Robert Sommer

Bio: Robert Sommer is an academic researcher from University of California, Davis. The author has contributed to research in topics: Mental health & Tree (data structure). The author has an hindex of 37, co-authored 227 publications receiving 5952 citations. Previous affiliations of Robert Sommer include Menninger Foundation & University of Alberta.

A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research: Tools and Techniques

Abstract: In this fourth revision of their college textbook, Barbara and Robert Sommer expand the coverage of case studies and provide a new chapter describing the research opportunities provided by the internet, as well as new material on the use of computers in running research studies and in data analysis.

Studies in Personal space

Abstract: Surprisingly little is known about the way people use space. Social scientists in the field of human ecology have been concerned primarily with the distribution of such things as social classes, economic institutions, and mental illness. An almost unexplored area is microecology or the way that people in pairs or small groups arrange themselves. In the studies of Hediger (5), Howard (6), and Von Uexkull (15), "space" has had two different meanings. The more familiar of these refers to space in the geographic sense, i.e., space as area. It is most commonly discussed with reference to the animal's territory or home. However, some writers have applied the concept of territory to human behavior. W. F. Whyte (16) and Thrasher (14) have studied the territories of adolescent gangs. W. H. Whyte (17) also has studied the groupings of people within a housing development. Probably the most intensive investigation thus far has been that of Barker and Wright (2) in the Midwest. Yet this still remains relatively unexplored territory for social scientists. The second way in which the term "space" is used can be called "personal space of the organism." Although it has its roots in the work of zoologists and ethologists, it is an entirely different concept from that of territory. Personal distance is the distance that the organism customarily places between itself and other organisms. This distance may vary from species to species and individual to individual. Hediger speaks of this as "flight distance" and has measured this for hundreds of animals. This concept would seem to have relevance for the study of human behavior, although it has never been studied empirically so far as we know. It seems obvious that people feel uncomfortable when they talk to others who either stand too close or too far away. The concept itself has been used several times in the literature. David Katz (8) used the term "personal space" and compared it to the shell of a snail. Von Uexkull used the graphic analogy of people "surrounded by soap-bubble worlds." Stern (13) developed the concept of personal world. He noted that the physical world was without a center, but the

Invasions of Personal Space

Abstract: This chapter describes several studies of invasions of personal space that took place over a 2-year period. Personal space is sometimes described metaphorically as an invisible snail shell, a soap bubble, or breathing room. The need to maintain such a space is apparently deeply rooted in the human personality, even though the volume of space varies between cultures and for different persons and situations in the same culture. The concept of personal space was first formulated by Georg Simmel in the early 1900s and was investigated empirically by social psychologists in the 1930s, but it has received its most extensive development much more recently. The invasions of personal space took place both indoors and outdoors. Conversational distance is affected by many things including room density, the acquaintance of the individuals, the personal relevance, the cultural backgrounds of the individuals, and the personalities of the individuals.

Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees:

Abstract: A typology of service organizations is presented and a conceptual framework is advanced for exploring the impact of physical surroundings on the behaviors of both customers and employees. The abili...

The evolution of social behavior

Abstract: For several years the study of social behavior has been undergoing a revolution with far-reaching consequences for the social and biological sciences. Partly responsible are three recent changes in the attitudes of evolutionary biologists. First was growing acceptance of the evidence that the potency of natural selection is overwhelmingly concentrated at levels no higher than that of the individual. Second was revival of the comparative method, especially as applied to behavior and life histories. Third was spread of the realization that not only are all aspects of structure and function of organisms to be understood solely as products of selection, but because of their peculiarly direct relationship to the forces of selection, behavior and life history phenomena, long neglected by the evolutionists, may be among the most predictable of all phenotypic attributes. These ideas have been appreciated by a few biologists for a long time, but they have only recently begun to characterize the science as a whole. Darwin’s discussion of sterility between species as an incidental effect of evolutionary adaptation (41, p. 260) and his refusal to deal with sex ratio selection (42, p. 399) suggest awareness of the difficult problem of determining the levels at which selection is most powerful. Yet significant clarification of this basic issue did not really commence until publication of Wynne-Edwards’ massive volume (179) championing group selection and inadvertently exposing its unlikelihood. As late as 1958, Fisher felt constrained to add to the revised edition of his 1929 classic, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, the admonishment (53, p. 49) that his fundamental theorem and its associated considerations, already misused then by decades of population geneticists dealing (as they saw it) with the fitness of populations, refer strictly to "the progressive modification of structure or function only in so far as variations in these are ofadvantage to the individual... [and afford] no corresponding explanation for any properties of animals and plants.., supposed to be of service to the species to which they belong." Williams’ critique (171) provided a significant turning point. Nevertheless, one has only to pick up any biological journal or attend any biological meeting to realize that this question has not yet been settled for all