Topic 5: Psychology Effects of Built Environment: Additional Studies

Question 1

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Cohen: What was being investigated?

Answer 1

The effects of noise on reading ability.

Question 2

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Cohen: Describe the sample.

Answer 2

• 54 children (2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th grade) who lived in apartment blocks in New York.
• They all attended the same school.

Question 3

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Cohen: Describe the noise difference between the higher and lower floors in the apartment building.

Answer 3

Apartments on the higher floors experienced less traffic noise than those on the lower floors (average 55 decibels on the 32nd floor and 66 on the 8th floor).

Question 4

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Cohen: What were noise level results correlated with?

Answer 4

Results from noise level readings were correlated with the MAT results of the children (Metropolitan Achievement Tests).

Question 5

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Cohen: Why was auditory discrimination tested?

Answer 5

Because the hypothesis was that living in a noisy environment might make the children inattentive to acoustic cues.

Question 6

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Cohen: Describe the correlation between floor level and auditory discrimination.

Answer 6

For the 34 children who had lived in the apartments for more than 4 years, there was a significant correlation (+.48) between floor level and auditory discrimination.

Question 7

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Cohen: What did researchers claim to have found, and what did they control for?

Answer 7

Controlling for socio-economic variables, the researchers claimed to have found an association between noise level and reading deficits.

Question 8

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) White: What was the size of the sample and what was the duration of data collection?

Answer 8

Collected information from 12,000 people between 1991 – 2008 (longitudinal).

Question 9

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) White: What information was collected from the sample?

Answer 9

They were asked about mental health, living condition, location and many other variables.

Question 10

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) White: Describe the findings.

Answer 10

They found that those who lived in greener areas reported less mental distress & higher life satisfaction.

Question 11

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Newman: What was the aim of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project?

Answer 11

To provide residents with a sense of space and security.

Question 12

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Newman: What did Newman believe was the failure of the project?

Answer 12

He said that all of the communal areas (corridors, lobbies etc.) had become havens for crime. They became littered, damaged and an overall dangerous place to be.

Question 13

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Newman: What was concluded from this study? (3)

Answer 13

• The successful projects were well maintained by residents due to defensible space
• The residents feel like they own the space (they actually share it but with a few other residents)
• In the Pruitt Igoe project nobody felt ownership of the communal areas and so they became littered and dangerous.

Question 14

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Armitage: What did this study investigate?

Answer 14

• Whether cul-de-sacs are less likely to experience crimes than through roads.
• Whether cul-de-sac designs experience from crime than others.

Question 15

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Armitage: Which type of cul-de-sac had the lowest levels of crime?

Answer 15

Sinuous true cul-de-sacs (curvy, without ‘leaky’ footpaths).

Question 16

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Armitage: What the guidelines for footpaths, if they are to be included in residential developments?

Answer 16

Short, direct, wide, overlooked, well-lit and not running along the side/rear of properties.

Question 17

(Topic 5: Additional Studies) Armitage: What should residential developments limit?

Answer 17

Connectivity and through-movement in order to reduce crime.