Privacy and environment

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Privacy and environment a field experiment
Physical Description:
v, 88 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Smith, Dale Elmer, 1951-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Personal space   ( lcsh )
Privacy, Right of   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 85-87.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Dale E. Smith.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000195127
oclc - 03652868
notis - AAW1798
System ID:
AA00002213:00001

Full Text














PRIVACY AND ENVIRONMENT:
A FIELD EXPERIMENT






By


DALE E.


SMITH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1977

















TABLE OF CONTENTS



Page

LIST OF TABLES........ ......... ...e....... ...... iii


ABSTRACT. ..... ......... ................ .... .. . ..... .....


INTRODUCTION.......................................................


Dimensions of Privacy....
Theories of Privacy......
Components of Privacy....
A Model of Privacy. c...
A Social Learning Approac


h . . ... .


.. ....... ...
t. t...... .....

... .... ....
.., ... ... ...


PROBLEM. .... ....s....... ............ ............................


METHOD............... ........................... ......


Subjects............
Testing Instruments.
Procedure...........
Design..............


. .......c ...

.... .. .Q. ...


*.......... ...
...c..........
*...tee...... c
.......... ..


.......
.. ....
...0. .. .


..0.....
....t...

.......


RESULTS.... ... ........... ....... ............... ........ ..........


Internal Properties of Privacy Scales.........................
Validity. .....................................................
Hypothesis Testing............. .......... ....................

DISCUSSION .........................................................


IMPLICATIONS............................... .................... ..

APPENDIX. ..........................................................


Testing Instruments...........................................

REFERENCES....... ........ ......... .......... ......... ............

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH..... ...........................................













LIST OF TABLES


Table


Page


Internal Properties of Scales........................

Intercorrelations among Privacy Scales...............

Mean Comparisons of Scales............ ............

Correlations with Discrepancy Scores: Total Sample...

Correlations with Discrepancy Scores: Sample I.......

Correlations with Discrepancy Scores: Sample II......


Correlations with Discrepancy Scores: Sampl


III.....


Sample III.....................................


Interrater Correlations..............................

Correlations with Ratings: Sample II.................

Correlations with Ratings: Sample III................













Abstract of
University


Dissertation


Florida


Degree


Presented
Partial


Graduate


Fulfillment of


Doctor of


Council


Requirements


Philosophy


PRIVACY


A FIELD


Dale


June


ENVIRONMENT
EXPERIMENT


Smith


1977


Chairman


Robert


chairman:


Major


chard


Department:


Ziller


wanson


hology


prupose


present


tudy was


to investigate


effects


one's


ical


environment


upon


privacy


so doing,


esen


study


examined


effects


environment


relocating


to one which


individual


offered a


high


from


degree


a non-privacy


afford-


pri vacy


ites


ected


tudy were


an antiquated


jail


house


ts newly


con-


tructed


replacement.


assess


impact of


moving


from


the old


cil-


to the


new,


series


uestionnai res


were


admini


tered


to sample


inmate


during


three


different


time


period


firs t


test


session


was conducted at


facility


approx


imately


one month


before


move,


while


second


test


occurred


at the


new facility


approximately


one month


after


move.


provide


means


assessing


stability


a~~~ ~~~~ ItA .. a4 hAa4 af 4 :-n ,a &


LL4.aA


* *


L1


s-t, ^ o


~~HII)~~CII


,,,~ 1,


L *k


L


f*







substantial


privacy


increase


lightly


i nma te


decreased.


expectancies


effects


privacy while


discrepancy


values


in values


expec


tancie


privacy


upon


inmate


attitudes


behaviors


were


also


examined.













INTRODUCTION

An important aspect of privacy that becomes apparent after review-


ing research in the area,


is that privacy is not a univariate concept.


Several authors have commented upon its multiple


ity by suggesting var-


ious dimensions along which considerations should be given. On

more extensive reviews of the multi-dimensionality of privacy i


e of the


that of


Laufer


, Proshansky, and Wolfe (1973)


Laufer et al


have suggested


sev-


eral analytic dimensions on which privacy may be conceptualized.


They


are as follows: the

life-cycle dimension


ion,


self-ego dimension


, the interaction dimension,


the biography-history dimension,


the ecological-cultural dimension,


the control dimen-


the task orientation dimension,


the ritual dimension, and the phenomenological dimension.


Dimensions of Privacy


Self-ego


Most discussions concerning privacy have focused upon the concept


of the self.


Usually, such discussions have considered privacy as a


necessary condition in the development of a


self-concept.


In order for


one to conceive of a self,


it is necessary to be able to separate self


from others.


Such a


separation necessitates an aloneness, either phys-


or psychological


or both.


In thi


regard


, privacy can be viewed as


the dichotomy between self and others (Kelvin


. 1973).







development of the self,

According to Simmel, ind


facilitating individuality and autonomy


ividuality develops from conflicts over bound-


of the


self in relation to others.


Because it helps to avoid


much conflict between the individual and


society, privacy i


valued


Kira


1970) described privacy


as being basic to the development of


a strong personal


identity.


Privacy invol


the concept of possession,


possession of time, space, and property.


Each of these


serves


as a


measure of our uniqueness and


self-exp


ress


ion.


similarly, Jourard (1971)


stated that in


situations where there is no privacy,


there


is no indi


viduality

growth, i


As viewed by Jourard, privacy is


n that it provides


a necessity for personal


individuals with the opportunity to discover


and/or redefine their identity.


The relation of privacy to the


self has a


been stressed by Bates


(1964)


Bates viewed privacy as


a distinction between the self and


others


This differentiation between


self and others


serves


both a


elf-


protective and an ameliorative


function.


Privacy may protect the


simply by separating oneself from others who are perceived


In addition,


as threatening.


separation from others may be ameliorative in respective


to restoring one'


self-esteem through the removal


of any threats to one-


self.


Thus, privacy acts


as a buffer between social


pressures upon the


individual


and hi


or her response to them.


Interaction


The preceding discussion of privacy


as a distinction between self


and others


, not only assumes the presence of others


but also the poten-







Kelvin (1973) viewed privacy as the obverse of social


behavior.


In other words


, privacy i


the obverse of social


interaction.


Similarly,


Weinstein (1971) defined privacy as being immune from intrusion by others.


potential


for non-interaction has been further stressed by Shils


(1966), who described privacy as a


"zero relationship" between two or


more persons constituted by the absence of interaction, communication


or perception within the context in which such interaction


communlca-


tion


, or perception i


practical


Thus, according to


hils, privacy


can only exist if there is a voluntary withdrawal


Consistent with the preceding,


from interaction.


non-interaction or an absence of


interaction may be achieved by either blocking others'


interactions with


oneself or blocking one


interactions with others.


Sommer (1966) men-


tioned two methods of insuring privacy


both involving the blocking of


others


' interactions with oneself.


As termed by Sommer


, they are offen-


ive display and avoidance.


that the individual emplo

whereas an example of the


An example of the former method i


ys that facilitates others


latter method i


any action


' leaving the situation,


any action that the individual


employs that facilitates his or her own


leaving from the


situation.


Al ternatively


Roberts and Gregor'


(1971) view of privacy as a


restriction of the transmission of information


illustrates the blocking


of one's interactions with others


As an example of this method,


when-


ever individuals refuse to communicate with others,


they prohibit inter-


action.


This is similar to Jourard'


(1966) notion of privacy as an


outcome of a person's wish to withhold from others certain knowledge as

to his or her past or present experiences and actions, and intentions for








Life-cycle


As an individual moves through the


life cyc1


needs, desires,


ability


es, and expectations change along with age.


These


changes


affect privacy.


Not only do individual


too affects privacy.


Laufer


change, but


situations change.


, Proshansky, and Wolfe (19


73) have


suggested different conceptualizations of privacy


as a function of


age.


When children are young,


they may not possess


a separate space


but they


do pos


sess


various objects.


At this


stage,


privacy may merely be con-


ceived as object possession.


As children mature and can differentiate


themselves from their families, being able to be alone may gain impor-


tance.

others.


Thus, privacy may begin to be related to a


uch a separation may become much more


when individual


begin to


eparation from


salient in adolescence


seek greater intimacy with others, especially


in relation to sexual activities.


In a study reported by Laufer et al.


, the conceptualization of


privacy


as a function of ag


was supported.


Children between the ages


of four and nineteen were interviewed


as to their conceptions of privacy.


The interviews consisted of a series of open-ended questions.


The results


indicated that:


Children as young as four years old know what privacy i


The number of different aspects of privacy increase with age.

Some elements of the concept of privacy remain across time,

although the frequency and importance of these elements change

with age.


- a


'a .- n t U n n n n a nn 4 a aC inm n r n1 a a ra i n n i


, f L _>_,~







Biography-history


Privacy


like


most


conce


pts,


derives


meaning


from


experl-


ences.


asis


interaction


with


others


individual


both


efine


"what


privacy


s" and


"how


can b


attained.


Simply


tated


priva


earned.


support


notion


their


been


variety


anthropology


tudi


reporting


diff


eren


conce


options


privacy


across


culture


(Roberts


Gregor


1971


estin


, 1970)


learn


enomenon


, prva


consequences


not only for


present


also


future


terms


both


oneself


ers.


Privacy


-direc


havior


affe


others


in thei


attempt


prev


future


interaction.


seque


ntly


success


or failure


these


same


haviors


turn


affec


individual


future


behavior


similar


situation.


Control


From


preceding


scuss


is appar


that


privacy


dynamic


process


often


entailing


some


sort


havior


Thus


, privacy


is more


than


just a


dichotomy


between


self


others


charact


non-interaction.


Privacy


an active


process


involving


ability


restrict


or prev


erac


tion


between


other


other words,


vacy


involve


ability


to control


i ntera


actions.


control


erac


tion


viewed


from


slightly


different


erspectives.


Control


involves


active


restrict


tion


erac


tion


either


controlling


others


action


or one's


own actions.


ommer


s (1966)


methods


ensuring


privacy


offense


play


avoidance


illu


trate








with others.


Jourard (1966)


viewed privacy as a desire to control others'


perceptions


and beliefs about oneself


vis-a-vi


self-concealing


person.


Similarly, Shil


(1966) discussed privacy in relation to infor-


nation control.


Control may also be viewed from the perspective of others


, in terms


of their control over interactions.


As such


, privacy represents freedom


from others'


control


Proshansky,


Ittleson, and Rivlin (1970) defined


privacy as the freedom to choose what one communicates about oneself,


and to whom it i


communicated.


Likewise


, Weinstein (1971) described pri-


vacy as an immunity from intrusion or control


by others.


Thus, an invasion


of privacy may be viewed as an intrusion upon one's freedom from control.

Freedom from the control of others may also be viewed as freedom


from their power.


an individual


Kelvin (1973


described privacy as operating to insure


independence in situations in which he or


he might other-


wise be vulnerable to the power of others.


Beardsley (1971) has also


mentioned privacy in terms of power, but from the individual


Violations of privacy were viewed as either violations of one'


perspective.


right to


selective disclosure or violations of one's autonomy. According to

Beardsley, autonomy involves the power to choose an act or experience


plus the power to bring about what has been chosen.


Privacy


as facilitat-


ing the maintenance of personal autonomy ha


(1970b).


also been cited by Pastalan


As viewed by Pastalan, such facilitation derives from one


ability to choose for oneself.


One of the more extensive discussions of control


- .


- -


A, fI l5C" f --1, L -


has been presented


* fS I I S


L, .- Y- 1 _.. ^ -. If f








conceptualized as a four stage process arising from the awareness of a


need to its eventual


satisfaction.


The first stage,


that of outcome


choice control


, concerns the process whereby individuals


outcomes which they will attempt to attain.


behavior selection control,

employed in outcome attainme


individuals select tho

nt. The third stage,


select those


In the next stage,


that of


behaviors to be


that of outcome effect-


ance,


involve


the actual performance of those behaviors selected.


in the final


stage,


that of outcome realization control,


the adequacy


of these behaviors are evaluated in relation to the attained outcome.


within each stage of this process,


Thus,


the individual exerts control.


Ecological-cultural


An important aspect of privacy is the environment


Privacy,


as both


a process


and an experience


must always be conceived in relation to some


physical environment.


In fact, privacy is


often operationalized entirely


on the basis of the environmental


setting alone.


uch a view is


limiting


in that the environment only provides the potential


for privacy


In terms


of social


interaction,


the physical


setting acts as either an inhibitor


or facilitator.


This same notion has been expressed by Osmond (1957)


his characterization of

sociofugal spaces repel


pace as either sociofugal or sociopetal


interaction, sociopetal


Whereas


spaces encourage such


behavior


Thus,


the environment allows for possible interaction.


interaction occurs


, depends upon the individuals


Whether such


involved and the amount


of effort they are willing to exert to either maintain or


limit such con-





8

Implicit in the foregoing discussion is the meaning attached to the


environment.


Privacy i


not only situation


-specific,


it is also


ul ture-


specific


As physical


settings change, so do the potentials for inter-


actional


control.


But it i


only through the meaning attached to the


physical


environment,


that these potentials change.


And it i


only


through one


culture that meanings attached to the physical


environment


are derived


Whether the product of man or nature,


the physical


environ-


ment relative to privacy must be considered from a cultural

Such an approach has been taken by Roberts and Gregor (1971


context.

).


Task Orientation


Although privacy may be an end in itself, oftentimes it serves


a means


to some other end, and as such, may be viewed as task-related.


There are several


activities


in which performance may be facilitated by


international control or the absence of others,


i e., reading, writing,


and just thinking.


Whether such international


control


is desired, may


in turn, depend upon the relative value of the task, such that the


greater the value of the task,


the greater the desire for privacy.


Ritual


Much of what is considered private is embodied in various norms


within a particular culture.


Norms may be viewed as standardized pre-


scriptions for behaviors which are commonly shared among some group of


people.


Those norms prescribing acceptable or appropriate patterns of


interpersonal control are often subsumed under the


label


of privacy


Stho -tvm nri zr+nl ronn' -c ,' a

clll/h


1 m nf; m -7Q/ 1





9

the sense that their desire for non-interaction is both recognized and


accepted by others.


Thus, within a particular group, norms h


Ip regulate


behavior, or in terms of privacy


help control


interaction.


Other forms


shared prescription


include


laws, customs,


rituals, and taboos.


Schwartz


1968) defined privacy as an institutionalized mode of


withdrawal, or appropriate non-interaction.


Those norms and rules govern-


ing privacy were viewed as providing a common bond among groups of people.


Weinstein


1971)


took a similar approach in describing privacy as those


recognized way


of claiming to be immune from others.


Kelvin


1973)


also mentioned privacy-related norms as functioning to constrain behav-


and thus control


interactions.


Phenomenological


Conception


of privacy are filtered through a


series of


subjective


appraisal


which include an individual'


needs, des


ires, ability


expectations


and feelings


Whether a


situation provides th


potential


for interactional c

jective evaluation.

evaluation, will de


controll


This


largely determined by the individual


in conjunction with the individual


4termine the probability of behavior.


phenomenology of the individual


that defines privacy.


Thus,


Bates


sub-


self-

it is the

(1964)


states, privacy is


intimately related to the self


having meaning only in


terms of the self.


Similarly, Kelvin (1973) emphasized the individual


subjective experience as "perceived privacy."


Theories of Privacy







description.


The result has been a general


lack of theoretical


formu-


lation and empirical


preceding di


investigation in the area,


illustrated by the


scussion, privacy is an all-encompassing concept,


has many meanings


such


in that it


, a difficulty arises when privacy must be.


operationally defined


For privacy to be extended into the realm of both


theory and


subsequent empirical


testing, discussion must move from the


abstract to the concrete. Such an approach has been attempted by both

Westin (1970) and Altman (1975).


Westin


, a political


scientist, has attempted a systematic analysis


of privacy through the categorization of it


Westin defined privacy as the claim of individual


various states and functions.


, groups, or institu-


tions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent infor


nation about themsel


communicated to others


defined in terms of four basic states;


solitude


Privacy was further


, intimacy, anonymity,


and reserve.


Solitude is a state of privacy in which a person is alone


and free from others'


observation.


Intimacy reflects the person


need


for privacy as a member of a pair or group that seeks to achieve maximum


personal


relationships between or among its members


Anonymity refers to


freedom from identification and surveillance from others, while in a


public place


Lastly,


reserve is


the need to withhold certain aspects of


self that are either too personal or shameful


from others


' knowledge.


Westin'


definitional


schema has several advantages.


Although only


a preliminary step, Westin has provided a framework from which more exten-


sive anal


yses


can continue.


By providing a basi


definition of privacy


and further


SDecifvina the various


-J -J


states to which it refers. Westin has







individuals,


in regards to the state of intimacy,


A disadvantage of


Westin


approach is


the emphasis of observation or visual


intrusion.


Westin


view is somewhat restrictive in that one can be intruded upon


by other forms of stimuli


such


as auditory, olfactory,


and tactile.


Westin also described four functions of privacy; personal autonomy,


emotional

cation.


ease,


Personal


self-evaluation, and limited and protected communi-

autonomy refers to the sense of individuality and choice


deriving from control over one'


environment.


Emotional rel


ease


involves


the relaxation from those tensions which ari


from social


interactions.


Privacy may al


serve


the function of emotional


ease


by allowing one


to deviate from social n

evaluation refers to the


orms


in a protected fashion from others.


self-appraisal


of past,


Self-


present, and future


experiences


ch are facilitated by the


separating of oneself from


others.


Finally


, limited and protective


communication involves


control


over what i


aid to whom


, which is how Westin initially defined privacy.


Pastalan (1970a) has


elaborated upon Westin'


approach to


include


those events that motivate individual


to seek privacy.


These include


1) antecedent social


events, such as social


relations and role response


abilities;


) personal


factors, such


as motivation to be alone; 3) privacy


mechanisms, such


as the use of environmental and p


psychological


barriers,


4) environmental


factors


such


as crowding and isolation.


significance of this approach is that privacy is viewed


as a consequence


of some event


As such, privacy i


a response


cited by certain social,


personal


and environmental


conditions.


Wtcti n*c


rnnrnfltnal analvcic hac hppn nmniriallv invptiaated byhv







parents.


The results of a factor analysis revealed subjects to be


responding to the following factors:


intimacy, not neighboring,


seclusion


of home,


olitude


, anonymity


and reserve.


In addition,


two major group-


ings emerged:


items emphasis


ing the control over self-di


closures, and


items concerning the


erection of barriers


to vision and audition.


Further analyses revealed that females tended to


score higher on


reserve,


solitude,


intimacy, and anonymity


and that parents tended to have higher


preferences for reserve and non-involvement with neighbors, while


had higher preferences for


students


solitude and intimacy.


The most extensive analysis


of privacy from a psychological


per-


spective is that of Altman'


(1975)


Altman viewed priva


as a central


regulatory process by which a person


(group) makes oneself


(themsel


ves)


accessible or inaccessibi


to others.


Altman further defined privacy


as an interpersonal


boundary process


, involving


selective control


over


self-other interactions.


According to Altman


privacy may be conceived


as that whi


ch is desired in conjunction with that which is achieved,


vice-versa. When

more interpersonal


desired privacy is greater than achieved,


interaction than desired.


there i


Such conditions may be


perceived as


intrusion,


invasion, or crowding.


Al ternatively, when


achieved privacy is greater than desired,

contact than desired, possibly experienced


there is


loneliness,


interpersonal


isolation


even boredom.


Implicit in Altman'


uals are motivated to


seek an optimum


analysis


the notion that individ-


state of privacy in whi


ch that


which is desired i


equal


to that which i


achieved.


The major advantage of Altman'


analysis may al


be its main







investigations may be generated.


The difficulty which may arise is when


such empirical


investigations are attempted.


Operationally defining con-


cepts such as desired and achieved privacy may be rather difficult, but


only when attempted will


this be known.


Components of Privacy


From the preceding discussion,


it should be apparent that privacy


a complex variable, encompassing many elements.


This may tend to com-


plicate analytic attempts by necessitating the inclusion of these several


dimensions.


An alternative approach may be to conceptualize privacy in


terms of a few basic components.


From th


various dimensions of privacy,


three such components emerge:


an environmental component, an individual


component,


and a behavioral


component.


By subsuming these molecular


elements


into more molar components,


further analyses


may be


implified.


The first component,


that of the environment, emphasis


itua-


tional


nature of privacy


the ecological dimension)


For the most part,


privacy is conceived in relation to a specific environmental


setting.


Moreover,


individual


oftentimes characters


a physical


setting accord-


ing to the degree of privacy that is afforded to them in such a situation.


As previously mentioned, environmental


settings may be viewed a


provid-


ing the potential


for privacy.


In other words, within a specific setting


there i


both a maximum and a minimum level of privacy that can be attained.


It is along this range that the potential


for privacy is defined.


When


such a setting vari


so does


the potential


for privacy


Thp tprm "pnvirnnmpnt" inrliiHd all


that i


PxtPrnal


to the individual


s







one's environment comprised of physical objects,


it is also comprised of other people,


such as buildings,


those viewed as outsiders to one-


self or one's


group.


Others are usually viewed as potential


intruders,


resulting from unwanted interaction (the interaction dimension)


Such


interaction may occur through various modes of


stimulation;


tactile,


visual, auditory, and olfactory.


ional


Oftentimes,


in that it is not directed toward


this


interaction is uninten-


anyone in particular.


Regard-


less


of it


intent, whether such interaction is unwanted depends upon


those by whom it is received.

Therefore, privacy may be viewed from the perspective of the individ-


ual or a group of individual


in turn,


involves


the next compo-


nent


that of the individual


Privacy is a subjective experience in


that it has meaning only in terms of the individual


(the phenomenological


dimension).


Thus, whether a certain environment i


private or nonprivate


depends upon the


ubjective appraisal of the individual or individual


concerned. Not only does such an appraisal

(both cultural and ritual dimensions), it a


vary across individual


ilso varies within a certain


individual


across time (the


life-cycle dimension)


From an


individual


standpoint, situations

As such, an individual


Share appraised both cognitively and effectively


s view of any setting is filtered through a composite


of emotional and belief systems, which fluctuate across


time.


In addition


to thi


evaluation process,


individual


may also vary in respect to the


functions that privacy provides.


To some individuals privacy may function


as a means to


ome other end (the task-orientation dimension)


while to


others


it may function as an end in itself and a


such


, may be ego-enhanc-







last component of privacy is the behavioral


component,


Privacy


involves an active process concerning the individual's or a group of


individuals


' adaptation to certain environmental


conditions.


Inherent


in thi


process is the element of control


(the control dimension)


a behavior


, privacy involves the active pursuit of the individual


control


his or her environment.


control


is evidenced by the individ-


attempts to restrict or


limit exposure to certain environmental


stimulation, or interpersonal


interaction.


Such control may be attempted


by either restri


ting that which i


being proj


ected upon the individual


by the environment or restricting that which i


being projected upon the


environment by the individual


Whichever alternative i


chosen


decision rests with the individual


As a deci


ion-making process,


those


actions which have been successful


have the greatest


similar instances


in the past,


likelihood of being chosen again (the biography-hi


tory


dimension).


In turn,


the success or failure of thes


e deci


ions will


have


consequences for future behaviors.


From the preceding discussion


a behavioral


privacy may b


process mediated by the individual


viewed as involving


s appraisal of the environ-


ment relative to his or her own


self-appraisal.


As such,


privacy may


involve both an experience and a behavior.


As an experience, privacy


involves a feeling of aloneness, noninvolvement, or non-interaction, while


as a behavior


, privacy involves those actions directed towards the attain-


ment or maintenance of such a state.


Alternatively stated, privacy


involves both those behaviors directed toward


international


control and


those experiences resulting from such control.


Thus, privacy involves







then as a result of this behavior, reappraises the new situation to


possibly respond again.


Consistent with this


view,


the following defini-


tion of privacy is proposed:


Privacy i


a state of


interactional


control


emanating from an individual


(or group of individuals)


response to the


presence or absence of certain environmental conditions.


A Model of Privacy


Privacy may also be conceptualized from the perspective


of a model.


As defined by Marx and Hilli


(1963), any theoretical


position which


stresses the predictability of a response when the antecedent conditions


are known, may be viewed as a model.


One of the few theorists


to take


such an approach is Altman


1975)


. As previously discussed, Altman defined


privacy as a process of interpersonal


control,


regulating interactions


between the


self and others.


As a regulatory proce


ss, privacy was viewed


as that which i


sistent with this view


desired in conjunction with that which is achieved.


, an optimum


exist when the degree that i


Con-


level of privacy was postulated to


desired is equal


to the degree that i


achieved.


In those


cases


in which these


conditions are not equal,


existing state is one of imbalance.


uals


It is from this imbalance that individ-


are motivated to either change their desired or achieved privacy,


so as to attain a balanced state.


Thus,


implicit in Altman's


approach is


the assumption that individuals seek to maintain optimum degrees of privacy.

Altman has extended this conceptualization by outlining those events


associated with the regulation of


self-other boundaries


. Consistent with


this framework,.


such events were categorized into the following components;







level


of privacy is derived.


Broadly classified, such elements include


personal


, interpersonal


and situational


factors.


Personal factors


include all those thing


emotions, and experiences.


that constitute a person, such as


Interpersonal


beliefs,


factors include those proper-


ties of a social


interaction, such as attraction, aggression, conformity,


and cooperation.


And situational


factors include those physical charac-


teristics compri


ing one


environment.


From a combination of all


these


factors, an


individual delimits his or her desired boundary of interaction


or as


labeled by Altman, defines hi


or her situation.


Based upon this situational definition

actions designed to achieve the degree of i


the individual


interaction desire


initiates those

d. These


actions constitute the next component, overt coping behaviors.


Such


actions include all


those behaviors that operate to control


interactions,


by either increasing or decreasing th


present


level


of interaction.


These control mechanisms


include verbal


, nonverbal, and environmental


behaviors.


After the performance of these coping behaviors,


the individual must


then


assess


the effectiveness of such mechanisms.


In other words,


individual must evaluate the degree of privacy that ha


been achieved in


comparison with that which was


desired.


If the mechanisms employed were


successful


then the achieved level


of interaction will


equal what was


desired.


If not,


then the result i


a level of achieved interaction either


than or greater than that desired


Such times in which achieved


interaction i


more than that desired, are commonly referred to as


cinnc nf nrivrv. rrnwriinn nr cf-imiilc nvurlnad (Mi lnram


l97nl


inva-

AltPr-


.







a disparity exists, which according to Altman,


is accompanied by some


degree of


stress.


It is from this stress that the individual


is motivated


to adapt to either changing his or her situational


ing additional


definition or initiat-


behavioral mechanisms.


Regard1l


of the eventual outcome


, thi


regulatory process requires


some expenditure of energy, either psychological, physical or both.


Such


expenditure is what Altman termed the costs of interpersonal control.

These costs are inherent in the conceptualization of privacy as a behav-


ioral


phenomenon.


Simply


stated, without the exertion of some form of


energy


there is no behavior.


A similar model


has been presented by Stokols


(1972)


in approaching


the concept of crowding.


Stokols defined crowding as a subjective expe-


rience in which one's demand for space exceeds th


available supply


thus


desired space


is greater than that achieved.


Consistent with thi


defini-


tion,


tokol


proposed a model of


crowding incorporating the


following


sequential


stages:


1) exposure of the


individual


to certain environmental


conditions

and; 3) th


2) the experience of psychological and physiological


enactment of behavioral


stress,


, cognitive, and perceptual attempts


to alleviate the experience of such stress.


experience of crowding develop


According to Stokol


through the interaction of physical


social


, and personality variabi


basis of one


expectation of social


These variables combine to form the

interference, or interpersonal


interaction.


Associated with anticipated interaction is the experience


of stress, which in turn, motivates the individual


to behave.


Such


behavior may be viewed a


a means of gaining some control over one







Consistent with the preceding models, Pastalan (1970a,


1970b) has


also approached the concept of privacy as a response to certain predis-


posing factors.


According to Pastalan,


those


events which eli


it the


individual


desire for privacy include:


1) antecedent social


events;


) organismic or personal


factors


3) mechanisms to achieve privacy


4) environmental


factors.


These factors not only determine the desired


level


of privacy


, they also determine those behavioral mechanisms by


which privacy will be achieved.


The foregoing models of privacy may be summarized as follows:


Privacy


as a behavioral


phenomenon is a response


elicited by certain stress-


evoking conditions.


Such conditions include personal


social


and envi-


ronmental characteristics, all of which are combined in the individual


or group's


asses


sment of


their present situation.


This


assessment is


based upon the individual


others within this environment,


evaluation of the environment and those


in conjunction with the individual


sel f-evaluation.


As prescribed by these evaluations,


specifies an acceptable range of social


the individual


behavior, or interpersonal


inter-


action


, the maintenance of which necessitates some degree of control


Such control


is manifested in a variety of those behaviors which operate


as mechanisms of interpersonal


regulation.


When these mechanisms are


ineffecti v


and the


level


of interaction remains unacceptable


, the


individual


experiences stress, which in turn, motivates the individual to


employ alternative mechanisms.


Thus, privacy as a behavioral


phenomenon,


is a continuous process of evaluation


action


and re-evaluation.


Such


a view is consistent with the definition of privacv Drovided above.







A Social


Learning Approach


As a social behavior,


there are a variety of theoretical approaches


that could be applied to the investigation of privacy.

theories, although concerned with the same phenomenon,


slightly different perspectives.


Each of these

views behavior from


Whereas some approaches represent certain


orientations, such as reinforcement,


field, and psychoanalytic


other approaches represent a mixture of orientation


and a


theories,


such may be


considered transorientational


(Shaw and Costanzo,


1970).


One such approach


is the social


learning theory of Rotter (1954).


Through his social


learning theory, Rotter has attempted to account


for the occurence of human behavior in a variety of settings, ranging


from the


imple to the complex.


Basic to thi


approach are several


prin-


ciples


or postulates.


Foremost among these i


the notion of behavior as


the interaction of the individual


by Rotter, such interaction i


and his or her environment.


the fundamental


As stated


unit of investigation in


the analysis


of behavior.


Another important aspect of thi


theory is its


situational


nature.


In the social


learning approach of Rotter'


behavior


is veiwed as taking place in a certain

based upon one other principle, that o


pace and time.


f directionality


This theory is also

Implicit in this


approach is


the assumption that all behavior is directed toward the


attainment of some goal.


Consistent with the definition of a


"theory," Rotter has proposed


four major constructs utilized in both the explanation and prediction of


behavior.


These concepts have been


labeled as follows:


behavior potential,






a given situation in relation to its respective reinforcements.


stated, behavior potential


Simply


is the probable occurrence of a behavior.


Expectancy refers to the probability that a particular reinforcement

will occur as a function of the performance of a specific behavior.


termed by Rotter, this concept involves the expectancy of behavior-

reinforcement sequences. Reinforcement value is the degree of preference


for a certain reinforcement to occur if the possibilities of occurrence


for all alternative reinforcements are equal


In other words,


the rein-


forcement value of a given behavior is the degree of importance attached


The final


concept, psychological


situation


refers to those


aspects of the


internal


and external


environment as perceived by the


individual.


Alternatively viewed,


last concept i


the psychological


arena from which the preceding concepts emerge.


Inherent in the definition of these concepts


Each of these concepts i


is a


defined by the individual.


ubjective quality.


, the meaning


attached to each i


derived from the individual'


subj


ective evaluation of


certain behaviors,


reinforcements


and situations


In other words,


these


concepts are defined within the


limits of an individual


s subjective


experience.

These concepts and the relationships among them have been conveniently

stated by the following formula:


=f (E


& RV


This formula may be read as the potential


for behavior


x to occur in


situation


in relation to reinforcement a,


a function of the expec-


tancv of thP nrccrrencr of rPinfnrrpmpnt a follnwina behavior


x in situa-







value of the behavior and the expectancy of being reinforced; BP = f(RV+E).

Such a formula does not imply any mathematically precise relation. As


stated by Rotter, Chance, and Phares (1972), although the relation between


expectancy and reinforcement value i


little


probably multiplicative,


systematic data from which a precise mathematical


there is


statement could


be derived.

Although not mentioned in the preceding formula, an important deter-


minant of behavior i


the psychological


situation.


previously


stated,


the psychological


situation refers to that environment both internal and


external

situation


, perceived by the individual.


n


the individual


As a response to the psychological


acquires certain expectancies for reinforcement


of certain behaviors.


As such, an individual's expectancy for reinforce-


ment is dependent upon hi


times,


or her perceptions of the situation.


the value attached to a given behavior may al


Often-


o depend upon the


situation.


As perceptions of a


situation vary, so does


the value of


reinforcements change


In one situation the reinforcement value of a


behavior may be quite high


while in another


situation it may be


low.


Therefore, by affecting both expectancy and reinforcement value,


psychological


situation exerts considerable influence upon potential


behavior.


There are several communalities between Rotter's social


theory and the present discussion of privacy.

the general orientation of each approach. As


learning


Such a communality concerns


previously defined, privacy


was viewed a


involving a behavioral


process mediated by the individual


appraisal of the environment in conjunction with his or her own self-







rather similar to that presented by Rotter,


As mentioned before, basic


to Rotter's approach is the notion of behavior as the interaction of the


individual and the environment.


Thus


consistent with both Rotter


approach and the present approach to privacy,

behavior as a function of an individual compo


is the conceptualization of


nent and an environmental


component.


Another similarity between Rotter


s social


learning theory and the


present discussion of privacy concerns the emphasis


placed upon the


individual


subjective experience.


As mentioned above,


privacy was


described as a process mediated by both the individual


appraisal of the


environment and the individual'


apprai


sal of oneself.


Thus, privacy


was viewed as a subjective process emerging from the individual


menological world.


pheno-


similar view has been expressed by Rotter,


respect to his


theoretical


construct of the psychological


situation.


defined by Rotter, the

of the internal and the


According to Rotter,


psychology

external


it i


cal


situation refers to those aspects


environment as perceived by the individual.


from such an environment that the individual


defines his or her behavior.


Thus, consistent with both Rotter's


approach


and the present approach to privacy,

within the context of the individual


is the conceptualization of behavior


subjective experience.


Based upon these


similariti


Rotter'


social


learning theory seems


rather applicable to the present conceptualization of privacy


applied to the proposed definition of privacy,


When


the following view obtains;


privacy as a


tate of interactional


control


a function of the expectancy


such control and the value of such control


. As mentioned above


inher-


. .


,







individual, and an environmental component.


In regards to social


learn-


ing theory,


the behavioral component is best represented by the construct


of behavior potential


When applied to privacy, behavior potential may


simply b


viewed


as the potential


for international control, which operates


through


the mechanisms of verbal


nonverbal


, and/or environmental


behaviors.


The social

component i


learning construct which may be


that of reinforcement value.


described as the individual

Reinforcement value as applied


to privacy refers to the importance of international


control.


Since


values


tend to be neither objective-specific nor


situation


-specific,


such a construct may be viewed as emerging from the


individual


self-


evaluation.


The final


component,


that of the environment, may be asso-


cited with the social

spective of privacy, e


learning construct of expectancy.


From the per-


Expectancy is the probability of interactional


control


within a given situation.


Since expectancies


tend to be rather


situation-


specific,


this construct may be viewed


as being derived from the individ-


ual's evaluation of his or her environment.


Thus,


through the application


of Rotter'


social


learning theory


privacy as a behavioral


process,


may be both explained and predicted from the interaction of its expectancy


and its value.


Furthermore,


through such an approach, privacy may be


viewed from the perspective of the individual's psychological


situation.












PROBLEM


Although commented upon by many,


privacy have been rather small


the empirical


in number


investigations of


may in part be due to the


difficulty in approaching such a concept within a controlled


situation,


such as the traditional


laboratory setting


If privacy i


to be defined


as a response to the presence or absence of certain environmental con-


editions,


then any attempt to


imulate such conditions


in an artificial


setting seems somewhat meaning


ess.


Thus,


if privacy is to be adequately


studied,


then efforts need to be focused upon those


such a concept becomes manifest;


that of the individual


nationss wherein

's everyday environ-


ment.


Even within a field setting,


there are several


factors which must


be taken into consideration.


One such factor is the complexity of one's


everyday environment.


More often than not, an individual'


daily environ-


ment is comprised of several


smaller environments, such as work, play,


and home settings.


Depending on the individual


, these environments may


be highly overlapping or highly differentiated.


Thus, a question ari


as to the degree to which one'


reaction to a


contingent upon some other environment.


specific environment i


One way to resolve such an i


ssue


is to


tudy those individual


in real


life settings whose boundaries form


a relatively small


and confined community


Setting


are s


similar to


*I *4 1 I T II


L. .L I, Cr*H i'-, cl', d \ L J .4 --I -


Th IA^ rli i







Consistent with the concern of the present paper


a major character-


istic of total


institutions is


the absence of privacy afforded to the


patients or inmates.


In Goffman'


terms,


inmates and patients undergo a


process of interpersonal


contamination,


in which


the individual


loses con-


trol over those with whom he or she must


Alternatively stated


live and be in constant contact.


of control occurs through contamination by


forced interpersonal


contact.


According to Goffman,


total


institutions


disrupt and define preci


ely those actions


that have the role of attesting


to the

world.


actor and those in his presence that he has some command over his

Jourard has also commented upon the effects of institutions by


stating that in non-privacy,


there i


maximum opportunity to control


behavior.

One of the few studies to examine privacy within an institutional


setting was conducted by the present author (Smith and Swanson,


1977).


Designed to investigate the


effect of various


institutional


envi ronments


upon their inhabitants,


the study was conducted in


six different correc-


tional


institutions, representing a wide range of living conditions.


Such conditions ranged from the very private to the completely nonprivate.


On th


basi


uch differences


in physical


structure,


it was hypothesized


that differences


obtained.


in inmate values and expectancies for privacy would also be


Although originally conceptualized as an individual construct,


and thus non-situation-specific,


it was felt that differences


in value of


privacy would be obtained due to


the rather harsh conditions that exist within


prison environments.

The results from the study only partially supported the hypothesis.







nonprivacy-affording environments.


Alternatively, no such differences


were obtained in respect to value of privacy


indicate that even within a setting


Thus


uch as prison, one'


these results


expectancy for


privacy i


more situationally determined than one's value of privacy


Such findings


lend


support to the original


conceptualization of


expectancy


as an environmental


construct and reinforcement value as an individual one.


Another component of the study was the investigation of the effects


of different


Of all


living arrangements upon the inhabitants of one institution.


the institutions tested, only one offered a variety of living


conditions to its inmates.


As with the


institutions


in general


these


ranged from the private to the nonprivate.


The policy of this


institution


was to initially house new inmates in the


private conditions and


then,


through the


show of good behavior


, allow them the opportunity to


move into the more private conditions.


As such


, moving from the former


conditions to the


latter ones represents a privacy-directed behavior.


Consistent with a social


learning approach,


it was hypothesized that


those


inmates who had moved into the more private conditions would have


a higher expectancy and value of privacy than those


in the less private conditions.


inmates who remained


Such an effect was supported by the


results.


Inmate values


and expectancies


for privacy were also examined in


terms of their discrepancies.


Such discrepancy


were obtained by


imply


subtracting an inmate's expectancy for privacy from his or her value of


privacy.


Consistent with the model


proposed by Altman,


it was hypothesized


that greater discrepancies would be associated with more negatively defined





28

the more negative the inmate's attitude toward his or her respective in-


stitution in terms of both its opportunity and authority structures.


addition


, a similar finding was


obtained when


uch di


screpancies were


compared with inmate self-definitions,


Although not quite as


consistent


as th


above findings,


those inmates who exhibited greater discrepancies


perceived themselves as being


less trusting, more alienated,


less


self-


accepting,


less expectant of goal attainment, and less


personally con-


trolled.


While


supporting the utility of Rotter


social


learning theory in


the investigation of privacy,


the results from this study provide some


insight into the realm of institutional


settings,


settings.


the results may be summarized as follows:


In regards to such


that variations


in living arrangements differentially effect those


feelings of privacy


held by their inhabitants,


that variations in


have a greater effect upon inhabitants'


their values of privacy, and


expectancy


that those


living arrangements


for privacy than


living arrangements in which


discrepancies between values and expectancies for privacy


exist, are


perceived more negatively by their inhabitants who also perceive themselves


more negatively


implied by these results,


one way to instill more


positive attitudes among those who are institutionalized concerning one's


environment and possibly oneself


may be to change the physical


structure


of the institution so as


to minimize any disparity in feelings toward


privacy


Although these


results


imply a certain effect, a difficulty ar


ises


in the degree of control afforded through such an approach.


By comparing







factor.


To reduce such a possibility and thus,


to more adequately study


this concern, efforts need to be focused upon those situations in which an


experimental


design i


approximated


. Included among such situations are


those institutions which have modified their physical


structures in attempt-


ing to insure a greater sense of privacy among their inmates.


One such


situation is that involving the construction of a new correctional


facility


to replace an older one.


The Detention Center:


The Detention Center was the predecessor of


the new corrections center


Built during the


1930's the


Detention


Center can be characterized as a traditional


county jail


with


similar facilities,


the Detention Center was an overcrowded, poorly


lit, and inadequately maintained


structure.


The cells were in


continual


need of cleaning and repair.


As designed


, the only


function of th


center was


that of security.


The facility was designed to house approximately one-hundred


and twenty inmates.


Four inmates were


assigned to a cell


consisting


of two bunk beds and a commode.


The floor


space of each cell was


sixty-four square feet, or sixteen square feet per inmate.


cell


were arranged in the traditional


block having


access


block fashion, with each


to a common area consisting of two tabi


televi


ion, phone, and


hower.


ince there were four cell


block,


the common area was normally


hared by


sixteen inmates.


floor space of each common area was one-hundred


ixty square


feet, or ten square feet per inmate.


During the day,


inmates were


__ I







the outside.


Al though


located in the Southeast,


the center was not


air conditioned.

The facility can best be characterized as one in which privacy


and personal


space were minimized.


Corrections Center:


The Corrections Center replaced the rather


antiquated Detention Center.


yea r


Having been completed within the past


the center can be characterized as one of the more modern


facilities within


local corrections.


Unlike traditional jails,


Corrections Center was designed to allow for both security and the


comfort of it


inmates


As such,


the facility is an attempt to pro-


vide a more humane environment for the inmates.


The facility i


designed to house one-hundred and nineteen


inmates.


Each inmate


is assigned to an individual


cell consisting


of a single bunk, commode, and


sixty-three square feet.


The floor space of each cell


The cells are arranged in either a


16-cell or 8-cell group or pod, with each having two


es, a


bench,


television


, phone, and


hower.


The majority of the inmates


are assigned to the


16-cell pods


The floor space of these pods is


five-hundred square feet, or thirty-five


quare feet per inmate.


Compared to the old facility,


the cell


in the Corrections Center


are about four times as


large per inmate and the commons areas


are about three and a half times as


large per inmate.


During the


day,


inmates are allowed free access to and from their cell


common area.


There are no bars


in the entire facility and each cell





31

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effects of


one's physical environment upon privacy.


More specifically


, the present


study i


an examination of the effects of relocating individuals from a


non-privacy affording environment to one which offers a high degree of


privacy


. Consistent with the previously mentioned study,


it is hypoth-


esized that:


such a change in environments will


inmate expectancy


result in an increase in


for privacy


such a change in environments will


values


have no effect upon inmate


of privacy.


such a change in environments will


result in a decrease in


inmate discrepancies in privacy.

Another concern of the present investigation is the effect of a


discrepancy in one's value and expectancy for privacy upon one'


attitudes


and behaviors.


Based upon the results in the previous


tudy,


is hypothesized that:


the greater the discrepancy,
definition of the situation.


the greater the discrepancy,


view of the


legal


the more negative the inmate


the more negative the inmate


system.


the greater the discrepancy,


the greater the


inmate


alienation.


the greater the discrepancy,
for goal attainment.


lower the inmate


expectancy


the greater the discrepancy,


of personal


lesser the inmate's feelings


control.


the greater the discrepancy,
of rule violations.


the higher the inmate's incidence












METHOD


subjects


Subjects consisted of male inmates who volunteered to participate in


the study.


The ages of the inmates ranged from 18 to 45 years old


with


a median age of


On the average,


the educational


evel of the inmates


was equivalent to that of ninth grade.


The number of Black to White in-


mates was roughly equal


Subjects were sampled at three different times.


was conducted at th


The first sample


old facility approximately one month before the move,


while the second sample was conducted at the new facility approximately


one month after the move.


To provide a means of


assess


ing the stability


of the impact of the move, a third sample was


selected some


ix month


after the second.


Roughly half the inmate population, excluding sentenced inmates


sampled at each time period.


sample


Sentenced inmates were excluded from the


due to their greater movement both within and outside the facility


and the greater opportunity afforded to them.


These inmates represented


a small minority of the total


inmate population.


Since the average


length


of detainment for non-sentenced inmates was


six months, many of the inmates


who participated in the second phase of testing either participated in or







Testing Instruments


A seri


of questionnaires were administered to each inmate sample,


from which inmate attitudes were assessed.


These instruments have all


been used in previous research, much of which has been conducted in


correctional


settings.


A description of the


instruments follows.


appendix for questionnaires.)


Privacy


Based upon Westin's analysis, privacy was conceptualized into the


following states:


solitude,


intimacy,


individuation, and self-disclosure.


Whereas the first two of these states follow directly from Westin's term-


inology,


and reserve.


latter two are


Consistent with thi


imply the converse of hi


analysis a


terms of anonymity


series of statements were


devised to correspond to each state.


These statements were in turn


assembled into two questionnaires.


Each questionnaire contained


items


with eight items corresponding to each state, with the exception of indi-


viduation which had four items.


identical


tions differed.


The items on both questionnaires were


, only the order in which they were presented and their instruc-


The first of these questionnaires instructed respondents


to rate the importance of each statement, while the


second questionnaire


instructed respondents


to rate the expectancy of each statement.


Responses


to the former questionnaire were in the form of very important,


important,


somewhat important, and not important at all


Responses to the


latter


questionnaire were in the form of very sure,


sure at all.


sure, somewhat sure, and not


Respondents were instructed to answer each questionnaire







Sample Items:

Solitude


. Being able
. Having a pi


to get away by myself.
ace where I can be alone.


Intimacy


. Talking with my friends without other people trying to
on what we are saying.


Enjoying the


company of others


in private.


listen in


Individuation


Being known by my name, not by a number.


Wearing my hair th


I want to


f-Disclosure

1. Letting others know my true feelings.


. Talking about my friend


and family.


scores


were derived via a Likert-type procedure.


items


were scored such that the higher the score,


the greater the value or


expectancy for the


respective privacy factor.


Previous research (Smith


and Swanson


, 1977) has shown these


scal


to be both reliable and valid.


Definition of Situation


The instrument measuring definition of th


situation was developed


by Wood


Wilson


, Jessor, and Bogan (1966) and later modified by Swanson


(1973)


The questionnaire was devised to measure the opportunity and


authority structures within a prison environment,

mate during commitment or incarceration. The que


as perceived by the in-


!stionnaire contained 19


items representing six scales: opportunity for personal


identity


oppor-


tunity for social


and interpersonal development, personal


ideas about


S a a C S a b a


I *^ I *







while


last


two scales


were


combined


as a


measure of


overall


attitude


toward


authority


response


format


scal


strongly


, agre


, neither


nor disagree


agree


strongly


sagree.


several


items


were


reverse


scored


. Sc


scores


were


omputed


according


Likert-type


procedure.


item


were


scored


that


higher


score


more


positive


attitude


toward


respective


definitional


Sample


scal


Item


Opportunity for


Personal


Development


Peopi
time


. By
not


are mix


they


time


ure who


up when


they


here


can be


help


leave.


peopi
they


been


are anymore


through
(reve


routine


rse


, they


score


Opportunity


social


Interper


onal


Deve


lopment


When


people


see the
It's ea
been lo


s


other
y to


cked


close


rson'


forget
D lik


ether


point


like
view.


this


et along with


here.


(reverse


place


peopi


learn


after


scored)


Personal


deas


about


Commi tm


hard


to help


sons


admit


people
are sen


not to


stay
t to


them


reason


trouble


place lik
. (reverse


next


place
time.


like


et them


scored)


Value


Commitment


Whether


something
. When vou


or not


useful
re fini


from where


while


have


a chance


re here.


pulling


started.


time


(rev


erse


re, you
scored)


re really


to learn


very


Attitude


toward


gulation


.The


they


only
like


reason


there


have mor


are so many


ways


regulation
ble to bus


here
you.


cause


(rev


erse


scored)


*


v


e


w







Attitude toward Authority Figures


. In here they're always
what you've done right.
. Some of the officers in


inmates around.


(reverse


telling you what you've done wrong not
(reverse scored)
here get their kicks out of ordering


scored)


Attitude toward Law and Justice


The instrument measuring attitude toward law and justice was con-


structed by Watt and Maher (1958).


The instrument was designed to measure


an individual


attitude toward the police and the courts.


The question-


naire contained


ix items.


Responses


to the items were


in the form of


strongly agree, agree


disagree


neither agree nor disagree, disagr


Several of the items were reverse scored.


and strongly


Scale scores were


obtained via a Likert-type procedure.


The items were scored such that


the higher the score,


the more positive the attitude toward the


legal


system.


Sampi


Items


For the most part


justice gets done by the


law and courts


. The big time


crook


never get arrested in thi


country


it's


little guy that gets caught


(reverse


scored)


Alienation


The instrument measuring alienation was dev


loped by Jessor, Graves,


Hanson, and Jessor (1968). A

degree to which an individual


is designed,


the instrument measures the


feels estranged from traditional


life roles.


The questionnaire contained ten items.


The response format of the items


was strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and


stronalv disagree.


Scale scores were derived according to a Likert-tvDe







Sample


Items


often
often


feel


left
alon


when


things
'm with


that o
other


their


are doing


around


people


here.


Freedom


of Movement


instrument measuring


freedom of


movement


was deve


loped


from an


interview


schedule


reported


essor


and modified


later


panded


Swanson


ques


tionnaire


was des


signed


to mea


sure


individual


general


expectation


goal


attain


uestionnair


contained


items


responses


to th


items


were


in the


form of


very


sure


sure


, somewhat


sure


sure


at all


scores


were


com-


puted


a Likert-type


procedure.


items


were


scored


such


that


higher


score


, the greater


expectancy


goal


attainment.


Sample


Items:


think


future


sure


about


what


are you


you
that


really
your 1


expec


ife


will


to happen


work


out the


the
way


want


When you
of being


think


about


your


settle


future


down


real


in whatev


call,
place


how sure
you most


are you


rsonal


Control


instrument measuring


personal


control


cons


Swanson


(1970)


later


revi


wanson


(1973)


questionnaire wa


evised


as a


enerali


non-need


area


ecifi


measure


internal


-external


control


. I


addition


measure was


devi


assess


amount


control


inmates


fel t


posses


ed within


enter


itself


ues-


tionnaire


contained


items


responses


were


form of


strongly


agree,


agree


neither


agree


nor disagree


disagree


strongly


,


isagree.


,


1


7







the score,


the greater the feelings of control.


Sample items:


Person

l1.


al


Control


Getting what I want out of life really depends on whether the


right people


like me


or not.


reverss


cored)


What happens to me is really a matter of luck.


(reverse scored)


Personal


Control


in Center


I can go in and out of my cell whenever


I need to.


. I never can get out for fresh air when I want to go out.
scored)


reverse


Procedure


The testing instruments were administered to groups of approximately


15 inmates.


The test


sess


ions


lasted around one hour and a half


testing was conducted in the commons areas.


Parti


cipation was voluntary


and confidentiality was assured.


Design


The design of the study was cross-sectional. Inmates were grouped

according to the time period in which they were tested. The discrepancy


between each inmate


value and expectancy for privacy was computed by


subtracting the


latter score from the former score.


These scores along


with the inmate scores


on the value and expectancy instruments were then


compared across each time period


assess


the effect of a di


screpancy in privacy


, the relationships


among the discrepancy


scores and the scores on the definition of


situation,






non-troublemakers


on the


basis


of whether


an incident


report


been


written


-up on


them


during


two weeks


before


two week


after


each


test


sess


discre


pancy


scores


along


with


the other


test


scores


were


then


compare


across


these


groups


inmates


within


each


time


period


A further


assessment


relation


ship


between


discrepancy


privacy


behavior was


conducted


through


taff


evaluations


taff


members


were


independently


asked


to rate


each


subject


as to


their


aggres-


siveness


withdrawnness


as to whether


they were


a troublemak


an average


i nma te,


or a model


inmate.


format


these


rating


fol-


lowed


that


a Lik


ert-type


scale.


ratings


were


conducted


after


ampl


was tes


ted.


average


rating


each


inmate was


computed,


relation


hips


among


these


scores


those


from


other


test


instru-


ments


were obtained.













RESULTS


Internal


Properties of Privacy Scal


To determine the adequacy of the privacy


scal


the internal


con-


sistency and the reliability of each scal


was examined.


The internal


consistency


of the scal


were


assess


ed by Scott'


(1960) homogeneity


ratio


(HR)1


while the reliabilities of the


scales were determined by


Cronbach


1951) Alpha2


The item-to-


scale


score correlation for each


item was calculated to determine


each item


contribution to its respec-


tive scal


since all


of the item-to-scale score correlations were


relatively high, none of the


items were removed from any of the


scales.


The homogeneity and reliability measures are presented in


Table


The optimal


value of HR i


s .33


which provides for maximal discrim-


nation among


ects if the items are split with a probability of


of passing or failing.


For the most part,


the HR's obtained on the


were slightly above this figure


, indicating somewhat


than


maximal discrimination due to a slight redundancy among some scale items.


Since Alpha


is an


estimate of a scale'


correlation with an equivalent


test,


its optimal


value i


As indicated by this measure,


scal


seemed reliabi






Table


Internal


Properties of Scal
(n=126)


Cronbach's Alpha


Scott's HR


# of Items


Value of:


Solitude

Intimacy

Individuation

Self-Disclosure


ectancy of:


Solitude

Intimacy

Individuation

Self-Disclosure


Validity


Discriminant validity was established by examining the relationships


among the privacy scales


The intercorrelations among these scales were


compared with each scale


correlation with itself


, as represented by


Cronbach


Alpha.


The correlation matrix i


presented in


Table


can be seen by comparing the estimate of reliability to the average

interscale correlation, each scale is discriminating between itself and

each other scale.







Table 2

Intercorrelations among Privacy Scales
(estimate of reliability in parentheses)


VSOL


VINT


VIND


ESOL


EINT


EIND


VSOL


VINT


(.88


VIND


(.64)


(.85)


ESOL


EINT


(.90)


EIND


(.65)


(.90)


Average Interscale Correlation


Hypothesis


Testing


Mean Comparisons


The analysis of the privacy scores across


the three time periods are


presented in


Table 3.


In regards to the value


scales,


significant differ-


ences were obtained on intimacy and individuation, such that the importance

of these factors was greater during the first sampling than during the


last.


On the expectancy scal


significant differences were obtained with


solitude and intimacy, such that the expectancy for these


factors was

























































ocJ


0 CO


COa



0 r


Cm -


J 0Cf


Orn
^o ro
* *)


CO O


,- CO


r%,cr)
*W
^t LO


O 0


CO CO
CO O


OCO




























































to n


cj-O


c0CO


C'J L


Oa\


i- -O


r-ct


a LA







to those obtained among the expectancy scales


,in that discrepancies


solitude and intimacy were greater during the first sampling,


than during


second and third.


Correlations with Discrepancy Scores


The correlations among the discrepancy scores and the other scale


scores for the total


sample


are presented in


Table 4.


In regards to sol-


itude,


significant relationships were obtained such that those inmates


who exhibited a greater discrepancy in solitude perceived the Center as


less of an opportunity for personal


development


perceived the overall


situation


, authority figures, and the


legal


system more negatively,


perceived themselves


as having


less


control within the Center itself.


The significant relationship


obtained with intimacy were such that those


inmates who exhibited a greater discrepancy in intimacy perceived the


Center as offering

ceived themselves a


the Center.


less opportunity for personal dev

s being more alienated and having


Concerning individuation


elopment, and per-


control within


significant relationships were


obtained such that those inmates who exhibited a greater discrepancy in


individuation


, perceived the


legal


system


authority figures, and author


in general more negatively, and perceived themselv


as having


less


control within the Center.


The only significant relationship that occur-


red on self-disclosure was with alienation:


those inmates who


exhibited


a greater discrepancy in self-disclosure were more alienated.

The correlations among the discrepancy scores and the other scale


scores for the first sample are presented in


Table 5.


The scale on which











Table 4

Correlations with Discrepancy Scores: Total Sample
(n=126)


DSOL


DINT


DIND


Opportunity for Social/
Interpersonal Development


-.09


-.06


Opportunity for Personal
Development


-.03


Ideas about Commitment


-.07


Value of Commitment


-.17


Overall Definition


-.15


-.03


-.13


Attitude toward Rules/
Regulations


Attitude toward Authority


-.01


-.08


-.17


-.14


-.01


Overall Attitude toward


Authority


-.10


-.09


Alienation


.18*


Freedom of Movement


-.07


-.03


Personal Control


-.11


-.06


-.05


-.17


Personal Control within


Jail


Attitude toward Law/
Justice


-.35**


-.27**


-.15


-.07


-.38**


-.11


*p <,05

**n ni


-.19**


-.21**


-.18*


-.18*


-.24**


19*


-.28**


-.28**







themselves as having


less control.


Most of the other significant relation-


ships were obtained with self-disci

exhibited greater discrepancies in

regulations, authority figures, and


such that those inmates who


self-disclosure perceived rules and


authority in general more negatively.


last


significant relationship was obtained with individuation;


those


inmates who exhibited greater discrepancies in individuation, perceived


the legal


system more negatively


The correlations among the discrepancy scores and the other scale


scores for the second sample are presented in


Table 6.


scale on which


most of the


significant relationships occurred was attitude toward law


and justice;


those


inmates who


exhibited greater discrepancies


in solitude,


individuation, and


self-disclosure maintained more negative attitudes


toward the


legal


system.


Significant relationship


also obtained on


attitude toward authority and personal control within the Center;


inmates who exhibited greater discrepancies


those


olitude and individuation


perceived authority figures more negatively


while


those inmates who


exhibited greater discrepancies in intimacy and individuation felt they


had less control.


Other significant relationships occurred with self-


disclosure such that those inmates who exhibited a greater discrepancy in

self-disclosure perceived rules and regulations more negatively and


perceived themselves as having


control


in general


The correlations among the discrepancy scores and the other scale


scores for the third


ample are presented in Table 7.


The only signif-


icant relationship which obtained was with individuation


such that those


inmates who exhibited a greater discrepancy in individuation perceived












Tabi


Correlations with Discrepancy Scores: Sample I
(n=47)


DSOL


DINT


DIND


Opportunity for Social/
Interpersonal Development


Opportunity for Personal
Development


-.06


-.04


-.09


-.05


-.09


-.08


Ideas about Commitment


-.04


-.03


Value of Commitment

Overall Definition


-.23

-.08


-.26

-.12


-.16


-.06


-.20


-.19


Attitude toward Rules/
Regulations


-.01


-.20


Attitude toward Authority


-.04


-.22


Overall Attitude toward


Authority


-.24


Alienation


Freedom of Movement


-.07


Personal Control


-.02


-.01


-.07


Personal Control within


Jail


-.47**


-.40**


Attitude toward Law/
Justice


-.24


-.21


-.44**


-.20


- nr


-.34*


-.33*


,.


-.32*


-.38**


-.36*













Table 6

Correlations with Discrepancy Scores: Sample II
(n=43)


DSOL


DINT


DIND


Opportunity for Social/
Interpersonal Development


-.01


-.01


Opportunity for Personal
Development


-.15


-.26


Ideas about Commitment


-.06


-.26


Value of Commitment


-.05

-.05


Overall Definition


-.17

-.22


Attitude toward Rules/
Regulations


Attitude toward Authority


-.15


-.34*


-.03


-.18


Overall Attitude toward


Authority


-.31*


-.09


-.25


Alienation


-.04


Freedom of Movement


-.13


-.14


-.22


Personal Control


-.20


-.02


Personal Control within


Jail


-.22


-.45**


-.01


Attitude toward Law/
Justice


-.40**


-.09


-.40**


-.32*


-.36*


-.46**


-.33*


-.38*













Table 7

Correlations with Discrepancy Scores: Sample III
(n=36)


DSOL


DINT


DIND


Opportunity for Social/
Interpersonal Development


-.24


-.09


-.10


Opportunity for Personal
Development


-.47**


-.28


Ideas about Commitment


-.04


Value of Commitment


-.15


-.03


Overall


Definition


-.30


-.08


-.09


Attitude toward Rules/
Regulations


-.05


-.07


Attitude toward Authority


-.20


-.17


Overall Attitude toward


Authority


-.14


-.04


-.05


Alienation


Freedom of Movement


-.09


-.09


Personal Control


-.15


-.15


-.08


Personal


Control within


Jail


-.29


-.02


-.18


Attitude toward Law/
Justice


-.19


-.04


37*


-.0







Comparisons According to Rule Infractions


When such analyses


were attempted,


incident reports had been either


it became apparent that many


lost or mis-filed.


Of the reports


which were available,


the majority were those which had been filed during


last test period


Due to thi


the only analysis which wa


inability to retrieve complete data,


feasible to conduct was that of the


last


sample.


The results of this


analysis are presented in


Table


significant relationships were obtained such that those


inmates who


had been written-up for a rule infraction perceived th


Center


as offer-


less opportunity for personal


about commitment, saw


development,


less value in commitment,


attitude toward rules and regulations,


the overall


had more negative ideas

and had a more negative


situation, and the


legal


system.


In addition,


these inmates perceived themselves as having


less control within the Center itself.


Although no


significant relation-


ships were obtained among the discrepancy scores, several


were in the


expected direction.


Table 8

Mean Comparisons according to Rule Infractions: Sample III


Violators
(n=14)


Non-Violators


T Value


Opportunity for Social/


Interpersonal


Development


Opportunity for Personal
Development


10.3


11.0


-1.97







Table 8


- continued


Violators
(n=14)


Non-Violators
(n=23)


T Value


Value of Commitment


Overall Definition


34.5
7.4


-2.93**


43.8
10.3


Attitude toward Rules/
Regulations


10.6
2.4


-2.24*


n.s.


Attitude toward Authority


Overall Attitude toward


Authority


15.5
4.7


Alienation


n.s.


n.s.


27.5
6.1


Freedom of Movement


31.0


n.s.


Personal Control


15.7
3.1


16.6
4.2


n.s.


Personal Control within
Jail


32.8


37.8


-2.38*


Attitude toward Law/
Justice


-2.95**


Discrepancy in Solitude


n.s.


Discrepancy in Intimacy


Discrepancy in Individ-


*


n.s


-3.31**


i "







Correlations with Staff Ratings


Of the six staff members from whom ratings were requested, all


one correctly completed the forms.


As a measure of interrater reliability,


the intercorrelations among these five raters were compared.


The Pearson


product-moment correlations are presented in


Table 9.


As indicated by


these measures,


the ratings of aggressiveness and troublemaking were


consistent across raters, while the ratings of withdrawnness were some-


what


less consistent.


Table 9

Interrater Correlations


(Note


Any correlation of


different from


zero at thi


.35 or greater is significantly
e .05 level of significance.)*


# of Inmates


Rated


Aggression


Withdrawal


Trouble-
making


Raters:


Average Interrater Correlation


*Based upon correlation with the


least number of degrees of freedom;


30df.







test period.


Many of the inmates who participated in the second phase


of testing either participated in or were present during the first phase.


Since the raters were requested to make only one rating per inmate


differentiation of ratings


according to Sample I


or Sample II


is thus


impossible.


Based upon thi


inability to differentiate and an assump-


tion that ratings are influenced most by more recent behaviors


, the only


analyses conducted were those of the


last two sampi


II & III.


The correlations among the ratings and the other test scores for the


second sample are presented in


Table


Most of the significant relation-


ships which were obtained were with troublemakers:


those


inmates who were


viewed more as troublemakers, perceived less opportunity for personal


development and 1


value in commitment, exhibited more negative attitudes


toward the overall


situation and the


legal


system itself, and exhibited


of a discrepancy in solitude.


Other


significant relationships occur-


red with aggression and withdrawal


: those inmates who were rated as being


more aggressive, perceived less opportunity for personal


development,


while those inmates who were rated as being more withdrawn, exhibited a

greater discrepancy in individuation.

The correlations among the ratings and the other test scores for the


third sample are presented in


Table


Significant relationships were


obtained such that those inmates who were viewed as being more aggressive


and less


withdrawn, exhibited a greater discrepancy in individuation, and


those inmates who were viewed more as


trouble makers,


exhibited more negative


ideas about commitment.


In addition,


several


relationships approached


significance:


those inmates who were rated more as troublemakers, exhibi-







Table


Correlations with Ratings:
(n=36)


Sample II


Aggression


Withdrawal


Trouble-


making


Opportunity for Social/


Interpersonal


Devel opment


-.15


-.11


Opportunity for Personal
Development


-.40**


-.05


Ideas about Commitment


-.17


-.04


-.18


Value of Commitment


-.30


-.45**


Overall Definition


-.26


-.05


-.39*


Attitude toward Rules/
Regulations


-.26


-.23


Attitude toward Authority


-.18


Overall Attitude toward


Authority


-.15


-.15


Alienation


-.16


Freedom of Movement


Personal Control


Personal Control within Jail


-.04


-.16


-.34*


Attitude toward Law/Justice


-.20


-.16


-.40*


Discrepancy in Solitude

Discrepancy in Intimacy


Discrepancy in Individuation


-.14


.40*


Discrepancy in Self-Disclosure


-.10


-.12


-.53***


-.26







Table 11


Correlations with Ratings: Sampl
(n=35)


Aggression


Withdrawal


Trouble-


making


Opportunity for Social/
Interpersonal Development


-.05


-.23


Opportunity for Personal
Development


-.03


-.02


-.20


Ideas about Commitment

Value of Commitment

Overall Definition


-.23


-.23


-.17


Attitude Toward Rules/
Regulations


-.01


-.19


-.22


Attitude toward Authority

Overall Attitude toward Authority


-.11


-.07


-.21


-.21


-.16


-.20


Alienation


Freedom of Movement


Personal Control


-.05


Personal Control within Jail

Attitude toward Law/Justice


-.27


-.27


-.24


Discrepancy in Solitude


-.26


.29*


Discrepancy in Intimacy


Discrepancy in Individuation


-.17


.33**


Discrepancy in Self-Disclosure


-.15


-.32*


-.34**


-.26*


-.31*


-.34**












DISCUSSION


The results of the present investigation indicate that changes


in one's


physical


environment effect one


notions of privacy,


in that relocating


individuals from a seemingly non-privacy affording environment to one which


was designed to offer a high degree of privacy resulted in a


substantial


increase in the inhabitants


expectancy


for privacy and a


slight decrease


in their values of privacy.

which the new structure was


While in support of the proposed effects for

intended, such findings provide further evi-


dence for approaching privacy from a social


sistent with the conceptual


learning perspective.


C


nation of expectancy as an environmental


struct and value as an individual construct


, the findings


:on-

con-


indicate that


expectancy


of privacy.

and Swanson,


for privacy are more situationally determined than are values


similar results were obtained in previous research (Smith


1977)


The results obtained on the expectancy scales and the discrepancy

scores were as predicted, supporting the main hypotheses that moving from

the old facility to the new would result in an increase in inmate expec-


tancies for privacy and a decrease in inmate discrepancy


in privacy.


The results obtained on th


value scal


were not as expected.


Although


it was hypothesized that inmate values for privacy would be unaffected


by the move,


the results indicated that these values decreased.


Since


tIho ovnortanri c fn nriinarv inrrac hd cnnn affptr tfh mnv whilp the







The analysis


of privacy


as the states of solitude,


intimacy,


indivi-


duation, and self-disclosure provides further insight into the concept of

privacy itself. If these four states were ranked according to dependence

on the environment, solitude would probably be viewed as the most depen-


dent,


followed by intimacy,


individuation


and self-di


closure.


Solitude,


by definition


, is a state of privacy in which a person is


alon


and free


from intrusion by others.


Such aloneness nece


ssitates an ability to


physically separate oneself from others, which in turn seems almost entirely


dependent on the presence or absence of environmental


barriers.


Intimacy


refl


ects


the need for privacy to achieve maximum personal


relationships.


Though physical


separation from others seems integral


to this state,


is not a necessity,


in that intimacy can be maintained in other way


as communication.


Individuation refers


dual apart from others, and as


to being recognized as an indivi-


uch is a state of non-privacy


To avoid


being recognized as an individual


involves keeping oneself amid others


by not engaging in those behaviors which make one

environment may make such recognition more or les


stand out.


s difficult,


Though the

individuation


entails more of a behavioral


separation than a physical


separation.


Self-


disclosure i


also a state of non-privacy in that it refers


the opening


up of oneself to others.


By not


sharing one


s thoughts or feeling


with


others, privacy i


attained through psychological


separation


on which the


environment has little effect.

Viewing these states in terms of dependence on the environment may


help to explain the results which were obtained.


The states of privacy


for which expectancy


increased were solitude and intimacy.


As mentioned,


_







values


scal


are not quite


as clear,


The states of privacy on which


values decreased were intimacy and individuation,


These states were


described as depending on both the environment and the individual


Since


values are more individually determined, moving to the new facility may


have

between


resulted in a decrease in these values due to an interaction effect


individual and the environment.


The effects of a discrepancy in one's value and expectancy for pri-


vacy upon one


attitudes


were


less than had been predicted.


The r


esul ts


obtained from the analysis


of the discrepancy scores and the other atti-


tudinal measures indicated


that


assoc


iated with greater discrepancy


privacy were more negative attitudes toward authority figures,


law and


the courts, and control within


the Center.


Although there were many


variabi


that were not related to such discrepancies


,it i


interesting


to note the nature


of the ones


that were.


Those attitudes which were


associated with the discrepancy


scores were all


concerned with aspects


specific to the experience of being detained in jail.

All of the inmates who participated in the present investigation


were awaiting trial.


the community through


average


Of these inmates, many would be released back into


either suspension of charges or probation.


length of detainment from arrest to disposition is four months


Thus,


for those inmates who will


re-enter the community after all


legal


proceedings have been completed,


these four months of waiting in jail


be a time of much resentment and hostility.


similarly,


for some,


fact that they are being detained before guilt has been determined is

cause enough for resentment.


;n







detainment,


the law and courts, and those who are responsible for main-


training detainment, authority figures.


Such hositlity toward detain-


ment may also be reflected in the feeling that there i


n't much that can


be done to alter the situation, personal


control within the Center.


Con-


istent with these observations,


it may be that hostility toward one's


environment, evidenced by a discrepancy in privacy


is carried over onto


other aspects of the


stem, attitudes


toward the


law and courts, authority


figures, and control within the Center.


Or it may be that a discrepancy


in privacy merely reflects another facet of hostility toward detainment

in general.


When the analyses were conducted within each time period,


the relation-


ship among a discrepancy in privacy and one'


attitude toward the


law and


courts, authority figures, and control within the Center tended to


diminish across time. Consistent with the explanations offered for the

relationships themselves, these results may reflect two somewhat inter-


related effects.


As obtained in previous analyses,


moving from the old


facility to the new,


resulted in a decrease in inmate discrepancies


privacy


Assuming that these


discrepancies were a source of discontent,


there should also be a decrease in hostility toward one's environment.


so, then the relationships obtained with the discrepancy scores


should no


longer be obtained, due to the reduced salience of the variable itself.

alternative explanation may be that the decrease in inmate discrepancies


in privacy


simply reflected a general


decrease in inmate discontent.


Although the data does not support one explanation over the other


nnmme 4-14t th-c L s


enalrc nf hnctil if- cirh ac hoinn Hotainhld nnlv tn ha


^~II I *h- II*E*^n


SI | |I IiI I f-J







The effects of a discrepancy in one


value and expectancy for privacy


upon one's behavior


were also


less than had been predicted.


The results


obtained from the analysis of discrepancy scores and rule infractions


indicated that rule violators viewed their situation


and their control during detainment more negatively.


law and courts,


Although these


individuals


exhibited greater discrepancy


in privacy,


the differences


from those of non-violators were not significant.


preceding explanation,


Consistent with the


these results seem to support the view that after


moving to the new facility, discrepancies


in privacy were no


longer a


source of discontent,


though other factors


till were.


The results obtained from the analysis


staff evaluations are


of discrepancy scores and


similar to those obtained with rule infractions.


As indicated by the results,


makers


those inmates who were perceived


held more negative attitudes toward their


control within the situation.


In regards


as trouble-


situation and their


to discrepancy scores,


findings were somewhat contradictory.


While in the


last test period, a


discrepancy in privacy was marginally related to troublemaking


second test period,


in the


the opposite was found, with those inmates who were


perceived as troublemakers exhibiting


less discrepancy.


Consistent with


the preceding discussion,


these


e findings seem to indicate further that


after moving to th


new facility, discrepancies


in privacy were no


longer


a source of discontent.


move,


is especially evident immediately after the


in that those inmates who were more trouble, actually exhibited less


of a discrepancy in privacy.


Although these findings seem somewhat contradictory


. an exDlanation







other.

cells,


Whereas in the old facility,

in the new facility, inmates


inmates were housed in four-person


were individually housed in cell


same size as those in the old facility.


As a result of such a change


the inmates may have experienced an increase in their control over their


environment


For some inmates,


this may hav


provided an incentive


act out, which in turn may have been perceived


as troublemaking.


ince


such an increase was not refl


ected in overall


feelings of control


these


inmates may have been


as negative towards their confinement a


before,


which may account for their engaging in trouble

were only housed in the new facility, the expert


For those inmates who


ience of moving from the


old facility did not


Thus


, for these inmates,


those who were


hostile towards their confinement had less of a reason to differentiate


between their views of privacy and their overall


views of detainment.


From a


theoretical


perspective,


individuals may react to discrep-


ancies


in privacy by either trying to reduce such disparities


accepting them.


This was the rationale for having


or passively


inmates rated according


to their agg


ress


iveness and withdrawnness.


indicated by the results,


most of the relationship


obtained among the staff evaluations concerned


troublemaking, with few involving either aggression or withdrawal.


regards to withdrawal


it is difficult to


assess


lack of findings,


since the intercorrelations among the raters were fairly


low.


have been due to some uncertainty concerning what behaviors actually


constitute withdrawal


Also, by its very nature,


those who are withdrawn


tend to stand back,


thus reducing others'


awareness of them.


As for


aggression,


it simply seems that troublemaking may be a more applicable













IMPLICATIONS


A possible criticism of the present conceptualization of privacy lies

in its apparent similarity to the framework proposed by Altman (1975).

Whereas Altman's conceptualization is in terms of desired and achieved


privacy, the present approach has be

of privacy. If something is valued,


!en in terms of the value and


then by definition


expectancy


, it is usually


assumed desirable.


Similarly


, if something i


expected to occur,


it can


usually be assumed that it will


occur.


Thus, at


least in terminology


these approaches seem rather akin.

Although the terms employed by Altman and the present research are


similar,


the model


advocated by each are not.


Altman


assumes a curvi-


linear relation between a discrepancy in privacy and definition of the


situation, such that the greater the absolute value


more negatively defined the situation.


of a discrepancy,


The present approach assumes a


linear relation between discrepancy and definition of the situation, such


that the greater the discrepancy


, the more negatively defined the


situation.


The difference between these two model


centers upon the treatment of


those instances


in which more privacy i


expected (achieved)


than i


valued (desired). According to Altman, such instances

as negatively as those in which values are greater than


should be defined

expectancies.


Consistent with the present approach, such instances should be viewed





64

to note that the results obtained in the present study and that conducted


by Smith and Swanson (1977) were based upon the


linear model.


Of significance to both the present approach and that proposed by


Altman are the implications of these findings


for the prediction of


behavior.


Implicit in Altman


s model


the view of behavior a


a response


to one's


situational


definition.


According to Altman,


those situation


which one


achieved privacy differs from that desired are negatively


defined.


Assuming that individuals seek to minimize the


negative


aspects


of their environment when confronted with discrepancies between achieved


and desired privacy,


individual may either change the degree of pri-


vacy desired or attempt to achieve more.


If the


latter alternative is


chosen


some form of behavior will


be employed.


Thus,


when a discrepancy


in privacy anr


ses,


the situation will


be negatively defined, which in


turn will motivate the individual


to reduce the discrepancy.


Consistent


with the


curvilinear model


proposed by Altman,


those instances in which


achieved privacy is more than that desired provide the


ame motivation to


behave as those


instances


in which achieved privacy is


than desired0


Though the behaviors employed in th


situations may differ,


motivation


to behave is the same,


that of reducing the discrepancy.


The results of the present study and that conducted by Smith and

Swanson, raise some question as to the validity of Altman's approach.


From these studies,


it appears that the relationship between one's


situational definition and discrepancy in privacy i


that one behaves in accordance with how the situation i


linear.


define


assuming

d, the


r............................... P 1- L rL LL.. ...._ .I L..


* 1 e e i





65

defined are those in which the value (desired) of privacy is more than


that expected (achieved).


More important,


these findings also


indicate


that those instances in which the expectancy for privacy is more than


that valued, are positively defined.


As a result of defining one


situation as positive,


the individual may feel


a greater sense of control


and thus be more inclined to engage in certain behaviors.


ing in behavior,


Though result-


it seems rather unlikely that the intention would be to


reduce the discrepancy, especially if the discrepancy is positively defined.


Thus, although a discrepancy in privacy may result in behavior,


the motiva-


tion underlying the behavior and perhaps even the behavior itself, seem

to depend upon the nature of the discrepancy.













APPENDIX

TESTING INSTRUMENTS



The following pages contain copies of the testing instruments

presented in the order in which they were administered to the subjects.

The names of the testing instruments did not appear on the originals.

They are presented here only for illustrative purposes.














DEFINITION


SITUATION


Name


Inmate


Attitudes


Toward


Center


this


uestionnai re


we have


listed


number


statements


about


center


would


like


your


agreement


or disagreement


with


each


statement.


Below


each


statement t


indicate


your


feelings


about


statement.


strongly


agree with


a statement,


can s


circling


STRONGLY


AGREE


When


strongly


agree with


statement,


can s


feeling


circ


ling


STRONGLY


DISAGREE


feel


somewhere


between,


circle one


answers


between.


They


AGREE,


NEITHER AGREE


DISAGREE,


DISAGREE


take


an exampi


There


enough


variety


center


s menu


to sati


most


anyone


here:


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


sagree


strongly
isagree


think


about


statement


a minute,


can see that


some


people might


agree


strongly,


some might


agree quite


strongly,


nth ac minhi--


cnmoiwhoro


in hatwcsion


Think


Mhnlit


th0 wav


fppl


|llY


I |I







have marked


other


estions.


Your


answers


will


kept


confidential


and will


used


only


research


purposes.


Rmeember


their


are no right or wrong


answers.


Just


answers


that


strongly


agree


or d


isagr


with


each


statement


Again


can circl


answers


that


appear


after


estions.


time most


what


people


y want out


leave
life


than


place
they


have
fore.


better


idea


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agre


sagr


strongly


sagree


like


only
to


reason


mor


there
e ways


are so many
to be able


regulations
to bust you


here


is because


they


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


sagree


sagree


Strongly
Disagree


are mixed


they


up when


they


here


can be


1ped


time


leav


Strongly
Agree


either


Agree


Disagree


sagree


Strongly
Disagree


matter what


tell


pulling


time


does


more


harm


than


good.


Strongly
Agree


either


Agree


Disagree


sagr


Strongly
Disagree


If yo
along


with


t learn
others.


anything


here


at least


learn


to get


Strongly
Agree


Agree


either


Agre


Disagree


sagree


Strongly
Disagree


The training
outside.


Strongly
Agree


here


Agree


can make


Neither


easier


Agre


to get


Disagree


sagree


on th


strongly
isagree


The main


reason


regulations


so that


officers


can have


their









you've


they're always
one right.


telling you what


ve done wrong,


not what


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


strongly


sagree


gree


When


peopi
other


close


erson


their


point


like


this


place


learn


view.


Neither


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Disagree


sagree


strongly
disagree


time


people


have


been


through


routine


here


, they


are not


ure who


they


are anymore


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


sagr


Strongly
Disagree


ether


or not


at least


have


chance


to learn


omethi ng


useful


while


you're


ere.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


either


Agree


Disagree


sagr


strongly
disagree


t offi


cers


at thi


institution


care


much


about


long


as you


trouble


Strongly
Agree


Agree


either


Disagr


strongly
disagree


sagree


When


re fini


from where


shed pulling
tarted.


time


here


, you


re really


very


Strongly
Agree


Agree


either


Agree


Disagree


Disagree


strongly
isagree


Person


are sent


place


like


this


to get


them


to help


them


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


Disagr


strongly
isagree


What


learn


a place


like


about


getting


along


with


other


people


sure won


on th


outside


Strongly
Agree


Agree


either


Agree


Disagree


Disagr


strongly
disagree


*- a tan *l n. -n a % In j1


Irr UA


+ Vt\ I1 ^1 f


feAI I ^


"L,^Lk--k l ,, k^ 1


-f-^^k JV


1 +k^ -







An institution


like thi


is a place where a person can get his or


her feet on the ground and begin to make a fresh start.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither Agree
Nor Disagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


Some of the officers


in here get their kicks out of ordering inmates


around.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither Agree
Nor Disagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


hard to admit it


help peop1


, but the reason for a place


tay out of trouble the next time.


like this i


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither Agree
Nor Disagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree














VALUE


PRIVACY


questionnaire


we have


sted


number


things


some


people


are important


other


peopi


important.


would


like


know


important


each


following


statements


while


at th


Detention


Center


. P1


ease


read


over


each


statement


how whether


either


Very


Important


you,


Important


omewha t


Important


you,


or Not


Important


At All


you.


answer whi


best


important


each


statement t


while


are here.


Important


Important


Somewhat
Important


Not Impor-
tant At All


Having


Being
with


priva


alone


another


known
a nu


Talking
myself.


Being
by my


Talking


erson


Sharin
n+khv


son.


by my
mber.


others


able to get
elf.

g to another
in private.

g my thought
nannl a


name,


about


away


are


_







Very
Important


Important


Somewhat
Important


Not Impor-
tant At All


Being with my


friend


without anyone watch-


Telling


Being
from


people


able


about my


to get away


people who


bothering m


Talking with


without
trying
what we


other pe
to listen


fri ends
ople
in on


are saying.


Being


able


to decorate


my living


area


Letting


other


know my


true


feeling


Not being
others.


watched


Getting
people


to know
better b


alone with


Wearing
clothes


other
being


them.


e type
like.


Letting
about my


others


know


personal


life


Having


room by myself.


Enjoyin
another

Wearing
I want


Being
with


g the c
person

my hai
to.


open
other


company or
in private.


r


about myself
people.







Very
Important


Important


Somewhat
Important


Not Impor-
tant At All


Not being disturbed by
others when I am with
my friends.

Having other people know


how I


feel


Finding a place that is
quiet.


Being abl


to share my


problems with another
person without worrying


about someone else
hearing.


over-


Talking about my friends
and family.













PERSONAL


CONTROL


Judgments


About


Yourse


Your


Life


this


questionnaire


we hav


listed


a number


statements


about


yourself


along


your


life.


We would


like


show


your


agree


agreement


with


or d


statement


agreement


, you


with


each


can show


statement.


circling


strongly


STRONGLY


AGREE


When


strongly


sagree


with


a stat


ement,


can s


circl-


STRONGLY


DISAGREE


feel


somewhere


in between


circ


one o


answers


between


They


are AGREE,


NEITHER


AGREE


DISAGREE,


ISAGREE.


Each


ques


tion


should


answered


itself


't worry


about


have marked


other


stions.


Most


unlucky


the unhappy
enough to b


Strongly
Agree


Agree


things in my
in the wrong


Neither


life


place


happened
the wrong


Agree


sagree


sagree


because


time


strongly


agree


Getting
people


what


like me


want


life


really


depends


on whether


right


or not


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


tting what
d having t


want out of


right


people e


life


on my


mainly


on getting


breaks


ide.








What


happens


me is


really


a matter


luck.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


know


that


right
never


what


peopi
win.


don't


like me,


it doesn


t matter


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


sagree


Strongly
Disagree


reque


make
sted


a reasonable


requ


to the


staff


generally


get what


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


never


Strongly
Agree


can get out


resh


Agree


Neither


air when


Agree


want


out.


Disagree


Disagree


strongly
disagree


matter


never


see the


doctor when


need


him.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


sagree


Strongly
Disagree


When
them.


important


see visitors


can usually


arrange


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


strongly


Disagree


agree


their


something


need


done


am g


nerally


able


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


sagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


can get


things


to read when


want


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


sagree


Strongly
Disagree


need


to make


phone


call


can usually


manage


to get


telephone


Strongly


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


I' .- ttt -% flnsa in I' .3 '- -4-a a


Strongly
n\ o*/*- *' A^


IrIALllnn


A n A


I


Lni h 1








never


clean


clothes


when


need


them


Strongly
Agree


Agree


either


Agree


Disagree


sagree


can go


never


strongly
disagree


need


strongly


Agree


Neither


Agree


sagree


sagree


strongly
disagree


need


to talk


someone,


staff


will


generally


sten.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


sagree


Disagree


strongly
disagree














ATTITUDE


TOWARD


AND JUSTICE


this


differently


questionnaire


about.


we have


would


listed


like


a number


to know


thing


feel


that


about


people


each


these


things.


Please


read


over


each


statement


about


AGREE


AGREE


circling


one of


NEITHER AGREE


following


DISAGREE


responses.


DISAGREE


are:


STRONGLY


STRONGLY


DISAGREE.


Circ


response whi


shows


your


ling


about


each


statement.


often


carry


grudge


again


t men who


trouble with


trea


them


cruelly.


strongly


Agree


either


Agree


Disagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


most


part,


justice


gets


done


courts.


Strongly
Agree


Mos t


policemen


Agree


Neither


Agree


sagree


Disagr


strongly
disagree


are honest.


strongly


Agree


either


Agree


Disagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


jury


can be


fixed,


most


them are


fixed.


Strongly


Agree


either


Agree


Disagree


sagree


strongly
disagree


time


rooks


never


r get


arrest


in this


country


i ttl


that


caught.


strongly


Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


r Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


, it'













EXPECTANCY FOR PRIVACY


In this


questionnaire


we hav


listed a number of things


that differ-


ent people feel


they can obtain.


We would like to know how


sure you are


that you can do these things when you want to while you are at the Det-


mention Center.


ease


read over


each statement, and show whether it is


either something you feel Very Sure (VS) you


an do or hav


e, something


you feel Sure (S)


you can do or have


something you fee


Somewhat


Sure


) you can do or have, or something you feel


Not Sure At All


(NS) you


can do


Circle the answer which best shows how sure you are that you


can do each statement, while you are here.


Very
Sure


Somewhat


Sure


Sure


Sure


At All


Having a place where I can be
alone.


Getting to know other peopi
better by being alone with
them.


Wearing my hair the way I want
to.

Letting others know about my


personal


life


Being able to get away by
myself.

Beina able to share my problems







Very
Sure


Somewhat


Sure


Sure


Not Sure


At All


Finding a place that is quiet.

Talking to another person in
private.

Being known by my name, not
by a number.

Telling people about my past.


Not being watched by oth


ers.


Talking with my friends with-


out other people


trying to


listen in on what we are
saying.

Talking about my friends and
family.

Having a room to myself.


Not being di


turbed by others


when I am with my friends.


Wearing the type of clothes
I like.

Being open about myself with
other people.


Being able


to get away from


people who are bothering me


Being able to be alone with
another person.


Being able to decorate my


living area.

Sharing my thoughts
people.


to other


Having privacy.
Rainn with m\ fricndc withonl-+







Very
Sure


Somewhat


Sure


Sure


Not Sure


At All


Having a place where my


personal


belongings are safe


from other peopi


Enjoying the company of
another person in private.

Talking to others about myself.














ALIENATION


this


feel


ques


differently


tionnaire,


about.


we have


We would


listed


like


number


know


things


feel


that


about


people


each of


these


things


Please


read


over


each


statement


show


about


, by


circling


one o


following


responses.


They


are:


STRONGLY


AGREE,


AGREE,


NEITHER AGREE


DISAGREE


AGREE,


STRONGLY


DISAGREE.


Circle


response which


best


hows


your


elings


about


each


statement.


sometimes


feel


uncertain


about


really


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


sagr


sagr


strongly


sagre


hard


what


other


to know
people


to act most


time


since


can't


tell


expect


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


sagree


Disagree


strongly


agree


often


feel


left


thing


that


other


are doing


around


here.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


either


Agree


sagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


can best


described


as a


loner.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


sagree


Strongly
Disagree


seems


me that


each


person


to solve


their


own problems


alone,


Since


can't


really


count


on other


people


strongly


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


strongly


_







often


find


difficult


to feel


involved


things


I'm doing.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


most


part,


people


don't


understand me.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


agree


trongly
isagree


Hardly


anyone


know


interested


in how


really


feel


inside.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


sagree


Disagree


Strongly
Disagree


often


feel


alone when


I'm with


other


poeple.


Strongly
Agree


Agree


Neither


Agree


Disagree


sagree


Strongly
Disagree













FREEDOM OF


MOVEMENT


part,


we are


interest


in knowing


what


expect


number


to find


different


out what


areas


like


about


or would want,


future.


what


are not trying


expec


We


want


certain


thing


we don


really


expect


them all.


ease


consider


each


question


carefully


as real


as possible


Answer


terms


f how


really


expec


thing


to be


ques


tion


follow


four


poss


answers:


Very


ure,


Pretty


Sure


Sure


ure At All


expect


something


very


strongly


and without


uncertainty,


Very


ure.


very


strong


doubts


or are


very


unce


rtain


about


some


thing


Sure


t. I


your


expectation


is somewhere


in b


tween


either


retty


Sure


or Not


Sure


, depending


on which


one i


oses


to what


really


expect.


When
how


you
sure


think
are yo


about
u that


what you really
your life will


expect
work o


happen


in the


future


want


VERY


SURE


PRETTY


SURE


URE AT


Think
things
family


about


your


family


an work


life


moment


you want


is conce


sure


them


as far


feel


as your


that


family


rned


VERY


PRETTY


SURE


SURE


SURE


Think


about


can turn


your JOD
the way


or your work.


you want


as far


sure


as your


job or work


that


things


is conce


rned?


w







How sure do you feel
others?


that the way you do things will


be respected by


VERY SURE


PRETTY


SURE


NOT TOO SURE


NOT SURE AT ALL


How sure do you feel


that people you


like want to spend time with you?


VERY SURE


PRETTY SURE


NOT TOO SURE


NOT SURE AT ALL


How sure are you that people you know will


have a high opinion of you?


VERY SURE


PRETTY SURE


NOT TOO


NOT SURE AT ALL


When you think about your future realistically, how sure are you of
being a respected member of the community in which you'll be living?


VERY SURE


PRETTY SURE


NOT TOO SURE


NOT SURE AT ALL


When you think about your future realistically, how sure are you of


having enough money to


live the way you'd like to?


VERY SURE


PRETTY SURE


NOT TOO SURE


NOT SURE AT ALL


When you think about your future realistically, how sure are you of
being able to settle down in whatever place you most prefer?


VERY SURE


PRETTY SURE


NOT TOO SURE


NOT SURE AT ALL


When you think about your future realistically, how sure are you of


having the kind of life


that's


interesting rather than routine?


VERY


PRETTY SURE


NOT TOO


NOT SURE AT ALL


When you think about your future realistically, how sure are you that


you can


tay out of prison?


VERY


PRETTY SURE


NOT TOO SURE


NOT SURE AT ALL












REFERENCES


Altman,


The environment and social


Brooks Cole,


behavior.


Monterey, Calif


1975.


Bates, A.


Privacy, a useful


concept? Social


Forces,


1964,


429-434.


Beardsl


& J.W


E.L.


Privacy: Autonomy and


Chapman (Eds.)


Privacy.


self-disclosure.
New York: Atherton


In J.R.
1971.


Pennock
56-70.


Cronbach, C.J. Coe
Psychometrika,


ificient Alpha and the internal


1951,


structure tests.


297-334.


Goffman


lums.


New York:


Doubleday,


1961.


Jessor, R., Graves


., Hanson, R.C., & Jessor,


Society


person-


ality


and deviant behavior


New York: Holt


study of a tri


, Rinehart, & Winston,


thni


community.


1968.


Johnson,


C.A.


Privacy


Environmental


as personal


control


Paper presented at the


Design Research Association, Milwaukee, Wi


sconsin


1974.


Jourard, S.M.
Problems,


Some psychological aspects of privacy.


1966,


Law and Contemporary


307-318.


Jourard,


The need for privacy.


In S.M.


Jourard (Edo),


The trans-


parent


. New York:


Van Nostrand Reinhold,


1971.


Kelvin, P.


A social


Journal of Socia


psychological
1 and Clinical


examination of privacy.
Psychology, 1973, 12,


British


248-261


Kira, A.


The bathroom.


(Eds.), Environmental


In H.M. Proshansky


W.H.


psychology: Man and hi


Ittleson,
physical


& L.G. Rivlin


setting.


York


Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,


1970, 269-


Laufer


privacy.


Proshansky
Paper pre


Psychology Conference,


& Wolfe, M.


sented at the


Lund


Some analyti


dimensions of


Third International Architecture


Sweden


1973.


Marshall, N.J.
Research,


Dimensions of privacy preferences.


1974, 9,


Multivariate Behavioral


255-27


H.M.,







Milgram,


The experience of living in cities.


Science,


1970,


167,


1461-1468.


Osmond, H.


Function


Hospitals.


in H.M.
mental


as the basis of psychiatric ward design


(Architectural


Proshansky


psyc


W.H.


hology: man and hi


Supplement),


1957


Ittleson, & L.G.


physical


23-29.


Rivlin (Ed


setting.


. Mental
(Reprinted
, Environ-


New York: Holt,


Rinehart


, & Winston,


1970, 560-569.)


Pastalan
45,


L.A.


Privacy


as a behavioral concept.


Social


Science,


1970a,


Pastalan


L.A.


Privacy


as an expression of human territoriality


Pastalan & D.H. Carson (Eds.)


Spatial


behavior of older peopi


Ann Arbor,Mich.: Univ


ersity of Michigan Press,


1970b


, 88-


Proshansky


Ittleson, W.H., & Rivlin,


L.G.


Freedom of choice and


behavior in a physical


setting.


In H.M.


Proshansky, W.H.


Ittleson,


& L.G. F
setting.


tivlin (Ed
New York


.), Environmental
Holt, Rinehart,


psychology:
& Winston, 1


flan and his physical


970


173-1


Roberts, J.M
J.W. Ch


. & Gregor,
apman (Eds.)


Privacy: a cultural


Privacy.


view.


New York: Atherton,


In J.R.


1971,


Pennock &
99-225.


Rotter, J.B.
New Jer


Social


sey:


learning and clinical


Prentice-Hall


psychology.


Englewood Cliffs,


1954


Rotter, J.B., Chance


J.E., & Phares


Applications


of a


social


learning theory of personality.
1972.


New York


Holt


Rinehart


, & Winston,


Schwartz, B. T
Sociology,


'he social


1968,


psychology of privacy.


741-


American Journal of


752.


Scott, W.A.


Measures of test homogeneity.


Educational and Psychological


Measurement,


1960


751-


Shaw, M.E. & Costanzo


, P.R.


Theories in social


psychology.


New York:


McGraw-Hill,


1970


Shil


, E. Privacy:
porary Problems


its constitution and vicissitudes.


, 1966,


Law and Contem-


281-305.


Simmel


Privacy i


Chapman (Eds.),


not an isolated freedom.


Privacy.


In J.R


New York: Atherton P


ress


Pennock & J.W.


1971


70-87


Smith


& Swanson


R.M.


A social


submitted to Environment and Behavior,


learning approach to privacy.


1977


S,- ---- -


"IL...


- A -


S_ .. .. -. -------.. Ir ..--- .- 1.. 1 n "1r


H.M.,


11 ~







Swanson, R.M.
toward c


Sense of efficacy, effectiveness, and control: A


clarification of concepts.


University of Colorado,


look


Institute


of Behavioral


Science,


1970.


Swanson, R.M.


Work release:


Toward an understanding of the law


and operation of community based state corrections.


policy,


Washington,


D.C.


: Department of Labor


United States Government Printing Office,


Watt


& Maher,


system.
1958, 4


Prisoner'


attitudes toward home and judi


Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police
327-330.


Weinstein,
(Eds.)


W.L.


The private and the free


Privacy.


In J.R.


New York: Atherton Pres


Pennock & J.W.Chapman


1971


Westin, A.F.


Privacy and freedom.


New York: Atheneum.1970.


Wood, B., Wilson, G.,
a correctional i
their situation.


Jessor


institution:


, R., & Bogan, J.


Troublemaking behavior in


relationship to inmates'


d


American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,


Definition of
1966, 36,


795-802.













BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Dale E.


Smith was born on September


1951


in Lawrenceville, New


Jersey.


He graduated from Lawrence High


hool


1969.


He attended


Lafayette College in Easton


Penn


Ivania.


He graduated with honors


1973 receiving the degree of Bachelor of Arts,


laude


He attended


graduate


school at the University of Florida, where he received the


degree of Master of Arts


1975.


His major area of study was Social


Psychology.







I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it


conforms
adequate,


to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of


Doctor of Philosophy.


Professor of Psychology


I certify that I


have read this study and that in my opinion it


conforms
adequate,


to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and i


in scope and quality, as a di


Doctor of Philosophy.


fully


ssertation for the degree of


- -


/


rd M


Swanson, Cochairman


Associate Professor of Psychology


certify that I have read this


study and that in my opinion it


conforms
adequate,


to acceptable standards of sch
in scope and quality, as a di


lolarly presentation and is fully
ssertation for the degree of


Doctor of Philosophy.


( < A
-


E. Alex


under


Professor of Criminal Justice


certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it


conforms
adequate,


to acceptable standards of sch
in scope and quality, as a di


lolarly presentation and is fully
ssertation for the degree of


Doctor of Philosophy.







certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it


conforms to acceptable standards of


adequate,


in scope and quality, as a di


lolarly presentation and is fully
ssertation for the degree of


Doctor of Philosophy.


2
/ 0
r LCsL


h/ei


Theodore Landsman
Professor of Counselor Education



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the


Department of Psychology in the College of Arts and


iences


and to


the Graduate Council, and was accepted a


partial


fulfillment of the


requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy


June


1977


Harry S


sler


Dean, Graduate School























































UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


3 1262 08554 1257