Architecture as a Regulator of Human Behavior

Introduction: Architecture as Behavioral Regulation

There is little question that architecture is a regulator of human behavior. What sites and facilities look like — and how they function — play key roles in the way people respond to and participate in what they have to offer. The emergence of several fields of study on issues as diverse as healthcare practices, crime and safety, and the developing field of New Urbanism all take for granted that the physical structures on which we depend impact the ways we experience the world — for good and for bad.

The American Psychological Association's Task Force on Urban Psychology put it this way: "urban psychology proposes that the mix of people and places that make up the urban setting affects psychological functioning and development in these settings" (APA, nd: vi). But exactly how architecture does this — symbolically, directly, and even through biased expectations — remains unclear, even as an entire movement in this direction is clearly underway. Architecture regulates behavior in many ways and needs to be viewed as a powerful tool for change (Shaw and Kesan, 2007).

Controlling Behavior Through Physical Structure

How physical structure affects behavior is actually fairly well understood. Architects, as well as city and state planners, have known this for some time and have undertaken specific actions to ensure that their communities respond accordingly (Ellis, 2002: 261–262). For example, there are many efforts to make communities safer from crime — and now terrorism — by examining how the physical makeup of a place promotes a sense of community belonging. Ellis (2002) and Shaw and Kesan (2007) have linked this in various ways to how certain buildings, such as courthouses, use marble and sturdy materials to convey trust and confidence. When community spaces use their own approaches to communicate safety and participation, there is good reason to believe that localities will actually become safer and more secure.

In a similar way, research is clear that well-designed learning environments — built and furnished properly — do a better job of encouraging educational achievement (Shaw and Kesan, 2007: 5). Clean, well-maintained, student-friendly classrooms that are well lit, comfortable in temperature, and welcoming encourage students to want to be there and, as a result, they perform better.

Two of the most extensive fields of interest in this area can be seen in the way that mental health and healthcare facilities are being designed with careful attention to how physical spaces impact care and recovery. This topic has been especially significant in Veterans' health programs, where the government has taken an active role in integrating structural and functional ideals. The Department of Veterans Affairs notes in their December 2010 Design Guide for Mental Health Facilities:

"Recovery is promoted not only in the therapeutic program, but also in the facility design. Patient care areas that incorporate natural light, access to exterior environments, color, art, pleasant furnishings, and other components of a warm environment have been shown to advance healing and recovery. Additionally, promoting positive socialization and engagement, while also providing opportunities for controlling one's social environment, is critical to successful treatment and the recovery process" (Veterans Affairs, 2010: 2–3).

In a related way, there is a growing movement toward the development of a New Urbanism mentality that takes a broad look at the overall planning and physical layout of cities and dense population areas where increasing numbers of people now live. This perspective "supports a pattern of urbanism based on historic neighborhoods, incorporating diversity and walkability in order to allow for personal interaction and an active lifestyle. The ultimate goal is a better quality of life, enabled by a functioning urban framework" (LISC, 2010). Though deemed somewhat controversial — perhaps as being too idealistic in concept and unclear on what it can actually accomplish — there is still a great deal of attention to what it has to offer the domain of environmental psychology (Ellis, 2002). The overall goal of this effort is to restore the human scale of living resources. For example, it is often noted that close-set buildings, porches on homes, and the ready availability of commercial and public resources add a different character to the places and the people who move to newly built or revitalized areas. Critics in particular focus on how New Urbanism tends to be applied in new developments rather than in revitalized downtown areas suffering from blight and economic struggle — which itself represents another form of advocacy for what it has to offer.

Sustainable Living and New Urbanism

Residential homes, on the other hand, are focusing on what new materials and philosophies can do to reduce costs, better use spaces — such as infilling downtown neighborhood sites — and provide convenient, comfortable living options. The sense of fitting in and feeling welcomed by those around us, along with the goal of minimizing areas where crime or other problems can arise, has given renewed acceptance to this kind of creative architectural design.

Contemporary architectural methods are increasingly reinforcing green and sustainability options. The entire idea of New Urbanism, for example, reflects this in its broad scope (LISC, 2010). It seeks to synthesize a range of issues relating to urban design, environmentalism, planning, and growth management, drawing upon what sociology, anthropology, and other disciplines have already learned — and what psychology can add. The case is often made that New Urbanism is directly tied to sustainability, in no small part because of its emphasis on local housing and functional community design.

The LEED-ND (Neighborhood Development) standards are directly associated with changes in high-density options. Automotive reduction design, public transportation hubs, walkable spaces, cycling infrastructure, and similar tools are strongly tied to environmental progress. At the same time, there is a growing movement toward applying these same principles to commercial and retail spaces. SEED Magazine (2009) represents a companion experiment in demonstrating how this kind of design thinking can be integrated into broader media. The American Psychological Association sees similar benefits for larger social and psychological challenges, and has helped bring together a broad range of opportunities for applying this knowledge to better design practices.

Conclusion: Biases and Unanswered Questions

Some researchers recognize that advancing agendas in architecture can contain biases that are worth watching. Historically, gender biases have been built into housing and transportation practices, often making it difficult for women at home to participate in their communities (Shaw and Kesan, 2007: 14). Crime and safety concerns can just as easily lead toward an excessive focus on security in some settings, where surveillance is omnipresent. And there remains genuine uncertainty about what New Urbanism will ultimately provide if it succeeds in transforming declining urban settings. These are open questions that the field of environmental psychology and architectural planning will need to continue addressing as the movement grows.