Human Ecology, Vol. 1, No.

2, 1972

Privacy and Environment

Nancy J. Marshall ~
Received August 6, 1971; revised January 5, 1972
Orientations toward privacy were identified and individual differences in orientation
assessed by means of the newly developed Privacy Preference Scale. Principal components
analysis o f the PPS revealed six major factors from which subscales were constructed, their
content centering on orientations toward noninvolvement with neighbors, seclusion o f the
home, solitude, privacy with intimates, anonymity, and reserve. In a suburban adult sample
(n = 101), these orientations toward privacy were related by means o f correlation,
multivariate analysis o f variance, and canonical correlation to density o f past and present
environments and to features o f the physical environment affecting potential privacy.

INTRODUCTION
The concept of privacy, although of theoretical importance to social
psychology and practical importance to environmental design, has received little
empirical investigation. The social psychologist is primarily interested in privacy
as it relates to the processes of withdrawal from interaction and to the exercise
of control over involvement with others. The development of a concept of
privacy would help the environmental designer, on the other hand, to design
physical spaces that could be more easily used to provide privacy.
Although a variety of situations and meanings is covered by the single term
privacy, the central theme seems to be the ability to control the degree to which
people and institutions impinge upon one's life (Westin, 1967; Proshansky et al.,
1970) and the ability to adjust the level of privacy to changing needs. Choice
seems to be essential to the attainment of privacy: it is not enough simply to be
alone, for example; one must be alone when one chooses to be.

This article is based in part on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of

Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, and financed by Public Health
Service Predoctoral Fellowship 4 F1 MH33979-04 from the National Institute of Mental
Health.
1Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
93
~) 1972 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West 17th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011.

94

Marshall

This paper reports an approach to measuring attitudes about privacy in a

suburban population and to assessing both their origins in the previous
experience of the sample and the degree of fit between preferred and attained
privacy in the current environment.
ISSUES GUIDING THE RESEARCH
Attainment of Privacy
The first task in constructing a measure of privacy-related attitudes was
the identification of variables influencing the subjective judgment of having or
not having privacy. It was hypothesized that two major variables are involved in
a subjective feeling of privacy: the centrality of various kinds of information to
the self (Lewin, 1936) and the intimacy of the relationship with the person who
has access to this information. Thus, if one considers a continuum of facts about
the self ranging from the most to the least personal, invasion of privacy occurs
when another gains access to facts more personal than is deemed appropriate for
one of his level of intimacy. This relationship may be curvilinear rather than
linear, in that strangers may be admitted closer than are acquaintances (Simmel,
1950).
Means of Attaining Privacy
A related process in developing a measurement instrument involved the
identification of various kinds of privacy or means of attaining it through
controlling input and output of information. Among the means of control
considered were (a) placing limitations on verbal disclosure to others, (b)
controlling involvement with others through psychological distancing mechanisms (Levy, 1967; Milgram, 1970), (c) developing social norms respecting
claims to privacy within families, neighborhoods, or friendship networks, (d)
seeking the anonymity of being with strangers, particularly in high-density
settings (Wirth, 1938), and (e) erecting physical barriers to sight, sound, touch,
and smell.
The investigation of the relationship between privacy-seeking behavior and
the physical environment may be placed within the framework of what Simon
(1969) calls the "sciences of the artificial." These are "sciences," including
psychology and design, that study artificial goalTdirected phenomena given form
only as a result of their adaptation to their environment. Thus, the apparent
complexity of various behavioral and design phenomena may not reflect
complicated internal structure, but instead the complexity of the environment
that is adapted to in order to achieve particular goals. The goal of privacyoriented behavior has been defined as the exertion of control over the access

Privacy and Environment

95

others have to oneself (Marshall, 1970; Westin, 1967). In the context of artificial
phenomena, the form this behavior takes, whether oriented away from others or
presenting barriers to the behaviors of others oriented toward oneself, would be
a function of the environmental setting as well as of an internal disposition to
prefer one means of control over another, or to prefer a particular level of
privacy. Thus, one might expect the choice of means of achieving privacy to be
largely a function of the opportunities and constraints of the setting.
Past Experience
Privacy orientations were related to past experiences of density and
crowding as variables potentially important in the acquisition of privacy
preferences. Discussions of privacy in the popular literature generally assume a
drive reduction theory of motivation and predict that deprivation of opportunities to obtain privacy because of crowding will be reflected in increased
preference for privacy. In contrast, it was predicted from adaptation level theory
(Helson, 1964) that preferences represent an adaptation toward present and past
levels of input. Thus, a decrease in available privacy should lead to a
corresponding decrease in preferred levels of privacy. Specifically, it was
hypothesized that preferences for privacy-oriented behavior would reflect
adaptation to the levels of density and crowding within the home, within the
neighborhood, and within the surrounding metropolitan area.
Environmental Fit

Variables in the present physical environment that seemed relevant to each

of the privacy orientations were identified in order to assess the fit between
present environment and preferences. The degree of fit provides an indication o f
the extent to which people are able to obtain as much or as little privacy as they
wish given current housing design, neighborhood layout, and density levels.
METHOD

Subjects
A sample of second-semester sophomore students (n=149, 73 male and 76
female) from a commuter junior college in the outer suburbs of San
Francisco-Oakland and a sample of their parents (n=101,44 male and 57 female)
were selected. The junior college chosen draws students from upper middle class
suburbs and from lower middle class suburbs closely connected with local
industries. There were two major criteria used to select these samples, namely,
that the subjects be more representative of the general population than a

96

Marshall

university sample and that age groups other than college students be included.
The environmental variance was reduced by limiting the sample to persons living
in a suburban family setting.
The socioeconomic status (SES) of the samples was computed using
Hollingshead's (1965) Two-Factor Index. Scale scores on occupation and
education were summed to obtain a total score, in turn divided into five social
classes. The Index distinguishes seven levels of education: professional, 4-year
college graduate, 1-3 years college, high school graduate, 10-11,7-9, and under 7
years of schooling. Holiingshead's seven-level occupational status scale differentiates among kinds of professionals and the size and economic strength of
businesses. To be classified as the highest SES, a subject would have to be in the
highest occupational level (higher executives of large concerns, proprietors,
major professionals) and be at least a college graduate; to be classified as class 5,
a subject would have to be in the lowest occupational level (unskilled
employees) and not have completed high school. The distributions among SES
were approximately the same for the adult and student samples despite the 40%
return rate for the former: 15% were in class 1 (highest), 31% in class 2, 35% in
class 3, 17% in class 4, and 2% in class 5.

Materials

The Privacy Preference Scale (PPS) was constructed to measure privacy

preferences by sampling statements about privacy in a variety of situations. The
86 items were presented as a summative scale with five response alternatives:
strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree. A total PPS
score was calculated by assigning numbers from I to 5 to response alternatives,
with items scored to equate a high score with high preference for privacy. A
principal components analysis of the item intercorrelation matrix followed by a
Varimax rotation revealed six factors common to the adult and student samples;
six subscales based on these components were then constructed. Subscale scores
were computed by treating each item as a single unit and summing scores for
each item on the subscale.
An environmental questionnaire containing fill-in and multiple choice
questions was designed to assess the amount of privacy, both potential and
realized, in the present and childhood physical and social environments of the
adult sample. The items sampled from a variety of situations (home, work,
recreation) and interpersonal relationships (with family, neighbors). In order to
obtain canonical correlations (Re) between environmental variables and privacy
preferences, the items on the environmental questionnaire were divided into two
groups: those dealing with physical privacy in the present situation (both within
the home and with neighbors) and those dealing with past living situations.
Composites of some items within each grouping were formed by adding

Privacy and Environment

97

standardized scores to produce a smaller number of items. The composites and

single items forming the variables are listed in Table I.
Responses to the Privacy Preference Scale were obtained from both adult
and student samples and to the environmental questionnaire from the adult
sample only.
RESULTS
Orientations Toward Privacy

The principal components analysis of the PPS produced six major factors
appearing for both the adult and student samples. In order to obtain a
conservative estimate of real differences between adult and student factor
patterns, the loadings obtained from the original Varimax rotations were rotated
using a procedure developed by Bloxom (1968) to find maximum similarity
between factor pattern matrices for subpopulations. Six subscales were
constructed based on items that had loadings above 0.40 on each factor;
contents are summarized below (for a complete listing of the items with their
factor loadings, see Marshall, 1970).

Intimacy
The items loading on the Intimacy factor were largely concerned with
privacy for units larger than one, e.g., with intimate friends or family. The
differences in the factor analyses of the adult and student samples suggested that
they differed in the nature of the desired intimate relationship; while the student
would tend to disclose a great deal about himself in order to gain intimacy, the
adult was concerned with retaining a degree of privacy even within the intimate
relationship. Sample items were
People should respect another's right to be individual and different.
(Agree)
It is important to be able to confide in someone and know that your
confidence will be kept secret. (Agree)
I occasionally enjoy getting away from the rest of the world with an
intimate friend. (Agree)

Not Neighboring
The Not Neighboring items dealt with disliking the tendency of friends or
neighbors to drop in without warning and with a preference for noninvolvement
with neighbors. The factor contained two not necessarily related means of
gaining privacy: through expressed or implied norms about when others might
visit and through choice of persons other than neighbors as close friends,

98

Marshall

Table I. Composites of Environmental Variables

Composite label

Item
Environmental privacy composites

No. lived with

Number of persons lived with

Number of rooms per person

Privacy within home

Place to be alone within home

House allows noisy and quiet activities
simultaneously
Number of rooms open to each other

Distance neighbors

Single-family dwelling or apartment

Number of apartments in building
Number of houses visible from living room
Lot size
Distance from nearest neighbor
Live on cul-de-sac, corner, or straight street

Visual privacy

Ability to sunbathe without being seen

Enter/exit without being seen by neighbors
Neighbor enter/exit without being noticed by you
Amount of fencing

Noise/odor

Noise of traffic and/or neighbors annoying

Overhear ordinary noises/movements of neighbors
Odors of neighbors' cooking

Perceived crowding

Perceived crowding in the home

Perceived privacy

Perceived privacy in the home

Privacy/neighbors

Perceived privacy from neighbors

Job density

Number interact with in carrying out job

Past environment composites

Town size

Percent of life spent in rural area, small town,

medium-sized city, suburb of large city,
metropolitan area

Mobility

Number of times moved in life

Distance from area where grew up
Time lived within 20 miles of where now live

Open space

Amount of open space around childhood home

Own room

Had a room of his own during childhood

No. siblings

Number of siblings

Sibling intimacy

Intimacy of relationship with sibhngs

Sibling disagreement

Number of disagreements with siblings

Past perceived
crowding

Perceived crowding of childhood home

Privacy and Environment

99

distance presumably allowing more control over the relationship. Sample items
were
I want my friends to feel that they can drop in at my house any time they
like. (Disagree)
I would prefer a neighborhood where neighbors had a tendency to drop in
all the time to one in which it was difficult to get to know them. (Disagree)
I really enjoy being able to loan things to friends. (Disagree)

Seclusion
Items loading on the Seclusion factor dealt with having a home secluded
from the sight and sound of neighbors and traffic. It included items indicating a
tolerance for being alone and a willingness or preference to be unacquainted
with neighbors. Sample items were
I would like to live in a secluded house out of sight of any other houses.
(Agree)
A house should be so far away from a neighbor that only by yelling at the
top of one's lungs can one be heard. (Agree)

Solitude
The Solitude factor contained items reflecting a desire to be alone at
times, without differentiating between being alone but with others nearby (as in
one's room) and being far from others. The possibility of being alone
"mentally," with others present but not intruding on one's thoughts, was
included. Sample items were
I sometimes want to get away from everyone for a while, even my close
friends. (Agree)
It is important to me to be able to be alone when I want to be. (Agree)

Anonymity
The central theme of the A n o n y m i t y factor was the anonymity of urban
living. Items dealt with being able to a t t a i n privacy in a large city because
"everyone wouldn't know everything about y o u " as opposed to the interest in
and involvement with others in a small town. The student factor, unlike the
adult, also reflected a liking for the noise and traffic of the city; noise did not
seem to be a drawback to city life for students. Sample items were
I would like to live in a large city because neighbors and acquaintances
there would probably be less concerned about my private life. (Agree)
I would not like to live in a small town because there is too much gossip
about your private life. (Agree)

100

Marshall
Reserve

Items loading on the Reserve factor dealt with a preference not to disclose
much about oneself to others, particularly if the others were not known very
well. Several types of items involving self-disclosure were written, covering the
preferred depth of disclosure (how much one was willing to disclose to even the
closest friends) as well as the breadth of disclosure (how much one preferred to
disclose to friends, acquaintances, and strangers). Many of the items in the latter
category, particularly those indicating a preference to be "open and honest with
others" or to have few really intimate friends, did not load on this factor. The
difference in emphasis of the adult and student factors was similar to that on the
Intimacy factor. The adults emphasized not revealing much about themselves to
"friends" until they had known them a long time, while students emphasized
not revealing themselves to "persons I don't know very well." Sample items were
I dislike talking about personal matters to a friend in a crowded place
where other people can overhear us. (Agree)
I usually don't tell people I don't know very well personal things about
myself. (Agree)
I don't like to talk about personal things with friends until I have known
them a long time. (Agree)
Intercorrelations of the six subscales showed two major groupings (Table
II). The first centered on' strong relationships among Anonymity and Not
Neighboring, predictable from the item overlap (two items appeared on both
subscales), and Reserve. Logically; this grouping contains the orientations
involving reserve as a means of attaining privacy, if one interprets controlling
involvement with neighbors (Not Neighboring and Anonymity) as a means of
controlling self-disclosure. The second grouping consisted of a strong relationship between the Solitude subscale and both Seclusion and Intimacy. This
subgrouping centered on orientation toward placing physical barriers, including
distance, between oneself and others; the inclusion of Intimacy indicated that
the unit for which privacy is desired may include one or more intimate others.
The relationship between Solitude and Intimacy suggests that preference for
solitude in this sample did not imply complete withdrawal from others or
reclusiveness. Rather, the same persons who preferred times of solitude preferred
to be with intimates at other times.
Orientations and Environment
The relationships between privacy preferences and opportunities to gain
privacy in both the past and present home environment were examined, first by
predicting present privacy preferences from density or crowding in the past
environment (assuming that past crowding indicates lack of certain kinds of

Privacy and Environment

101

Table II. Reliabilities of and Intercorrelations Among Subscales, Correlations with PPS,
Adult and Student Samples
Scales
1. Privacy
preference
2. Anonymity
Adult
Student
3. Not neighboring
Adult
Student
4. Reserve
Adult
Student
5. Solitude
Adult
Student
6. Seclusion
Adult
Student

0.51 b

0.65 b

0.52 b

0.63 b

0.56 b

0.47 b

0.61 b
0.54 b

0.35 b
0.29 b

0.17
0.04

0.10
0.05

0.14
0.12

0.72
0.71

0.27 b
0.24 b

0.34 b
0.17 a

0.36 b
0,18a

0.18
0.06

0.78
0.76

0.11
0.26 a

0.08
0.20 a

0.28 b
0.23 b

0.57
0.63

0.49 b
0.45 b

0.40 b
0.39 b

0.75
0.67

0.35 b
0.24 b

0.70
0.65

7. Intimacy
Adult
Student

Coefficient

0.56
0.56

ap ( 0 . 0 5 .
bp <0.01.
privacy) and second by examing the closeness o f fit between privacy preferences
and environmental opportunities for obtaining privacy. The correlations
included in the analysis are contained in Table III; to facilitate hypothesis
generation, rather low rs have been presented if their significance reached the
0.05 level.

Environmental Density and Orientations Toward Privacy

Hypotheses were formulated relating environmental density to privacy
preferences, using adaptation level t h e o r y (Helson, 1964) as a basis for
predictions. A d a p t a t i o n level theory treats level o f response as a function o f
three sets o f stimuli: focal stimuli, the stimuli being responded to and in the
immediate focus o f attention; background stimuli, all other stimuli immediately
present and forming a background or context for focal stimuli; and residual
stimuli, comprising all determinants o f behavior having their focus within the
organism, such as effects o f past experience and of constitutional and organic

-0.30 c

0.22 b

-0.19 b
-0.20 b

PPS

-0.20 b

N-N

-0.25 b

-0.28 e

0.24 b

Subscales
Sol

-0.24 b
0.24 b

Sec

0.30 e

-0.20 b
0.30 c
0.35 e

-0.25 b

-0.23 b
-0.26 c

Anon

-.20 b
.24 b
.24 b

.23 b

.23 b

-0.23 b

Res

apPS, total score; N-N, not neighboring; Sec, seclusion; Sol, solitude; Anon, anonymity; Res, reserve; I, intimacy.
bp < 0.05.
Cp( 0 . 0 1 .

Perceived privacy and crowding

Perceived privacy within home
Perceived crowding in home
Perceived crowding, childhood home

Past environment
Time in rural area
Time in metropolitan area
Composite: town size
Single-family dwelling, childhood
Distance from area where spent childhood

Density within neighborhood

Number houses visible from living room windows
Annoying traffic or neighbor noise
Amount fencing
Visual privacy for sunbathing
Odors from neighbors' cooking

Density within home

Number people live with
Number rooms visually open to each other
Place in home to be alone when preferred
House can accommodate noisy and quiet
activities simultaneously
Number rooms per person
Number bedrooms per person
Composite: privacy within home

Present environment

Items

0.22 b
0.29 c
0.22 b
-0.21 b

0.28 c
-0.24 b

0.34 c
0.27 c

-0.27 c

Table III. Significant Past and Present Environmental Correlates of PPS Total Score and Privacy Subscales, Adult Samplea

~r

Privacy and Environment

103

factors. Predictions were made from two variable sets: actual and perceived
density levels (a) of the current home and (b) of the childhood home.
Focusing on residual stimuli from the past environment, it was
hypothesized that persons growing up in a high-density home, without a room of
their own and a relatively large number of siblings, would have adapted to the
attendant lack of privacy and learned to prefer low levels of privacy. They were
particularly expected to score lower on the Solitude, Reserve, and Intimacy
orientations. None of the expected relationships of the Own Room and Number
of Siblings variables (see Table I for items in the composites) with privacy
orientations were significant, although the largest correlations that did appear
were in the predicted direction. That is, possession of a room of one's own in
childhood showed some relationship to preference for solitude (r = 0.16)and
having a few siblings to high Intimacy scores (r = 0.14).
Similar hypotheses were made relating privacy preferences to the past
environment on a larger scale, with the amount of open space in the
neighborhood and percentage of life spent in towns of various sizes as variables.
AL theory would predict that city dwellers would prefer more anonymity than
small town residents as a result of adapting to the relative availability of
anonymity in the city. In line with the AL predictions, persons spending more of
their lives in cities were significantly more likely to prefer anonymity and
privacy for intimate relationships, and they tended to prefer noninvolvement
with their neighbors.
The only other significant privacy preference correlates of childhood
environmental density were with measures of perceived crowding rather than
measures of actual crowding; that is, persons who perceived their childhood
home as crowded preferred Anonymity and Intimacy. Perceived crowding during
childhood was, however, significantly related to several of the measures of actual
crowding during childhood, including having a room of one's own, living in a
single-family dwelling, number of siblings, and amount of open space. Perceived
crowding thus seemed to act as an intervening variable in the relationship
between actual crowding and privacy preferences, in that perceived crowding
was related both to density measures and to preference for privacy, but density
and privacy preferences were not directly related.
Finally, the relationship between density or crowding in the present
physical environment and privacy preferences was compared with adaptation
level predictions. Density of the present environment would be classified as a
background stimulus within AL theory. In addition to the variables measuring
available privacy within the home and neighborhood listed in Table III,
information was obtained about the degree of overlook of neighbors' entrances,
the size of the lot, and the distance from the nearest neighbor.
Working from the content of the six privacy orientations, it was possible
to determine environmental density variables that would affect the likelihood of

104

Marshall

achieving each of the six kinds of privacy. AL theory would predict that these
preferences represent an adaptation to the amount of relevant privacy available
in the environment; these predictions were tested against the environmental
density correlates of the orientations.
It was predicted that PPS score would be negatively correlated to density
in general; as shown in Table III, the two significant correlations with density
variables were in the hypothesized direction.
Scores on the Solitude, Intimacy, and Reserve subscales were expected to
be related to density levels within both the home and the neighborhood. The
prediction from neighborhood density assumed that density would affect,
respectively, (a) the ability to be alone outside the home, (b) the ability of the
intimate family group to achieve privacy from neighbors, and (c) the ability to
control interaction with and self-disclosure to neighbors. The predictions from
within the home density followed from similar considerations involving the
privacy of individual family members within the home. Of the ten significant
correlations between these three subscales and environmental density variables,
eight were in the direction predicted (Table III).
Orientations toward Seclusion, Anonymity, and Not Neighboring were
expected to be related to density in the neighborhood but not the home setting.
Seclusion in the sense that it appears on this subscale is not likely to be available
in a high-density neighborhood. The relationship of neighborhood density to
Anonymity was expected ~to be positive, since higher density allows anonymity
to occur. By the same token, the relationship with Not Neighboring sould be
curvilinear, with high density making it difficult to achieve privacy by avoiding
involvement with neighbors until density reaches the point that anonymous
relationships appear. Of the three significant density correlates of Seclusion and
Not Neighboring, one related to the home rather than neighborhood setting and
one was not in the direction predicted. The finding that persons who could see
few other houses from their windows preferred seclusion was in accord with the
prediction. All of the significant density correlates of Anonymity dealt with
density within the home rather than the neighborhood.

Preference for Privacy and A trained Environmental Privacy

The relationship between privacy preferences and environmental availability of privacy was also inspected for evidence of closeness of fit between the
two. Such closeness would indicate that environments, the dependent variables,
were chosen for their privacy opportunities. This approach involves looking at
the same kind of data as in the previous section, but within the context of the fit
between preferences and environment rather than adaptation level theory.
Overall privacy orientation, as indicated by low, medium, and high total
scores on the Privacy Preference Scale, was related to the nine composites of

Privacy and Environment

105

items measuring the amount of privacy available in the present environment (see
Table I) by means o f multivariate analysis o f variance. This analysis involves
computing a multivariate F as a test for significant mean differences between the
three levels of privacy preference for the nine dependent variables simultaneously, and computing stepdown F ratios, independent estimates o f the
significance of effects of individual variables.
PPS total score was found to be negatively related to perceived privacy
within the home (stepdown F = 3.02, p < 0.05) and to the number o f persons
living in the home (stepdown F = 5.21, p < 0.01), although the multivariate F
was not significant. The mean scores indicated that responses of persons with
high preference for privacy fell on the average between "about right" and "not
quite enough" perceived privacy, while persons with tow preference for privacy
tended to respond that they had about the right amount o f privacy. The fit
between preference and environment, then, was better for the group showing
low preference for privacy even though persons with high preference for privacy
tended to have more actual privacy (they lived with few other people and had
fewer rooms that were visually open to each other).
Canonical correlation was used to compare the two sets of variables (Table
IV), privacy orientations and environmental privacy composites (Table I). This
technique expresses the relationship between the variable sets as a single
correlation coefficient and as standardized regression weights indicating the
amount that each variable contributes to the overall correlation. Two linear

Table IV. Canonical Correlations of Privacy Subscales with Environmental Privacy,

Standardized Regression Weights for Canonical Variate Pairs I and II,a Adult Sample
Canonical vectors
Privacy subscales

Intimacy
Anonymity
Not neighboring
Solitude
Seclusion
Reserve

0.710
-0.558
0.444
0.405
-0.198
0.057

II

Environmental
privacy

0.568 Privacy w/ihouse

0.340 Perceived privacy
-0.026 Job density
-0.558 No. live with
-0.389 Noise/odor
0.423 Privacy/neighbors
Visual privacy
Distance/neighbors
Perceived crowding

II

0.572
-0.543
0.422
-0.402
-0.192
0.185
-0.102
-0.080
-0.062

-0.292
0.369
0.168
-0.569
-0.280
0.078
0.482
-0.258
0.614

aThe canonical rs were computed from a' correlation matrix; the weights refer to
standardized variables. I: R c = 0.61, df = 54, = 108.91,p = 0.000. II: R e = 0.50, df =
40, x 2 = 65.17, p = 0.007.

106

Marshall

functions of the variable sets produced significant canonical correlations. The

first canonical Re contrasted Intimacy and Anonymity on a number of
environmental privacy variables. The regression weights revealed that high
Intimacy and low Anonymity scores were related to high privacy within the
home, high job and density, and living with few others. Such persons seemed to
have higher than average physical privacy within the home, but still felt they did
not have enough (low perceived privacy).
The second significant canonical correlation contrasted the Intimacy and
Reserve subscales with Solitude. High scores on Intimacy and Reserve and low
scores on Solitude were related to high perceived crowding, living with few
others, and high visual privacy from neighbors. Again, persons preferring privacy
with intimates and preferring reserve perceived their home as crowded, although
they lived with few others and had more than average visual privacy from
neighboring houses.
Since inspection of the regression weights of the canonical variates may
conceal some of the relationships between the variate sets, individual correlations (Table III) are also presented. Choice of a physical environment compatible
with Not Neighboring would logically involve choosing distance and visual
privacy from neighbors, on the assumption that it is easier to remain uninvolved
with neighbors if they are not close by and if one's house is located such that
neighbors are not likely to be encountered coming and going. However, no
significant correlations of Not Neighboring with these variables were found.
Further data not reported here indicated that attitudes toward involvement with
neighbors were reflected more in behavioral control of the neighboring
relationship than in appropriate arrangement of the physical environment.
An environment compatible with high Seclusion scores should involve
visual, auditory, and olfactory separation from others. The only evidence for
such a relationship was the negative correlation of Seclusion with number of
houses visible; in fact, preference for seclusion was positively related to presence
of annoying traffic or neighbor noise. This suggests that high Seclusion scores
may have represented a reaction to inadequacies of the current home
surroundings rather than a strong prior force determining the original choice of
the home.
Variables in the physical environment that were expected to be related to
achieving preferred levels of Solitude included having a place to be alone within
the home, crowding in the home, and auditory separation of areas of the house.
None of these were significantly related to Solitude, although the composite of
three of these items labeled Privacy Within Home was positively related to
Solitude. Perhaps as a result, persons with high preferences for Solitude tended
to respond that they did not have enough privacy within the home.
Based on the content of the Anonymity scale, high scores were expected
to be related to the average size of town lived in, involvement with neighbors,

Privacy and Environment

107

and source of friends. With regard to the last, it was assumed that if one's friends
came from many sources (neighbors, coworkers, persons one grew up with,
members of the same organizations), they would be less likely to be acquainted
with the person as a whole, but would know him in only one or a few of his
many roles. Although this relationship did not appear, there was a tendency for
persons high on Anonymity not to choose neighbors as friends (r = -0.20, p <
0.05). As expected, high Anonymity scores were related to town size.
Since Reserve involves control over verbal disclosure about oneself, no
particular physical environmental correlates as assessed by this questionnaire
were expected.
An environment compatible with orientation toward Intimacy was
expected to contain opportunities for separation of small groups within the
home and also for separation of the family unit from neighbors. The former
was supported by significant relationships with number of rooms and bedrooms
per person and the latter by a positive relationship with visual privacy for
sunbathing.
On the whole, the fit between preferences and environment was not close,
and seemed to fall below the expectations of those preferring high levels of
privacy, particularly of Solitude and Seclusion.

Perceived Privacy, Perceived Crowding,

and the Physical Environment
Environmental variables were correlated with judgments about experienced crowding currently and during childhood and attainment of privacy
within the home and neighborhood to determine which environmental variables
were of major importance in influencing perceptions of crowding and privacy. A
brief description of the home environments of the sample is useful in
interpreting these data. The sample was on the whole relatively uncrowded: 92%
lived in single-family dwellings, 93% had at least one one room per per person
within their homes, 81% had a place within the home to which they could
retreat without being disturbed, 21% could see no houses from their living room
window (the mean number visible was 2.8), the mean lot size was 100 by 150
feet, and 68% had fenced back yards. With regard to distance between their
house and that of their nearest neighbor, the sample was divided evenly between
the responses 10-20 feet, 20-50 feet, and over 50 feet.
Subjects judging their present home as too crowded were found to have
more persons per room (r = -0.31, p < 0.01; number of persons living in the
home was not significantly correlated in itself) and to have a house that did not
allow adequate insulation between quiet and noisy activities (r = -0.38, p <
0.01). Several variables dealing with neighboring relations were strongly related
to perceived crowding within the home, including being able to overhear

108

Marshall

neighbors (r--- 0.26, p < 0.01) and having many houses visible from the living
room windows (r--- 0.23, p < 0.05). Persons who felt crowded within the home
had also spent more time in small towns (r = 0.29, p < 0.01) and had lived in
their present neighborhood for a shorter time (r = -0.26, p < 0.01).
Persons who thought they had enough or too much privacy within the
home tended to have a house that insulated noisy activities from quiet ones (r =
0.32, p < 0.01), to have few houses visible from the living room (r = -0.33, p <
0.01), and to be far from their neighbors (r = 0.23, p < 0.05). In addition, they
rated themselves as not easily distractible (r = -0.33, p < 0.01).
Perceived privacy from neighbors was positively related to noise from
traffic or neighbors (r = 0.21, p < 0.05) and negatively related to drawing the
drapes during the day (r = 0.28, p < 0.01). Among the significant correlates of
perceived crowding in childhood were sharing a room (r = 0.40, p < 0.01),
having many siblings (r = 0.25, p < 0.05), and having little open space around
the house (r=-0.25, p < 0.05). Since the answers to all of these items were based
on recall, the correlations serve as a rough estimate of the real relationship.
DISCUSSION
9Means of Attaining Privacy

Principal componer~ts analysis of the Privacy Preference Scale revealed six

major means of attaining privacy. The six factors were somewhat more
situationally specific than expected. Thus, rather than one factor centered on
erecting physical barriers to sight, sound, touch and smell, there were two,
Solitude and Seclusion, dealing with barriers around the individual and the
home, respectively. The Not Neighboring factor was limited to one situation, the
neighboring relationship, although its content might have been included within
the more general Anonymity and Reserve factors. Anonymity was limited
largely to the variable of town size. The specificity of these factors does not lend
strong support to a general trait of privacy preference, nor do they fit well with
Simon's (1969) framework. Rather than a generalized privacy preference,
expressed through interchangeable behavior appropriate to the situation 0.e., the
means of obtaining privacy contained in the subscales), the subscale intercorrelations were not uniformly high, but fell into two clusters. This pattern of
correlations would be unlikely if the subjects' behaviors were predominantly a
function of present environmental constraints, as suggested by Simon. Instead,
the subjects tended to prefer some means of privacy control over others and
could not be reacting to environmental constraints unless their physical
environment happened to limit or allow privacy with the same clustering shown
by the subscales.
Past Experience

In contrasting adaptation level and drive reduction approaches to the

Privacy and Environment

109

development of privacy preferences, measures of home, neighborhood, and city

density were used as indicators of past privacy. Density inthese settings tends to
influence available privacy by decreasing the ability to be alone or visually and
auditorily separate from others, although increasing the possibility of the privacy
of anonymity by influencing the quality of the interpersonal relationships. Wirth
(1938) suggested that interpersonal contact changes from primary to secondary,
from personal to segmental, as one moves into higher-density settings. City
dwellers, at least those outside ethnic neighborhoods retaining small town
characteristics, are likely to know others only within specific, segmental roles
such as grocery clerks or bus drivers rather than as whole persons.
On the whole, the relationship between density within the childhood
home and neighborhood and relevant measures of preference for privacy were
more consistent with adaptation level theory than with a drive reduction theory
of motivation, but were not statistically significant. The only significant
relationships showed that those who had spent more of their lives as city
dwellers preferred more anonymity and noninvolvement with neighbors than did
small town residents. With regard to the fit between availability of privacy in the
present environment and privacy attitudes, a longitudinal study would be
required to choose between the two competing possibilities, that of choosing an
environment compatible with privacy preferences or adapting preferences to
environmental constraints.
Environmental Fit

In evaluating the fit between environmental privacy and privacy preferences, the relative homogeneity in environment of the sample should be noted.
Although the sample contained a range of social classes, the sample was
relatively homogeneous in the amount of privacy available in their homes and
neighborhoods. Since homogeneity of the sample lowers correlations, the low
but significant correlations reported should perhaps be given more weight than
would otherwise be true.
Although there was some evidence of a fit between amount of privacy
available in the physical environment and specific privacy preferences, perhaps
the most notable finding was that persons with high privacy preferences often
felt they did not have enough privacy even though they had more than did
persons with low privacy preferences. This was most apparent in the canonical
correlations.
The findings relating environmental variables to perceived privacy and
crowding have implications for environmental designers concerned with increasing opportunities for privacy and reducing perceived crowding through design.
For this relatively low-density suburban sample, noise of, distance from, and
visibility of neighbors were the major physical variables related to low perceived
privacy within the neighborhood. The relationship with drawing the drapes

110

Marshall

indicated the importance of window orientation, but expected relationships

(Kuper, 1967) with being observed by neighbors did not appear. Within the
home, variables of major importance were number of rooms per person and the
ability to insulate noisy and quiet activities from each other; the number of
rooms that were visually open to each other was not important to perceptions o f
privacy or crowding.
Given the closer relationships between attitudes toward privacy and
perceived privacy and between perceived privacy and the physical environment
than between privacy attitudes and the physical environment, it is obvious that
both personal and environmental variables influence judgments about privacy or
crowding in the home or neighborhood.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank her dissertation chairman, Kenneth Craik, and
committee members Carl Frederiksen, Donald MacKinnon, Donald Appleyard,
and Gerald Mendelsohn for their advice and encouragement.

REFERENCES
Bloxom, B. (1968). Factorial rotation to simple structure and maximum similarity.
Psyehometrika 33: 237-247.
Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation Level Theory. Harper & Row, New York.
Holfingshead, A. (1965). Two Factor Index of SocialPosition. Yale Station, New Haven.
Kuper, B. (1967). Privacy and Private Housing. Building Design Parternship Graphic Unit,
London,
Levy, L. (1967). The quality of urban fife: An anaylsis from the perspective of mental
health. In Urban America: Goals and Problems. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., pp. 100-112.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Marshall, N. J. (1970).. Orientations toward privacy: Environmental and personality
components. Unpublished doctoral dissertation in psychology. University of California, Berkeley, 145 pp.
Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science 167: 1461-1468.
Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., and Rivlin, L. G. (1970). Freedom of choice and
behavior in a physical setting. In Proshansky, H. M., Ittleson, W. H., and Rivlin, L. G.
(eds.), Environmental Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York, pp. 173-183.
Simmel, G. (1950). The stranger. In Wolff, K. (ed.), The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Free
Press, Glencoe.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. Atheneum, New York.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44: 1-24.