child and insure his enjoyment of the experience. These

136

tests were chosen for their suitability to the children as
well as to the conceptualization of the project. All
testers are qraduate research assistants who are specifi-
cally trained in this area.

The staff of our center and of the Spartan Nursery School
appreciate your cooperation and interest. Later in the
school year we would h0pe to be able to discuss the pro-
ject more completely with you.

Sincerely,

7206444— P, Kerr

Robert P. Boger
Director of Research

137

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48823

 

College of Home Economics
Department of Family and Child Sciences

Dear Parent,

Last fall you received a letter describing a research
effort at the Spartan Nursery School. As I explained in
that letter, the focus of this project is on the relation
of aspects of children's environment to their behavior

and develOpment. More specifically, we are considering
the influence of family size and general physical environ-
ment on children's social and learning behavior.

We are now at the point in this project where we need
your assistance in gaining information relative to your
child's living environment. Specifically, we would like
to arrange a time for an interview when we could meet
with you and your children. We will also leave some
material requiring the responses of both parents (if
living with the family) to be picked up at a later date.

We will be contacting you by telephone early next week
to determine a time when it would be most convenient to
call upon you and at a time when your nursery school
child will also be home.

'We appreciate your continued support and cooperation.
Sincerely,

I%24451Tfikr (i): VEfo)cr’

Robert P. Boger
{Director of Research

138

TELEPHONE INSTRUCTIONS

1. My name is . I am a graduate
student in .

2. Did you receive a letter from Dr. Boger describing
the research project called "The child and his housing
environment?"

If n2: I was calling to establish a time when we
could have an interview with you and
(child's name). Would you be willing to
set a time now or do you prefer to wait
until you have received the letter?

If yes: I am calling to establish a time when we
can have an interview with you and
(child's name). Let me ask you if you are
planning to move at the end of the term
because we would like to interview you
first.

 

When would be the best time to meet with
you this week or next week for about an
hour?

If very open to a time: Is there any chance we could
talk with you tonight? This is our regu-
lar class time and we need to get our data
before the end of the term.

If very hesitant about a time: Are you planning to
move at the end of this term? (If yes,)
It is very important to talk to you before
you start to move things out of your apart-
ment, or start to pack.

(If they can't give any answer as to a convenient time for
an interview, ask "When may I call you back to set a time?")

'Then repeat to them the following items to make sure you
have the correct information.

You live at'
The day and time of the interview is at .

Thank you very much.

APPENDIX B

ORIGINAL INSTRUMENTS

139

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Present Residence:

Number of months you have lived at this

address months
On which level is this apartment? upstairs
(check one) ownstairs

COMMENT: OMITTED

 

Previous Residence:

In what city and state (P.O. address) did you live
before moving into University Housing?

 

COMMENT: NOT USED

 

How many months did you live at this previous

residence?

months

What type of housing was your last residence? In
what type of housing have you spent most of your
life? (check one in each column)

Last housing .

Single or duplex
house

Apartment building,
1-4 units

Apartment, 5 or more
units

Mobile Home

Rooming house

Other (list)

 

COMMENT: REPLACED

Most of life

Single or duplex
house

Apartment, 1-4
units

Apartment, 5 or more
units

Mobile home

Rooming house

Other (list)

 

- NOT EFFICIENT

 

140

Number of rooms in last place of residence
Number of bedrooms in last place of residence
Number of bathrooms in last place of residence

COMMENT: REPLACED - NOT EFFICIENT

 

Did you own or rent this last place of residence?
(check one)

Own

Rent

Live with parents
Other (list)

 

 

In what type of community situation did you live
previous to University Housing? (check one)

Small town of less than 25,000
Urban city of more than 25,000
Suburban

Rural farm

Rural nonfarm

Number of times you have moved during the past five
years

Planned Future:

In how many months do you anticipate moving from
University Housing? months

 

Biographical Data:

Mother
Marital status (check one) Married
Divorce
Separated
Other
Age (in years) 15-20 36-40
21-25 41-45
26-30 46-50

 

31-35 older

141

Education (What was the last grade you com-
pleted)

Grade 5 or less
Grades 6-8
Grade 9 or 10
Grade 11 or 12
College: 1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
more than 4 years
Nurses training
Beauty school

 

 

 

 

Are you a student?
Part-time student
Full-time student
Not a student

Are you employed outside the home?
Full-time paid worker
Part-time paid worker
full-time homemaker

COMMENT: REPLACED - NOT EFFICIENT

 

If you are a paid worker, specify the kind of
work you do

 

Sales

Educational

Other professional
Skilled craftsman
Farmer

Managerial

Service worker
Operative

Clerical

Other (list)

 

COMMENT: OMITTED - NOT USED

 

142

If you are a student, what is your expected
kind of work for pay after graduation?
Specify

 

Sales

Educational

Other professional
Skilled craftsman
Farmer

Managerial

Service worker
Operative

Clerical

Other (list)

 

A study of the United States shows that in this
country there are three major social classes --
the UPPER, the MIDDLE, and LOWER. In which of
these social classes would you say your family
belongs?

Upper
Middle
Lower

What do you think your position is in that class?

Upper
Middle
Lower

What was/is your father's occupation or voca-
tion?

 

Are you a member of a church or religious group?
(check one)

Not a member

Member of Roman Catholic Church

Member of Jewish faith_

Member of Protestant Church
(list)

Member of other religious group
(list)

Name of church or religious group

 

 

 

143

How often do you attend church? (check one)

Do not attend

Once a week or more

Once a month or more, but not more than
four times a month

Once a year or more, But not more than
twelve times a year

 

Do you tend to have more sympathy with (check
one)

The Democratic party
The Republican party
No preference

Other (specify)

 

Where have you (the mother) lived most of your
life? (check one)

On a farm

In the open country, but my parents were
not farmers

In a town

In a city

Other (list)

 

COMMENT: ENTIRE SECTION OMITTED ‘ CAUSED
SOME HOSTILITY IN RESPONDENTS

 

Father
Age (in years)
Education: (Check last grade completed)

Grade 5 or less
Grades 6 to 8
Grade 9 or 10
Grade 11 or 12
College: 1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
more than 4 years

 

 

 

 

 

144

Are you a student? (Check one)

Part-time student
Full-time student
Not a student

 

Are you employed for pay outside the home?
(Check one)

Full-time paid worker
Part-time paid worker

Not employed outside the home
Retired, unemployed

 

If YOU are a paid worker, what kind of work do
you do? Specify . .............

 

COMMENT: REPLACED - NOT EFFICIENT

 

Is it:

Sales

Educational

Other professional
Skilled craftsman
Farmer

Managerial

Service worker
Operative

Clerical

Other (specify)

 

If you are a student, what is your expected kind
of work for pay after graduation? Specify

 

Sales

Educational

Other professional
Skilled craftsman
Farmer

Managerial

Service worker
Operative

Clerical

Other

 

COMMENT: OMITTED - NOT USED

 

145

A study of the United States shows that in this
country there are three major social classes --
the UPPER, the MIDDLE, and LOWER. In which of
these social classes would you say your family
belongs?

Upper
Middle
Lower

What do you think your position is in that class?
Upper

Middle
Lower

What was/is your father's occupation or voca-
tion?

 

Do you do volunteer work?

Yes (list)
NO

 

Are you a member of a church or religious group?
(Check one if different from mother)

Not a member

Member of Roman Catholic Church

Member of Jewish faith

Member of Protestant Church
(list)

Member of other reIigious group
(list)

Name of church or religious group

 

 

 

How often do you attend church? (Check one)

Do not attend

Once a week or more

Once a month or more, but not more than
four times a month

Once a year or more, but not more than
twelve times a year

146

Do you have more sympathy with (check one)

The Democratic party
The Republican party
NO preference

Other

 

Where have you (the father) lived most Of your
life? (Check one)

On a farm

In the Open country, but parents were
not farmers

In a town

In a city

Other (list)

COMMENT: ENTIRE SECTION OMITTED - CAUSED
SOME HOSTILITY IN RESPONDENTS

 

hi n: Number of children in the family

Give children's names, sex, ages and year in school.
(Indicate nursery school when applicable.) List
children according to age, beginning with the Oldest.

NAME SEX (male, AGE YEAR IN SCHOOL
female)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMENT: OMITTED - NOT USED

 

147

List others who spend appreciable time as a guest or

member of family.

COMMENT: REPLACED - NOT EFFICIENT

 

Income:

Please circle the range of income which most closely
corresponds to your best estimate of your household's
cash income during the past year. Please consider

all sources:

0 1 - 499 500
1,000 - 1,999 2,000 - 2,999 3,000
4,000 - 4,999 5,000 - 5,999 6,000
7,000 - 7,999 8,000 - 8,999 9,000

10,000 - over

- 999

- 3,999

6,999

9,999

 

Please rank the sources of this cash income:
None Savings Wages

Aid to Dep. Children Contributions
or child support from others Other

COMMENT: OMITTED - NOT USED

 

148

ACTIVITY LOAD FORM

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INTERVIEWER:

Place a transparency over the floor plan (with the
furnishings already marked). Name the first time period
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Write on the transparency the
following information:

1. The time period
2. The activity
3. The number Of persons present

Ask the mother to point to the area used. If in
use for less than thirty (30) minutes, mark the area with
diagonal lines //////////. If in use for more than thirty
(30) minutes, mark the area with cross-hatched lines XXXXX.

If the mother seems to give very general answers,
you may ask for a more specific indication, i.e., "DO you
use the sink, too?" Use a different transparency for
each time period.

TIME PERIODS

7:00 - 9:00 a.m.

9:00 - 11:00 a.m.
11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
1:00 - 3:00 p.m.

3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

5:00 - 7:00 p.m.

7:00 - 9:00 p.m.

9:00 - 11:00 p.m.
11:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m.

SAY:

"We would like to know what activities you perform
during a typical day. As I say the time periods, tell me
what your family is doing, how many of you are present,
and approximately how long the activity lasts. Then point
to the area that is being used on the floor plan."

149
Activity Areas

The interviewer is to go through this check list
asking for information on activities not indicated on the
daily activity load form. Fill these activities in on
gag separate floor plan. Please note: 1. Which activity;
2. Who participated; 3. Amount of time. If anyone
spends at least 30 minutes on an activity, mark the loca-
tion with diagonal lines (example //////). If anyone
spends more than 30 minutes in any Of the suggested activ-
ities, mark the area with crossed lines (example XXXXXXX).
You may mark more than one area, but please try to be

specific in indicating the location.

Activity 1
Suggested activity: Food preparation

Examples: washing vegetables
mixing ingredients
cooking
serving
unloading and storing groceries

A_ctivity 2
Suggested activity: Eating

Examples: family meals
feeding children
snacking

Agtivity 3
Suggested activity: Food clean-up
Examples: washing dishes

storing food
cleaning surface areas

150

Activity 4
Suggested activity: Housecleaning and maintenance

Examples: cleaning floors
dusting, polishing
cleaning appliances
cleaning surface areas

Activity 5
Suggested activity: Laundry and clothing care

Examples: wash clothing
soak clothing
dye and dry clean clothing
ironing ‘
sorting I

 

Activity 6 1'
Suggested activity: Grooming and personal care

Examples: washing hair
shaving
bathing
dressing

Activity 7
Suggested activity: Child care

Examples: bathing
dressing
tending (of baby)

Activity 8
Suggested activity: Children's recreation

Examples: games with friends
watching TV
coloring, painting

Activity 9
Suggested activity: Adult recreation

Examples: entertaining
reading
watching TV
hobbies or craft activities
conversation

151

Activity 10
Suggested activity: Child's rest and sleeping

Examples: naps
night sleeping

Activity 11
Suggested activity: Adult resting and sleeping

Examples: naps
night sleeping

Activity 12

Suggested activity: Storage other than closets
and drawers

Example: extra trunks
stacked or piled articles
articles on surface areas for other
than decorative or functional
purposes
Activity713
Other activities:

Examples:

 

152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spartan Village

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spartan Village

University Village and
Cherry Lane Two Bedroom
Apartments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

 
 
 
   

 

 

£W"L“

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

University Village and
Cherry Lane Two
Bedroom Apartment

156

 
 
 
   

University Village and
Cherry Lane Two Bedroom
Apartment

 

 

157

Child's Personal Space

Instructions to the Interviewer; Place a transparency
over the fIOOr plan (with the furniture marked). Use a
red pencil for marking your interview with the child.

By asking the child to pretend he is going to perform
certain activities you will be taken to different areas
Of his home. Mark these areas as specifically as possi-
ble and number them as listed below. If there is no
response, place NR beside the activity. Say, "Let's
pretend you are going to (paint). Where would you go?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activity: 1. Paint
2. Color
3. Play with toys
4. Watch T. V.
5. Play with friends
6. Eat
7. Sleep 3
8. Dress '

 

Mark 9 - 11 on transparency

9. Show me where you keep your toys.

Does anyone else keep toys there? Yes
No
Sometimes
NR

10. Show me where you keep your
clothes. Does anyone else

keep clothes there? Yes
No
Sometimes
NR
11. Where do you keep your favorite
toy? NR
12. DO you have your own chair when
you eat? Yes
No
NR
13. DO you always sit here? Yes
No

NR

158

14. Do you have your own towel? Yes

No

NR

has place
has no
place
NR

Where do you keep it?

Yes
NO
NR

15. DO you have a room by yourself?

Mother's Conception Of Child's Personal Space

Instructigns to Interviewer: Place a new transparency
over the floor plan. Use the blue pencil. Say to mother:
For each Of the activities below, outline the areas your
child uses. Please put the corresponding numbers in the
areas.

1. Painting 5. Playing with friends
2. Coloring 6. Eating
3. Playing with toys 7. Sleeping

4. Watching T.V. 8. Dressing

APPENDIX C

REVISED INSTRUMENTS

 

Lu

TO

4.

5.

Biographical Information

be completed by the respondent.

Marital status (check one)

01 Married
02 Divorced
03 Separated

 

 

04 Other
Age (in years) Check one column for mother, one for father. r
M F
15-20 01
21-25 02
26-30 03 ;
31-35 04 '
36-40 05 is
45—50 06
46-+ 07
Education (What was the last grade completed?)
. M F
Grade 9 or 10 01
Grade 11 or 12 02
College:
1 year 03
2 years 04
3 years 05
4 years 06
over 4 07
Nurses training 08
Beauty School 09
Secretarial 10
Are you a student?
M F
Part-time student 01
Full-time student 02
Not a student 03
Are you employed outside the home?
M F
Full-time paid worker 01
Part—time paid worker 02
Full—time homemaker 03

159

160
Biographical Information (Continued)

CHILDREN
1. Number Of children in the family.
2. Give children's sex,age and year in school.

Age Sex Year in school

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. List others who spend appreciable time as a guest or
member Of the family.

Number of others

INCOME

Please circle the range Of income which most closely corresponds
to your best estimate of your household's cash income during the
past year. Consider all sources.

1,000-1,999 01 6,000-6,999 06
2,000—2,999 02 7,000-7,999 07
3,000-3,999 03 8,000-8,999 08
4,000-4,999 04 9,000-9,999 09

5,000-5,999 05 10,000-over 10

 

161

Past Housing Experience

To be completed by the respondent

1.

Number of months you have lived at this address

How many months did you live at your last address?

Number of times you have moved during the past five r
years
In how many months do you anticipate moving from Uni-

versity housing?

What type Of housing was your last residence? In what
type of housing have you spent most Of your life?

 

 

(Check one in each column) in
Last Most Of
Housing Life

01 Single or duplex house

02 Apartment building, l-4 units

03 Apartment, 5 or more units

04 Mobile home

05 Rooming house

06 Other (list)

Did you own or rent this last residence?

01
02
03
04

In
to

01
02
03
04
05

Own

Rent

Live with parents
Other

what type of community situation did you live previous
University Housing?

Small town Of less than 25,000
Urban city Of more than 25,000
Suburban

Rural farm

Rural nonfarm

162

Housing Evaluation Sheet

To be completed by the mother

Compare your last home with your present home by placing a
check in the apprOpriate box.

HOUSING FEATURE IN PRESENT HOUSE

Total amount of space

Room arrangement

Space for family activities

Space for individual activities

Family privacy (from outsiders)
Individual privacy

Space for children's noisy play

Space for children to play with friends
Space for toy storage

Space for individual personal articles
Opportunity for quiet conversation
Opportunity for uninterrupted study
Space for hobbies and projects

Amount Of noise

Space for entertaining adult friends
Space for food preparation

Space for personal care

Space for laundry

General storage space

Better

Same WOrse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

163

Housing Evaluation (Continued)

20. Is anyone in the family bothered by a lack of space?

01 Father

02 Mother

03 Oldest child
04 2nd child
05_ 3rd child

06 4th child

 

21. DO you feel you need more space?

01 Yes
02 NO

 

22. If yes, if you could have more space, would you be willing
to pay for it?

01 Yes
02 NO

 

23. How much more per month?

01 $10
02 $20
03 $30
04 $40
05 $50
06 More

 

24. If you feel you need additional space, what would you want?

01 Don't need additional space
02 Bedroom

03 Dining room

04 Study

05 Playroom

06 Storage space

07 Other

164

Activity Load Instrument

Instructions to the Interviewer

Interviewer, say:
"We are interested in knowing the type, duration and location
of the activities carried on in your home at specific two-hour

time periods during the day starting with 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM."

"Look at the floor plan of your home."

"From 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, how many peOple use Area 1?"
(Record‘response)

"What activities are carried on in Area 1 from 7:00 AM to

9:00 AM?"

As each activity is named, ask:

"DO you spend more or less than one-half hour -------------- .
(name activity)

(Record response by checking the apprOpriate box.)

Repeat this questioning for all seven areas of the home for the

7:00 to 9:00 time period.

When the first time period has been completed, repeat the
questioning for the following time periods in the order that

they appear listed.

9:00-11:00 AM 5:00-7:00 .PM
11:00-1:00 PM 7:00-9:00 PM
1:00-3:00 PM 9:00-11:00 PM

3:00-5:00 PM 11:00-1:00 AM

165

 

 

I *T I I
AREA 5 or 6 AREA 5 or 6
(If parent's room, (If parent's room,
area 5; if child's area 5; if child's
room, area 6) room, area 6)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\i/i—

 

 

 

 

 

10 <

 

 

 

 

 

a my
( j AREA3 “

 

 

 

___]-_-_L--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AREA 1
AREA 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time

Period

166

Activity Load

 

Area number Of child's room

 

AREA 1 NO. of people using the
area

AREA 2- NO. of people using the

area

 

Less than
1/2 hour
use

More than
1/2 hour
use

Activities

Less than
1/2 hour
use

More than
1/2 hour
use

Activities

 

 

foodgpreparation

foodgpreparationl

 

eating

eating

 

dressingy

dressingy |

 

 

sleeping

s eeping |

 

arent's leisure

arenth’Ieisure

 

child's play

child's play

 

 

 

IStudying studying
ersonal care personal care
jiaundry laundry
other

 

 

 

 

lother

 

 

 

 

3 NO. of people using the
area

ation

food
a

re
n
ess
S ee
aren ‘S
S
n
rsona
aun
er

e sure
a

3
care

0

AREA 4 NO. Of peOple using the
area

food atio
ea n
ess n
ee
aren
c

S

re

S
e SUI
a

S
S
rsona care
aun

0 er

 

167

knivity Load (Continued)

5 NO. Of people using the 6 NO. of people using the
area area -

85 than More Less More
/2 hour 1/2 hour Activities 1/2 hour 1/2 hour Activities
use use use use

OOd re aration OOd re atio
a n a n
ess ss n
ee ' ee
aren s e sure en 5 e sur
5 a s a

rsona care rsona care

aun aun
er r

7 NO. of people using the
area

ss More
1/2 hour 1/2 hour Activities
use use

OOd re arati
a n
ess
s ee
aren s e sur
3 a

ersona care
aun
er

 

168

Area Use

TO be completed by the mother

We are interested in knowing when the different
areas Of your home are used the most. Eight time periods
Of the day are listed. For each time period, you are to
rank the areas of your home from the most used in the first
blank to the least used in the last blank. Refer to the,
floor plan Of your home for the number that corresponds
to each area. Beside each blank provided for an area
number are a set of parentheses. In the parentheses you

are to write the number of people using the area during

 

the time period stated.

For example: If the kitchen is the most used area

 

during breakfast (7:00 AM-9:00 AM) you would place a 3
(kitchen area) in the first blank. If there are usually
four peOple in the kitchen at the time, you would place

a (4) in the following parentheses. If the bathroom is
the second most used area from 7:00 AM-9:00 AM, you would
place a 7 (bathroom area) in the second blank. If four
people use the bathroom from 7:00 AM-9:00 AM, you would
place a (4) in the following parentheses.

BREAKFAST (7:00-9:00 AM)£L(4)3L(4)__( )__( )__( )__( )__( )
And so on for each Of the seven areas Of your home.

Code Key for Areas Of the Home:

1 - Living room, door side Food preparation area

2 - Living room, other side Parent's room

3 - Dining room Child's room

\lmmp
I

Bathroom

BREAKFAST
(7:00 AM-9:00 AM)

LATE MORNING
(9:00 AM-11:00 AM)

LUNCH
(11:00 AM-1:00 PM)

EARLY AFTERNOON
(1:00 PM-3:00 PM)

LATE AFTERNOON
(3:00 PM-5:00 PM)

DINNER
(5:00 PM-7:00 PM

EARLY EVENING
(7:00 PM-9:00 PM)

LATE EVENING
(9:00 PM-l:00 AM)

169

 

170

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ACTIVITY PRIORITY
TO be completed by the mother

The purpose of the Activity Priority instrument is
to determine what activities and which family members have
priority in using the different areas Of your home. The
day has been divided into morning, afternoon and evening.
Areas are designated by number (see floor plan). Activities
and family members are listed in separate boxes. For each
time of the day, you are to check the first and second
priority for activities and for use by family members in

the designated area.

For example:

If in the morning the most important use Of the dining
area is for father's study, you would place a 1 beside study-

ing and father. If the second most important use is cooking,

you would place a 2 beside food preparation and whoever does
the cooking--probab1y the mother.

DO this for each area during the three time periods.

 

Km

Area 1
Living room
(door side)

Area 2
Living room
(other side)

Area 3
Dining

Area 4
Food Prep

171

Activity Priority

 

 

)

 

 

 

 

 

MORNING
food preparation ___ father
eating mother __—
dressing ::: Oldest child :::
sleeping 2nd child
parent's leisure _—_' 3rd child __—
child's play ‘___ 4th child :::
studying other
personal care -_—' '—__
housework '__—
laundry '—_—
other :Z:
food preparation father
eating : mother :
dressing ____ Oldest child ___
sleeping ___. 2nd child .___
parent's leisure ___ 3rd child ___
child's play 4th child
studying '_—_ other __—
personal care :Z: ___
housework
laundry :::
other ___
food preparation ___ father '___
eating mother
dressing ———' Oldest child ___
sleeping : 2nd child :
parent's leisure 3rd child
child's play ___ 4th child ___
studying : other :
personal care
housework '_—I
laundry __—
Other :::
food preparation father
eating _ mother :
dressing : Oldest child _
sleeping 2nd child
parent's leisure ___ 3rd child '_——
child's play -——’ 4th child '_——
studying : other :
personal care ___
housework ‘___
laundry ___

other

 

 

 

172

Activity Priority (Continued)

Area 5
Parent's room

Area 6
Child's room

Area 7
Bathroom

 

 

 

 

MORNING
food preparation father
eating _—_' mother ___
dressing ::: Oldest child __—
sleeping 2nd child '__—
parent's leisure ——_' 3rd child '__-
child's play : 4th child —
studying other __—'
personal care :::' ___
housework
laundry ___
other :
food preparation father .___
eating : mother __
dressing Oldest child
sleeping _—_' 2nd child :Z:
parent's leisure ___ 3rd child
Child's play ___. 4th Child '—_—
studying — other :
personal care __‘ '
housework __-
1aundry _——'
other :Z:
food preparation ___ father ___
eating mother .___
dressing "" Oldest child ___
sleeping ___. 2nd child ___
parent's leisure ___ 3rd child ___
child's play :::. 4th child ____
studying ___ other ____
personal care
laundry :::

other

 

 

 

 

173

Activity Priority (Continued)

Area 1
Living room
(door side)

Area 2
Living room
(other side)

Area 3
Dining

Area 4
Food prep

 

 

 

 

 

AFTERNOON
food preparation ___ father -___
eating mother
dressing ::: Oldest child :::
sleeping '___ 2nd child
parent's leisure 3rd child __—
child's play :Z: 4th child ::::
studying other
personal care ‘_—- __—
housework :::
laundry
other :
food preparation , father
eating : mother —
dressing ____ Oldest child I——
sleeping 2nd child '__—
parent's leisure ::: 3rd child ‘_——
child's play ___ 4th child __—
studying other _—_'
personal care ::: __—
housework
laundry '_——
other :
food preparation ___. father
eating ___. mother ___
dressing Oldest child __—
sleeping : 2nd child _—
parent's leisure ___ 3rd child '_—_
child's play . 4th child __—
studying ::: other '__'
personal care ‘___ __—
housework
laundry :::
other ___
food preparation ___ father ____
eating mother
dressing ::: Oldest child ___
sleeping ___} 2nd child ___
parent's leisure 3rd child ___
child's play : 4th child :
studying ‘___ other '___
personal care ‘___
housework _
laundry ___

other

 

 

 

 

174

Activity Priority (Continued)

Area 5
Parent's room

Area 6
Child's room

Area 7

 

 

 

 

other

AFTERNOON
food preparation ___ father ___
eating mother
dressing ___ Oldest child ___
sleeping ::: 2nd child :::
parent's leisure 3rd child
child's play -_' 4th child :::
studying : other __
personal care
housework ___
laundry __—
Other :::
food preparation father
eating — mother _—
dressing : Oldest child :
sleeping 2nd child
parent's leisure ::: 3rd child :::
child's play 4th child ___
studying :::} other ___
personal care ___
housework
other :
food preparation father ___
eating '—_' mother I___
dressing : Oldest child __
sleeping . 2nd child ____
parent's leisure : 3rd child _
child's play ___ 4th child ___
studying other I___
personal care :::
housework ___
laundry ____

 

 

 

 

175

Activity Priority (Continued)

Area 1
Living room
(door side)

Area 2
LiVing room
(other side)

Area 3
Dining

Area 4
Food prep

 

 

 

 

 

EVENING
food preparation father
eating ___ mother :Z:
dressing ___ Oldest child ___
sleeping —_—' 2nd child
parent's leisure — 3rd child :
child's play _ 4th child
studying '__- other ___-
personal care _ _—
housework '__—
laundry ___
other :
food preparation father
eating -—_' mother ___-
dressing -—_' oldest child ___-
sleeping ___ 2nd child ___"
parent's leisure : 3rd child :
child's play 4th child
studying : other ___:
personal care -
housework '__—
laundry :
other ____
food preparation ___ father ‘___
eating mother~
dressing '—-' Oldest child __—
sleeping -_— 2nd child __I
parent's leisure _——' 3rd child '__-
child's play : 4th child :
studying ____ other
personal care '__I
housework __—
laundry ___
other :
food preparation father
eating : mother :
dressing Oldest child ___
sleeping __—' 2nd child
parent's leisure ::: 3rd child ::::
child's play 4th child
studying ___ other '-I
personal care : _—
housework _
laundry ____

other

 

 

 

 

176

Activity Priority (Continued)

Area 5
Parent's room

Area 6
Child's room

Area 7
Bathroom

 

 

 

 

EVENING
food preparation father
eating ___' mother ___'
dressing : Oldest child :
sleeping 2nd child
parent's leisure ___ 3rd child _—I
child's play :::: 4th child :::
studying other
personal care -—_' '—_—
housework ___-
laundry ‘__—
other :::
food preparation father
eating :Z: mother :Z:
dressing Oldest child
sleeping '—_— 2nd child '——I
parent's leisure :::: 3rd child :::
child's play 4th child
studying : other :
personal care .___
housework
laundry :
other ___
food preparation ___. father '___
eating mother ___
dressing ::: Oldest child ____
sleeping “___ 2nd child ____
parent's leisure 3rd child
child's play ___: 4th child :
studying ___. other .___
personal care
housework :::
laundry ‘___

other

 

 

 

177

Location Of Child's Activity and Personal Care Space
Instructions to the Interviewer:
Say to the mother: "We are interested in Obtaining some in-
formation from your child. It would be best if you did not
participate in this interview by Offering any additional in-

formation or commenting on your child's answers."

1. Say to the child: "Show me where you ." After
the child has located the area, look on the floor plan
for the corresponding number and place it in the box

beside the activity.

 

2. Immediately after the child has located the requested
activity area, say: "Does anyone else ever use this
place?" If the answer is vague, continue questioning
the child about the use Of that space until you feel
you have enough information to categorize his answers
as "always," "sometimes" or "never." Mark the appro-
priate box.

3. Repeat (1) and (2) for each of the eight activities
listed.

4. Say to the mother: "We are interested in knowing if
there are times when other activities conflict or in-
terfere with your child's activities. In other words,
are activities being carried on simultaneously which
interfere with each other. As I read to you the ac-
tivity and area Of your home that your child has

identified, you are to indicate the presence or absence

 

 

178

of conflicting activities by answering "always,"
"sometimes," or "never."

Read the activity and name_the area which the child
has identified (refer to floor plan). Check the
apprOpriate box.

If the mother answers "always" or "sometimes" say:

 

"At what times during the day does this occur?"
Record the answer by checking the appropriate bOx.

You may record more than one time for each activity.

179

Location Of the Child's Personal Object Space

Instructions to the Interviewer:

1.

Say to the mother: "We are interested in knowing what
Objects your child uses the most or feels the most
possessive Of. WOuld you name four Of them for me."
Write the names Of these Objects in the blanks

provided.

 

Say to the child: "WOuld you show me where you keep

. As the Objects are located, mark the

 

area number by referring to the floor plan. (If the
child seems to have difficulty understanding the
question, you may rephrase if but DO NOT change the
content.)

After the child has shown you the location Of the Ob-
ject, refer to the floor plan and mark the area number
in the box beside the Object.

Say to the child: "Does anyone else keep their things
here?" If the answer is vague, continue questioning
the child about the use of the space containing the
Object until you feel you have enough information to
categorize his answer as "exclusive" or "shared."

Mark the apprOpriate box.

180

 

HH 0H

 

 

 

 

Umumnm O>Hdeoxm

 

 

wommm nomflno mo mm: m.6HflnO

 

soflpmooq

 

 

pomnno mo msmz

 

 

mommm pomnno HmsOmumm m.paflsu on» mo soflumooq

mo we no

mo

mo «0

mo

mo

Ho

 

mcmunmm

 

msflHoHoo

 

 

 

mUsOHHm
Spas
msH%MHm

 

who» Spas
msflmmag

 

conH>mHmp
msflnoumz

 

mcflumm

 

msfimmmhw

 

mswmomam

 

COOS

msacm>m
. lumumm

 

 

OCHCHOE Hm>ms

mmEHu

mAOBHm
IOEOm

 

 

HQ>0C

 

mmeflu
IOEOm

m>m3am

 

 

mmHuH>Huo¢
mafluoflamcoo to mess

 

 

mOAUH>Huo¢
manpouamcoo

 

mumnuo mo mm: coaumooq

 

mufl>fiuo<

 

 

mommm Hmsomumm pom hufl>fluom m.pHH£U on» no coaumooq

mommm HmsOmHmm m.pHH£U

 

NH
HH
OH

mo

we
no

mo

mo

vo

mo
No
Ho

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

5

 

3 1193 03082 525