The behavioral component in the meaning of places

How do people think about the physical setting in the world around them? Part of the answer to this question may be in terms of the behaviors that occur there. To explore people's knowledge of behavior—place associations, twenty places (shown via color photographs) were assessed in five ways: (a) ratings of the place's suitability for each of eleven behaviors, (b) ratings of the expected frequency of occurrence of the eleven behaviors, (c) free listings of reasons for going to each place, (d) free listings of activities-while-there and (e) free listings of activities associated with the place. Results showed that people can distinguish places on the basis of behaviors, that the behavioral component of place meaning is composed of distinct aspects, and that knowledge of behavior is related to a global, overall representation of a place.     

The relative contribution of visual and auditory cues to environmental perception

This study assesses the relative dominance of vision and hearing in judgments of environments, and examines whether the sound sensitivity of the judge alters relative sensory dominance. Six sets of four composite (auditory-plus-visual) videotaped environmental displays were created from unisensory visual and auditory components with known levels of evoked affect. These displays, in a 2 (high, low) × 2 (high, low) Pleasure and/or Arousal format, were presented to 70 participants. The results indicate that visual cues dominate auditory cues in judgments of Pleasure, but that the degree of dominance is highly variable. Arousal judgments were not consistently related to visual or auditory cues. Sound sensitivity does not appear to influence the relative dominance of vision.     

Employee reactivity and adaptation to observation on the job

In the course of studying police dispatchers, five observers recorded the reactions of the employees (N = 37) to their presence throughout the work shift on three separate occasions. Four major research questions were considered: (a) extent of reaction, (b) relationship between interactions with the observer and changes in employees' work activities, (c) independence of verbal and nonverbal behavioral reactions, and (d) adaptation. On average, subjects or other employees initiated 10 interactions per hour with observers. These interactions were classified as subject-initiated (a) verbal, content related to research procedures; (b) verbal, non-research-related in content; (c) nonverbal only or (d) other employee-initiated verbal comment. Interaction with the observer was not related to the amount of work the subject did. Subjects' nonverbal and verbal responses were unrelated to each other as well as to the verbal responses of other employees. A priori expectations concerning adaptation to observation were tested with a 3 × 3 (segment by day) repeated-measures factorial design. Significant adaptation (P < 0·01) occurred within and between days in subjects' comments about research procedures and all comments from other employees. However, other behaviors showed with no evidence of adaptation or actual increases. The implications of these findings for measuring reactivity and deciding when adaptation has occurred are discussed.