Cross-Cultural Differences in Tolerance for Crowding: Fact or Fiction?

University of California, Irvine It is widely believed that cultures vary in their tolerance for crowding. There is, however, little evidence to substantiate this belief, coupled with serious shortcomings in the extant literature. Tolerance for crowding has been confused with cultural differences in personal space preferences along with perceived crowding. Furthermore, the few studies that have examined cultural variability in reactions to crowding have compared subgroup correlations, which is not equivalent to a statistical interaction. Although the authors found a statistical interaction indicating that Asian Americans and Latin Americans differ in the way they perceive crowding in comparison to their fellow Anglo-American and African American citizens, all four ethnic groups suffer similar, negative psychological distress sequelae of high-density housing. These results hold independently of household income. Although many believe that people of different cultures vary in their tolerance for crowding, close examination of the scientific literature reveals surprisingly little support for this belief. What might explain this divergence of popular opinion and scientific fact? Three major factors have contributed to the myth of cultural heterogeneity in crowding tolerance. First and foremost is confu- sion about the concept of tolerance. Crowding tolerance means enhanced ability to withstand the adverse effects of high-density living conditions. Unwittingly, several scholars and most layper- sons have confused crowding tolerance with variability in inter- personal spacing norms. As we show below, there is good evi- dence that people in some cultures have smaller personal space zones, preferring more proximate interpersonal interactions. This is not equivalent, however, to showing that these same individuals Gary W. Evans, Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, Cornell University; Stephen J. Lepore, Department of Psychology, Brook- lyn College of the City University of New York; Karen Mata Allen, Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of California, Irvine. Preparation of this article was partially supported by the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, the College of Human Ecology, Comell University; by National Institute for Child Health and Human Development Grant 1F33 HD08473-01; and by National Institute of General Medical Science Grant 14948. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gary W. Evans, Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, Martha Van Rensselear Hall, Comell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-4401. Elec- tronic mail may be sent to gwel@comeU.edu. can better withstand residential crowding. Second, some studies revealed cultural differences in perceptions of crowding, with people of Latin or Asian descent judging a given level of density, on average, as less crowded than did Anglo-American individuals. These findings, too, are not equivalent to showing differential tolerance to crowding as we have defined it above. Finally, a few studies purport to demonstrate cultural differences in tolerance for crowding, but all of them suffer from a serious analytic flaw, relying on subgroup comparisons of correlation coefficients. The purpose of this article is to more carefully test the widely held belief in cross-cultural differences in tolerance for crowding. Moreover, we distinguish between perceptions of crowding and tolerance for crowding. In the former case, we use a standardized instrument to assess resident's judgments of the level of crowding in their homes. Tolerance is operationalized by measuring psycho- logical distress with an instrument designed for nonclinical, gen- eral population studies. In his seminal book, The Hidden Dimension, Edward Hall (1966) proposed that our use of physical space (proxemics) affects well-being. Based on qualitative fieldwork, Hall concluded that residents of contact cultures (e.g., Latin, Asian, Arab) prefer closer interpersonal distances, or personal space, in comparison to those from noncontact cultures (e.g., Northern European, North Ameri- can). Hall (1966) also concluded that contact cultures would be more tolerant of crowding than would noncontact cultures. No data were presented to substantiate this generalization from interper- sonal distancing preferences to tolerance for crowding. Implicit in Hall's model of contact and noncontact cultures is the idea that individuals who prefer to interact at larger interpersonal distances