ISSN: 2717-4417

Document Type : Research Paper

Abstract

Privacy is conceived of as an interpersonal boundary process by which a person or group regulates interaction with others. The desire for privacy is a public deed, but it is related to variables such as culture, age, gender, personality, and physical environment. It appears that some cultures have a stronger preference for privacy and have more privacy needs than others. The differences in desire for privacy are not limited only to cultures, they actually exists in sub-cultures too. Iran has many sub-cultures which respond to privacy differently, but there have not been any research on the effect of culture on privacy. The present paper focuses on how Iranian women in different sub-cultures look at surveillance in their privacy. The primary purpose of this study is to examine whether women in Iranian sub-cultures (Gilaki, Kurdish, Turkish and Yazdi women) differ in their desired and achieved levels of privacy in parks. Another purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between the desired and achieved levels of privacy and the experience of crowding in parks. The final purpose is to describe the cultural differences in the experience of crowding between Gilaki, Kurdish, Turkish and Yazdi women. This research uses a designed questionnaire to collect data. A number of 1173 women were randomly selected in Shahr (Rasht), Mellat (Sanandaj), Baghmisheh (Tabriz), and Azadegan (Yazd) parks. Chi-square test, Pearson correlation coefficient, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests were used to analyze the data. The results revealed that women in Iranian sub-cultures significantly differ in their desired privacy levels. Yazdi and Turkish women have higher needs for privacy (desired privacy) in the public spaces than other women. However, Gilaki women’s achieved privacy level is higher than that in other sub-cultures. On the other hand, the results indicate that Yazdi women perceive urban parks as more crowded than others. The crowded women (for all groups) have a higher mean of crowding score than the isolated and the optimum women. Regardless of culture, women’s desired and achieved privacy levels are related to the level of perceived crowding in public spaces. According to Hall, contact cultures are often found in tropical countries (Arabic countries, Mediterranean area, Middle-East countries, and Eastern Europe) while non-contact cultures are usually found in cold weather countries (north of Europe, north of America). Accordingly, Iran is regarded as having a contact culture. The results of this study, however, indicate that in different Iranian sub-cultures there are also differences in people’s tendency for privacy and social interaction in public places. There is no correlation between the results of this study and Hall’s taxonomy. Yazdi (dry and warm) and Turkish (cold, mountainous) people have contact cultures while Gilaki (Caspian mild) and Kurdish (very cold mountainous) people live in non-contact cultures. The main reason for this difference stems from the investigation of perceived crowdedness and tendency for privacy in public sphere. The behavior of Iranian women and their social interactions with others in public places are strongly affected by tradition and religion.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Alizadeh, H. (2007). Changes conceptions of women’s public space in the Kurdish city.
     Cities, 24(6), 410-421.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behaviour. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I., & Chemers, M. (1980). Culture and Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge
     University press.
Amerian, H., & Shiva, O. (2011). Cognition of Iranian culture and races. Tehran: Jahad
     Daneshgahi. [In Persian]
Bromberger, B. (1989). Habitat, Architecture and rural society in the Gilan plain (Gilaki
     Iran). In Kommission bei F. Dümmler.
Desor, JA. (1972). Toward a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of Personality
     and Social Psychology, 21(1), 79-83.
Engebretson, D., & Fullmer, D. (1970). Cross-cultural differences in territoriality:
     Interaction distances of native Japanese, Hawaii-Japanese, and American Caucasians.
     Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 261-269.
Evans, G. W., & Howard, R. B. (1973). Personal space. Psychological Bulletin, 80(4),
     334-344.
Evans, G. W., Lepore, S. J., & Allen , K. M. (2000). Cross-cultural differences in tolerance for crowding:
     Fact or fiction? Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 79(2), 204-210.
Forston, R. L., & Larson, C. U. (1968). The dynamics of space. Journal of
     Communication, 18, 109-116. 
Galletti, M. (2001). Western images of women’s role in Kurdish society. In Women of a 
     Non-state Nation: Thr Kurdish, S Mojab (ed.). Torronto:  Mazda.
Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville, WA:
     Optimal  Books.
Hall, E, T. (1966).The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Hayduk, L. A. (1994). Personal space: Understanding the simplex model. Journal of
     Nonverbal Behaviour, 18, 245–260.
Kaya, N. & Weber, M. J. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in the perception of crowding and privacy
    regulation: American and Turkish students. Journal of environmental Psychology, 23, 301-309.
Khaled Rastegar, A. & Mohammadi, M. (2015). Cultural changes and loss of fertility in Iran. Applied 
     Sociology, 26(2), 159-180. [In Persian]
Little, K. B., & Henderson, C. (1968). Value congruence and interaction distance. Journal
     of social psychology, 113, 41-51.
Mohammad Niay Gharaei, F & Rafieian, M. (2013). Investigating cross-cultural differences in the
     privacy regulation and perception of crowding: Northern and Kurdish women in Iran. International
     Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 3(4), 41-46.
Moradi, S. (2008). Setting environmental condition. Tehran: Shahidi. [In Persian]
Noghrekar, A., Hamzenejad, M. & Dehghani Tafti, M. (2010). Investigating the effect of natural
     environment on behavior and ethics from the viewpoint of Islamic thinkers and its results in designing
     an artificial environment. Memari va Shahrsazi Armanshahr, No. 5, 79-96. [In Persian]
Pedersen, D. M. (1979). Dimensions of privacy preferences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 9, 255-
     272.
Rustemli, A., & Kokdemir, D. (1993). Privacy dimensions and preferences among Turkish students. The
     Journal of Social Psychology. 133(6), 807-814.
Sanders, J. L., Hakky, V. M., & Brizzolara, M. M (1985). Personal space amongst Arabs
     and Americans. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 13-17.
Sommer, R. (1968). Intimacy ratings in five countries. International Journal of
     Psychology, 3(2), 109-114.
Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications
     for future research. Psychological Review. 79(3), 275-278.
Watson, O. M., & Graves, T. D. (1966). Quantitative research in proxemics behaviour.
     American Anthropologist, 74( 68), 83-90.
Westin, A. (1970). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
Ziller, RC., Long, B. H., Ramana, K. V., & Reddy, V. E. (1968). Self-other orientations
     of Indian and American adolescents. Journal of Personality, 36, 315-330.