Housing and Society

ISSN: 0888-2746 (Print) 2376-0923 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhas20

The Effects of Different Types of Student

Involvement in Dormitory Design Over Time

Franklin D. Becker

To cite this article: Franklin D. Becker (1980) The Effects of Different Types of Student
Involvement in Dormitory Design Over Time, Housing and Society, 7:1, 4-19, DOI:
10.1080/08882746.1980.11429841

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08882746.1980.11429841

Published online: 09 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhas20

Download by: [Texas State University, San Marcos] Date: 19 July 2016, At: 03:41
 The Effects Of Different Types Of Student
Involvement in Dormitory Design Over
Time
Franklin D. Becker

There is much discussion in the design and planning professions about the role, importance, and effects
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016

of user involvement in environmental decision-making. There is relatively little research which has
systematically and empirically explored these issues. In a survey of 738 students living in six college
dormitories, each originally designed with different levels ofstudent involvement, this study investigated
the relationship between both the amount ofstudent involvement in the original design ofthe dormitory,
and ongoing participation processes involving personalization of the dormitory room, on student satis-
faction with the dormitories. A low but statistically significant correlation bet»,'een student satisfaction
and both types of student involvement in the design process was found. Implications for the design and
administration of college dormitories are discussed.

There is much discussion in the design and
planning professions about the role, importance,
and effects of user involvement in environmental
decision-making (Alexander et. aI., 1975; Habra-
ken, 1973; Turner, 1976, Becker, 1977). In gen-
eral, the phrase "user participation" is used to
cover an extremely broad range of types of user
involvement in environmental decision-making.
This is true in terms of the nature of the involve-
ment itself, who does it, and when in the life of a
building it occurs. The assumption that some form
of user involvement or feedback in the design of a
facility results in a better facility, and con-
sequently, more user satisfaction and a higher
quality of life, is an underlying premise of user-
oriented post-construction evaluation and par-
ticipation processes. Yet there have been few
Franklin D. Becker is Associate Professor of Human-
Environment Relations in the Department of Design and En-
vironmental Analysis at Cornell University.
systematic studies which have demonstrated the
benefit, for current occupants, of living in envi-
ronments whose design may have been influenced
by the participation of their peers sometime in the
past. The objective of this study was to increase
our understanding of the role different types of
user involvement, occuring at different stages in
the life of a building have on a building's occup-
ants.
Each form of participation can occur at each of
a number of stages in any decision-making pro-
cess. For example, one might totally control the
problem definition stage, only provide input into
the generation of alternatives stages, and then
actually help implement the chosen alternatives.
Alternatively, one might not participate at all in
the problem definition stage, only provide input
for the generation of alternatives, and then help
construct what alternatives were developed, and
so on.
Participation, when it involves control of deci-

4 Housing and Society Vol. 7, No. I (1980)

 sions, has been viewed as fulfilling a fundamental
human need to create and control (See Alexander
et. aI., 1975; Turner, 1976). It has also been vie-
wed as one of the most effective means for creat-
ing environments that are responsive to individual
and group needs and values (Wandersman, 1975;
Becker, 1977; Alexander et. aI., 1975). These two
functions of user participation are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. However, in the former case
participation becomes more a matter of basic
human rights, while in the latter case participation
is valued for its basic utility.
The organizational behavior literature goes
further than most of the design literature in dif-
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
ferentiating appropriate subjects of decisicn-
making for persons at different levels in the
bureaucratic hierarchy (Strauss and Rosenstein,
1972; Bluestone, 1974). In relation to architectural
design, Wanders man (1975) attempted to empiri-
cally learn whether college students wer,e more
interested in influencing the inside of their dorm
rooms or the outside of their building. Turner
(1976), Habraken (1963), and Warsaw (1975) have
made conceptual distinctions about the approp-
riate level of user involvement in decision-
making.
Turner (1976) distinguishes between centrally
administered systems in which regulators or the
public sector control almost all stages of the
building process and autonomous systems in
which the users make most of the decisions. For
stability to occur, Turner argues that the variety
of the controlling system be at least as great as the
variety of the system to be controlled (Turner,
1976, p. 29). In housing, this implies there must be
a large number of decision-makers at the level of
the dwelling unit design where the variety of life-
styles is equal to the number of occupants. As the
variety of the system decreases, at the level of site
planning for example, Turner's framework im-
plies that fewer actual users would need to be
involved.
Warsaw (1974) separates the housing unit into
two distinct parts: the shell-infrastructure and its
occupancy. He argues that a clear operational
distinction should be made between those areas
Vol. 7, No. I (1980)
that are the responsibility of the owner-developer
and those that relate directly to the private domain
of the individual occupant, a distinction similar to
Turner's (1976). Warsaw goes to some length to
note that making the clear separation between
responsibilities and control of owner-developer
and occupant does not require a change in the
occupant's role. Depending on their interests and
talents, different individuals may want to partici-
pate in different ways. Participation may be con-
ceptual, involving the planning of the housing
unit, or actually involve implementation of ideals
(construction). The occupant might have work
done by a professional; choose ideas, compo-
nents, or packaged units available; design and
implement elements.
Turner (1976), Warsaw (1974), and others (Be-
cker, 1977; Wandersman, 1975) also acknowledge
that some environments may be more important
to persons than others (home or work, for exam-
ple) and that within a setting different individuals
may be more concerned about one aspect of the
environment than another. Thus mothers may be
concerned about ease of cleaning and child super-
vision, children with play facilities, fathers with
work and hobby space.
Participation in the design process has been
linked, more or less implicitly, to the point where
the building is legally considered finished. Elabo-
rate and formal participation schemes are often
promoted in the initial phases of design. When the
building is formally (legally) completed, the for-
mal and informal mechanisms and motivation for
continuing participation generally disappear. All
the benefits of participation stemming from the
view that participation satisfies a fundamental
need to control and create are denied to succes-
sive generations of users who inhabit the building
over its entire life.
This leaves the justification for elaborate user
participation in the original design resting on the
assumption that as long as no major changes occur
in the nature of the users inhabiting the space over
time (a questionable assumption), then initial in-
volvement of users in the design of a facility will
result in a "better" facility than one designed
Housing and Society 5
 without user input. The increasing requirements
in federally sponsored housing for user evaluation
stud;ies and the development of design criteria or
codes based on user feedback are founded on this
assumption. At least logically, an extension of this
assumption is that the more user involvement in
terms of its variety, intensity, duration, and rep-
resentativeness, the more satisfactory the result-
ing facility will be over time.
The study of planned residential environments
by Lansing, Mehrens, and Zehner (1970) is one of
the few systematic attempts to evaluate the im-
pact of a planned environment: that is, an envi-
ronment consciously designed to satisfy certain
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
user requirements and preferences based on mar-
ket studies, existing evaluation research, etc. The
fact that the planned environments were generally
more satisfactory than unplanned ones suggests
that intensive direct interactive processes with
actual occupants may not be necessary to design a
"better" environment. However, no comparison
was made to environments where current users
had participated extensively in decision-making,
and no effort was made to control or assess the
impact of informal participation on satisfaction in
the form of personalization or involvement in de-
cisions about local governance, schools, etc.
The question is not whether we must take into
consideration the users in designing a building, or
whether users should participate in some way in
the design of a facility. The issue is whether our
emphasis on increasing user participation in the
initial programming of a facility may obscure the
importance of user participation in the design and
management of a facility over its life. Without this
continuous involvement, the benefits of partici-
pation as a process satisfying the fundamental
need to create and control (White, 1969) are de-
nied to all but a few.
Personalization
Personalization unlike most formal "user par-
ticipation" processes, goes on almost constantly
in all environments. It can be defined as any mod-
ification or change or addition to any environment
by or for that environment's occupant. It serves to
6 Housing and Society
reflect or reinforce the occupant's own sense of
identity, as well as express it to others, and is a
way of demonstrating to others that the space is
occupied by a particular person. Personalization,
unlike folk art or "people's art", can be traced to
a particular individual or group (Becker, 1977). By
the above definition someone who hires someone
else to decorate their apartment is still per-
sonalizing it. The essential criteria is that the indi-
vidual or group inhabiting the environment con-
trol the decisions affecting the changes.
The very few systematic studies of personali-
zations that have been done have found that
among male college students living in joint occu-
pancy in dormitory rooms, most personalization
involved non-intimate forms of decoration that
followed common themes, and that over time the
specific objects used changed but the type of ob-
ject remained stable (Hansen, 1976); that modifi-
cations were made to communicate values and
life-style to the occupants and to others (Kaplan,
1973, Coniglio, 1974); that personalization in ex-
terior areas could stimulate neighborhood pride
(Bush-Brown, 1969); that personalization is re-
lated to satisfaction living in dormitories (Van der
Ryn and Silverstein, 1969; Eigenbrod, 1969); that
personalization in dormitories was associated
with less damage to the hall, improved relations
between residents and advisors, more group
cooperation and identity and better student
maintenance of the dormitory (Eigenbrod, 1969).
In general, personalization makes manifest in-
dividual or group differences and reinforces
one's sense of individual or group identity; it in-
creases the complexity of the environment and
fulfills the need for exploratory stimulation; and it
facilitates the development of a sense of compe-
tence and mastery, which is important for per-
sonal growth.
Personalization may also be an important cop-
ing mechanism, reducing dissonance elicited by a
discrepancy between one's actual and ideal resi-
dence. The person who wants a pre-fab house or
mobile home to be associated with a colonial man-
sion may use simulated antique lights, slate-
patterned vinyl floor coverings, and oak beams
Vol. 7, No. / (/980)
 made of styrofoam to create particular associa-
tions. These kind of changes can be construed as
environmental euphemisms. which enable resi-
dents to think of their housing in terms closer to
their ideal housing image. Becker (1977) has
suggested that low income residents' desire to
make changes on the outside of their apartments
may be an attempt to compensate for the low
status expressed through the physical cues of the
public housing project by creating their own,
more positive, environmental messages. In high
income apartments management may be more
concerned about residents' lowering or altering
the very carefully created and managed image of
such housing (Tulin, 1977).
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
Most of the work done on personalization has
viewed it as a kind of expressive decoration. Per-
sonalization, in fact, can involve rather extensive
modification of the environment, ranging from the
design and construction of partitions, cabinets,
and room dividers to the construction of new
rooms and sleeping lofts, the complete face-lifting
of a room, and the rearranging of appliances and
cabinets (Habraken, 1976). It is a form of partici-
pation which allows each generation of users to
become actively involved with their environment
on a scale where they are likely to be competent,
and where the financial resources necessary for
complete control of the decision-making process
are relatively accessible.
Given the relative paucity of empirical data on
the impact of different forms of participation in
the design process on either current or subsequent
generations of users, we undertook a study to
examine whether (from the user's perspective)
more student participation in the original design of
a dormitory resul ts in a better environment which,
in turn, results in higher levels of satisfaction
among subsequent generations of users. We also
examined student's own personalization efforts
and their reactions to previous students' modifi-
cations.
Methods
Research Design and Site Selection
The basic research design involved a compari-
Vol. 7, No. J (1980)
son of six dormitories, five on one campus
(Hampshire College) and one on another campus
(Worcester State College) in the same area, that
differed along the dimensions of amount and type
of student participation in the original design.
These differences allowed us to test whether more
student participation actually resulted in more
satisfaction for second and third generations of
student users. The two college campuses also had
very different student populations. Since the
premise of increased user participation is that this
is a means of taking into account population dif-
ferences, we would expect from this viewpoint
that level of participation per se, not population
differences, would account for differences in
satisfaction levels. Differences between the two
college campuses in their administrative
philosophies about what constituted appropriate
levels of student freedom and control allowed us
to look at the effect of different administrative
environments on the amount of personalization
and levels of satisfaction.
As is true of most field studies, it was impossi-
ble for us to control, in the selection of the sites,
for all variables that might interact with the main
variables under study. Statistical techniques such
as partial correlations and attempts to look for
alternate plausible hypotheses that could be sup-
ported by the data were used to minimize the
possibility of inaccurate or misleading inferences
either about associations or causality.
The Dormitories: Hampshire College
Merrill House
This was the college's first residence, providing
housing for 251 students who live mostly in single
rooms in a double-loaded corridor system. (See
Figure 1). All the furniture (desks, beds, closets)
provided the students in this and the other dor-
mitories at Hampshire College is modular (it
stacks, is unattached to walls, and can be easily
moved).
Dakin House
Similar to Merrill House, Dakin houses 296 stu-
dents (See Figure 1).
Housing and Society 7
 Greenwich House
These . BDUSUa! dorms are prefab .~dular
faciities inwhich.apartments in each stmctllre are
locateearQullda h,olowcentercorethatservesas
acommoft lo_eaod recreation·area (See Figure
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
2). Batb of five stmctureshouses 44 people.
These dorms are located ina Ifove·ofpine trees,
have wood shingle siding, andporohes witbglas:s
doors.

Merrill and Dakin Houses have similar exterior appearances"

DBkln: 4 " ftoar LGMDi2

FIGURE l-.Merrill" Dankin Houses FIGURE 2 - GreeawielaHouse

8 Housing and Society Vol. 7, No.1 (/980)

 Enfield House
These are modular townhouses arr~nged in
clusters, with each townhouse having fohr to six
bedrooms on two or three levels (See Figure 3).
These dorms are considered "suburban" because
of their similarity in appearance to contemporary
apartments or condomini~ms.Students complain
about workmanship and the "swampy" location,
but these dorms are the most spacious on campus.

11111
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016

81

2nd floor

II

BR
011. Kit.

[ Din.

LR

3 rrd fDoor

FIGURE 3 - Entleld House

Vol. 7, No.1 (1980) Housing and Society 9

 Prescott House
This is the most recent dormitory Quilt at
Hampshire Colege. It accommodates 210 stu-
dents in suites of four to fourteen people (See
Filure 4). Included in the complex are 16 faculty
offICes, four conference or classrooms, an 8()..;seat
dinm. WI, and a separate Master's residence.
The Dormitories: Woreester State CoIB.e
Chandler Village
Chandler Vi1ase bas received much publicity
as being a true product of user participation
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
I. D~I.R
10 Housing and Society
(Morton, 1975). Incorporating six buidinl types
(see Figure 4),. itbs space fer :suo stuGents living
in 26 two, four, and five.. story "houses". Most of
the students live in four, ·six, eight, eleven, and
foul1.een-person suites. Chandler Vil1ase is tbe
only dormitory OD the campus. Most of the stu-
dents are commuters.
Chandler Village and Prescott House were de-
siloed by the same architects and are basicaDy
similar to each other. Prescott has more nOD-
residential facilities than Chandler Vil18le, in-
cluding a classroom and suite of faculty offices
within each bulBi. cluster, and a small cafeteria
I.
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
 which includes the sale of liquor. The suites them-
selves are also slightly smaller at Hampshire Col-
lege. All furniture is provided to students at
Chandler Village.
Operational Definition of Variables
Table 1 shows the ranking of each of the six
dormitories by the amount of student participa-
tion in the original design process. User partici-
pation, as defined here, refers to solicitation of
information from prospective users of a planned
facility. The amount of user participation refers to
the number of persons from whom information
was solicited; the formality or degree of systemi-
zation with which this data was collected (formal
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
questionnaires and interviews, for example, ver-
sus informal conversations with a few students);
the variety of ways in which information about
user values and preferences was collected (e.g.,
only questionnaires or casual interviews versus a
combination of methods including interviews,
questionnaires, group meetings, etc.); and
whether the information was collected from stu-
dents who were currently enrolled in the college
and might actually use the facilities, as opposed to
collecting data from similar groups (such as col-
lege students at other colleges who would never
use the planned facility). The former type of input
may be called' 'user input" while the latter type is
more appropriately described as "consumer
input". It is assumed that the more direct the
relationship between the persons providing in-
formation and those who will use the building, the
greater the potential validity and value of the in-
formation.
Using these criteria for rating amount of user
input in the original design process, three persons
unconnected to the research project in any way
independently ranked the six dormitories in terms
of the amount of student input in the original de-
sign process. Inter-judge reliability was 100 per-
cent. For the actual correlational analysis, Dakin
was arbitrarily ranked sixth in amount of student
input. Ranking Merrill sixth would not signific-
antly change the level of association found bet-
ween amount of student input in the original de-
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
sign and current students' satisfaction.
There was no way to assess the relation bet-
ween the information respondents provided and
the actual design decision made; that is, to what
extent user's recommendations were actually in-
corporated into the design. The implicit assump-
tion made in this type of user participation is that
the provision of information results in a better
design, and that user control of that informattion
is not as important as the information itself. It is
important to test this form of user participation
because it is typical of most user participation that
occurs in the design process. Participation in-
volving user control was examined through an
analysis of student personalization efforts.
Student satisfaction and the amount, type and
reason for personalization were measured by stu-
dent responses to a number of survey questions.
The questionnaire took between 30 and 45 mi-
nutes to complete, and had over 100 question.
Sample Size and Selection
The total population at both colleges received
questionnaires. The return rate ranged from 33 to
49 percent, with an average of 42 percent. Seven
hundred and thirty-eight students returned usable
questionnaires.
Results
Level of User Participation in Original Design
and Subsequent User Satisfaction
There was a significant correlation between the
amount of student participation in the original
design and satisfaction of currently enrolled stu-
dents, both with their dormitory as a whole
(r==.22, df==518, p== .001) and with their bedroom
(r== .09, df==518, p== .017). These relationships re-
mained when sex of student, choice or no choice
in selecting the dormitory, how much money
spent on personalization, and the number of per-
sons in the suite were statistically controlled
through partial correlation analysis. When
number of persons in the suite was controlled,
there was also a significant correlation (r== .10,
df==471, p== .016) between amount of participation
in the original design and current student satisfac-
Housing and Society 11
 TABLE 1 - Ranking of Six Dormitories by the Amount of Student Participation in the Initial Design Process

Dormitory Amount and Type of Student Participation

1. Chandler Village First design concepts were developed at Hampshire College. These were based on
(Worcester State discussions with a student review committee, and informal feedback from students,
College) faculty, and administrators to models built and displayed for that purpose. Due to cost
considerations, dormitories not built at Hampshire. These architects were then asked
to build dormitories at Worcester State College, and an extensive and conscious
attempt to involve students in the design process was initiated to that end. At Worces-
ter State College this process included: (1) interviews and meetings with college
administrators, students, faculty, officials of State College Building Authority, and
architects responsible for other campus buildings; (2) a questionnaire which was
mailed to all students and new faculty members; (3) student consultants who joined the
architecture staff in working sessions throughout the program; (4) use of the Planning
Aid Kit by second group of eight faculty and students involved in directed discussions
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016

with the architects; (5) a literature survey of existing college housing; (6) visits to area
projects of a similar nature. Without a doubt, Chandler Village represented the most
extensive attempt to solicit information about user needs and values.

2. Prescott Prescott essentially represented a third stage of design development: the first stage was
(Hampshire at Hampshire (which was not built), the second at Worcester State, and the third back
College) at Hampshire. Much of the elaborate process to involve students at Worcester may not
be appl icable to Hampshire, however, because of the very different student body and
facul ty. Specific user involvement at Prescott included the original input from stu-
dents, faculty, and administration, and feedback gained from students in other dorms
at Hampshire (which had some student input in their design).

3. Greenwich Built in two stages, this prefabricated housing had student input from an Architectural
(Hampshire Review Committee composed of administrators, faculty and three students. The
College) second stage was built with modifications based on the experience of students living in
the first stage (see text for specific modifications made). This review committee met
informally with students. A small number of students on the review committee were
able to influence design decisions.

4. Enfield No formal student input was solicited, but it was solicited informally by administrators
(Hampshire through conversations with an undetermined number of students. This was also
College) prefabricated housing, although an architectural firm was hired to modify the exterior
appearance and some interior arrangements. The design was based, in part, on experi-
ence with Greenwich House, but the style, setting, and design of these dorms are very
different from them.

5. Merrill First dorms built at Hampshire. No students on campus at the time. Programming was
(Hampshire rather extensive, however, and included: (1) a team of three administrators who talked
College) to student leaders at nearby campuses, (2) complete literature survey of college
housing, (3) construction of full scale mock-up room that was shown to prospective
students and their parents, (4) administrators lived in the room for a period of one
week.

6. Dakin Built right after Merrill and very similar. Some modifications made. No students on
(Hampshire campus at time built.
College)

12 Housing and Society Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)

 tion with their suites. These correlations are
statistically significant but they are not very large.
While the overall relationship between amount
of student participation in the original design and
current student's satisfaction was statistically
significant, there was not a direct correspondence
between the amount of student input in the origi-
nal design and current satisfaction levels. Chan-
dler Village ranked first on amount of initial stu-
dent input into the original design, but ranked
third in the percentage of current students very
satisfied (combining points one and two on a
seven point scale) living there.
The absence of a perfect correspondence bet-
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
ween the two variables is not surprising. It
suggests that there may be a point of diminishing
returns in increasing student input in the original
design of a facility. Our data provide no basis for
establishing what this point or, more likely, range
is. It is a question that deserves further explora-
tion.
Part of the discrepancy between initial level of
student involvement and current student satis-
faction may stem from nonarchitectural factors
that interact with, and may mitigate, the physical
design which the participation process focused
on. One could argue that the reason Chandler
Village elicited fewer positive reactions from
students than some of the other dormitories with
lower initial levels of student involvement is that
the administrative structure - the rules and reg-
ulations imposed by college administrators, as
well as the level of maintenance and security
provided - masked what in other administrative
climates might be a very well-liked environment.
The data do not support this argument. Merrill,
Dakin and Chandler Village had the highest per-
centage of "Excellent" responses to the com-
bined administrative items (i.e., maintenance,
security, rules and regulations). With relatively
little variation among the six dormitories, fifty-
four percent of the students indicated that there
were no, or few, rules that needed improvement.
The greater number of existing rules at Chandler
Village, combined with the same percentage of
students (as at Hampshire College) wanting more
Vol. 7, No: 1 (1980)
rules, suggests that Worcester State students are
comfortable with more administrative structure
than is true at Hampshire. This notion is sup-
ported by two additional student responses. At
Chandler Village almost three times the percen-
tage of students felt existing rules were not suffi-
ciently enforced, as compared with the dor-
mitories at Hampshire (21 percent Chandler and 8
percent Hampshire, total). Secondly, while 14
percent of the total replies indicated a desire for
fewer rules, only 5 percent of the Chandler Village
students mentioned this.
Another factor which would be expected to in-
fluence student satisfaction is the dormitories' so-
cial climate. The responses to the ranking of the
six dorms on a Social Factors index combining
responses to "social interactions" and "sense of
community" corresponds almost perfectly with
the ranking by satisfaction. Greenwich, which
had the highest levels of satisfaction, also had the
highest percentage of excellent responses to the
Social Factors index. Merrill and Dakin were
ranked last on this factor and on overall satisfac-
tion with the dorm.
The importance of social factors in student
satisfaction with their suite and residence was
also supported by correlations between each of
the checklist items related to social factors
(amount of social interaction, sense of commun-
ity, sense of privacy) and satisfaction with the
suite or residence. Each of these correlations (less
than .20) was small but they were significant be-
yond the .001 level. Controlling for sex and year in
school had no effect.
Students may not directly identify (at least on a
questionnaire) a dormitory's physical charac-
teristics as influencing their social lives ; yet those
dormitories with the highest percentage of people
saying they like each other also had the most
common space and planned activities. For
reasons that remain unclear, Prescott students did
not identify their cafeteria as a common space.
To summarize this component of the participa-
tion data, we found low but statistically significant
correlations between the amount of student input
in the original design of the dormitory and current
Housing and Society 13
 student level of satisfaction. It appears that some
of the discrepancy between individual dormitory
ranking on current student satisfaction and a
ranking based on amount of student input in the
original design may stem from different social
climates at the dormitories. These climates are a
function of the number and nature of programs in
the dormitories, and also were related to the pro-
visions of intimate community space (eg., not a
cafeteria or coffee house open to all students, but
a smaller common area mainly used by students
from that dormitory). There is some evidence that
there may be a point of diminishing returns in
increasing student input in the original design of a
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
facility, bu't our data did not allow us to address
this question.
Personalization
An indication of the importance of personaliza-
tion to students was the low but statistically sig-
nificant correlation between students' rating of
the physical environment checklist item "ease of
personalization" and satisfaction with one's suite
(r= .14, df=524, p= .001) and residence (r= .16,
df=524, p= .001). Controlling for sex and year in
school had no effect on the significance level.
Those students who felt it was relatively easy to
personalize their rooms and suites were more
satisfied than those who did not. An indication of
the effect of different levels of personalization (in
terms of amount of money spent) was the signific-
ant correlation found between liking one's bed-
room and the amount of money spent on per-
sonalization (r=.16, df=518, p=.OOl). This re-
lationship held when number of persons in the,
suite and sex were statistically controlled.
The reasons for personalization descri6-ed
below show that people personalized to improve
the environment, not because the environment
was already highly satisfactory.
Types of Changes
Almost 75 percent of all students changed their
room in some way. (For purposes of this analysis,
"personalization" is defined as any modification
of one's environment. Modification ranged from
14 Housing and Society
decorating the walls to building sleeping lofts and
room partitions).
Nearly 50 percent of all the changes reported
involved rearranging furniture. This figure was
inflated by the 73 percent at Chandler Village who
indicated this was how they had changed their
room, compared to 33 percent of the students at
Hampshire.
After rearranging the furniture, the next most
common type of modification was "decorating"
one's room or suite by hanging posters, plants,
bringing bedspreads, etc. Bringing one's own fur-
niture, which is a type of "decoration," was
treated as a separate category. About 9 percent of
the students had brought their own furniture.
Minor modifications, such as building a book-
shelf, were mentioned by 13 percent of the stu-
dents. At the other end of the scale, 1percent of all
the students engaged in some type of major mod-
ification: building a loft or room partition, for
instance. Only .4 percent indicated that they had
painted anything.
About a fourth of the total sample of students
reported spending nothing on modifications.
About 15 percent reported spending fifty dollars
or more, and 12 percent reported spending more
than one hundred dollars personalizing their living
environment (presumably for items like stereo re-
cord players)! Chandler Village, which had more
students from a lower socioeconomic level, had
the smallest percentage (11.9 percent) of students
reporting spending nothing, and the largest per-
centage who reported spending over one hundred
dollars (21.3 percent).
The role of administrative policy seems evident
in the type of modifications that occurred. At
Worcester State College, students were essen-
tially limited to arranging the furniture or de-
corating. These two categories comprised 93 per-
cent of the kinds of modifications mentioned. At
Hampshire College, the range of modifications
allowed was greater, as was their expression.
Sixteen percent of the students at Hampshire re-
ported doing some type of ' 'minor modification, ' ,
compared to none at Worcester College. Given
what turns out to be the generally positive re-
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)

"Decorative P~rsonalization": Selecting and ar-
ranging wall decorations, plants and furniture
(Hampshire ColleRe).
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
"Minor Modification": Designing and building
shelves (Hampshire College).
"Major Modt;u:ation": Designing and building a
sleeping loft (Hampshire College).
Types of Personalization.
Vol. 7, No. I (/980)
sponse by students to changes made by previous
occupants, the limited scope of modifications al-
lowed by Worcester State College regulations
may have a SigniflCallt impact on students' satis-
faction.
In general, three central reasons emerpd for
cha.nging one's room: to make it less sterile and
prettier (36 percent), to make it more functional
(23 percent), and to make it reflect oneself more
(17 percent). These three objectives are not mutu-
ally exclusive. Building a bookshelf can he func-
tional, but quality craftsmanship and a selection
of fine wood may simultaneously make the room
less sterile and more reflective of one's own skills
and values.
Reactions to Previous Modification
Fifty-five percent of the students would object
to changes by previous occupants which were
ugly or which in some way damaged or defaced
the room. Less than 11 percent objected to per-
manent changes. In response to what kinds of
modiflCationsthey would welcome, the largest
percentage said "minor modifications" (22 per-
cent) and "painting" (l3percent). Twelve per-
cent indicated they would welcome any changes
that made the space more "unique". The open
attitude toward major modifications is reflected in
the combined percentage (13 percent) of students
who said they would welcome mlijor modifica-
tions or changes that made the space more spa-
cious.
A better indication of student's attitudes to-
ward changes made by previous occupants was
their reaction to actual' changes in their room or
suite made by previous occupants. Roughly
twenty-one percent of the students indicated that
some changesmacie by previous occupants were
still there when they moved into the room or suite.
Most of tbe changes nlade by previous occup-
ants were minor modifICations (44 percent), al-
though 17 percent of all the students reported
living with m~or modifications made by previous
occupants. Sixteen percent indicated changes
they described as damage or defacement. Sig-
nificantly, both the traditional dormitQries, Mer-
Housing and Society 15
 rill and Dakin, had the highest percentage of stu-
dents who reported damage and defacement (37
percent and 41 percent, respectively). Chandler
Village had the next highest percentage of replies
in this category (25 percent). To what extent this is
a function of the architecture of the buildings, the
age and backgrounds of students, or administra-
tive policy is not clear.
The reactions to changes made by previous oc-
cupants were predominantly positive. Fifty per-
cent of the students reported liking changes made
by previous occupants. If the 20 percent who re-
ported using changes made by previous occupants
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
is added to this figure, 70 percent of the students
who actually experienced changes made by pre-
vious occupants indicated satisfaction or at least
utility with these changes. Nineteen percent re-
ported disliking changes made by previous oc-
cupants. Almost all of these negative responses
were in the dormitories where "change" was re-
ported as damage and defacement - Merrill,
Dakin, and Chandler Village.
Basically, those students who had the oppor-
tunity to personally experience modifications
made by previous students liked them. The data
offer little support for the assumption that each
new generation of occupants wants the dwelling
unit returned to its original - often stark and
institutional - state. In Prescott and Erlfield, the
dormitories with the highest percentage of re-
ported modifications, less than 12 percent of the
students indicated dissatisfaction with what pre-
vious students had done. No student wants to be
forced to live with a previous student's changes
while unable to make their own. The more money
a student actually spent changing his room, the
more the student was opposed to the notion of
returning the room to its original state when he or
she left.
Discussion and Conclusion
In interpreting our results it is worth keeping in
mind that factors other than the original design of
the facility, particularly the way in which it is
managed and the social life it engenders (through
16 Housing and Society
special programs as well as architectural deci-
sions) will influence the satisfaction of subsequent
generations of students. Architects generally
have little control over these factors, even
though their design may have been based on the
assumption that certain furniture systems or ad-
ministrative policies, for example, would co-exist
with their design.
It is also worth noting that while our sample of
dormitories covered a range of student input in
their original design, all of them were designed
with concern for their future occupants. Re-
sponses by the architectural firms and college
administrators to our inquiries about their design
process indicated that there are many ways of
soliciting' 'user" input for the design of a planned
facility. These feedback processes include incor-
porating information from previous evaluation re-
search; having a small committee of three or four
students work with college administrators and ar-
chitects; visiting other dormitories and talking
with student leaders and administrators there; and
doing small surveys eliciting user feedback to
existing facilities. Soliciting vast amounts of in-
formation about user needs and values does not
guarantee that this information will be used as a
basis for design, nor does it necessarily satisfy the
need to create and control one's surroundings.
This information is useful in the original design of
a facility, and can be collected without costing
vast sums of money. Such information, and the
designs resulting from it, complement but do not
substitute for user participation processes which
involve successive generations of users overtime.
The general encouragement of student per-
sonalization of their living environments at
Hampshire College (expressed through adminis-
trative policies and mechanisms such as piling
student's furniture in the middle of the room at the
beginning of the year so they are forced to arrange
it, forcing students to provide their own living and
dining room furniture, allowing some types of
major changes such as lofts, permitting general
recreation and academic activity funds to be spent
on physical renovations) would appear, based on
our data, to be actions that allow students to im-
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
 prove their own quality oflife. For more extensive
user participation to occur over the life of a build-
ing, funds need to be allocated to renovation work
as part of the basic cost of the building. This would
require a different attitude towards new buildings.
The tendency is to ignore problems that appear
immediately because their recognition implies
having made mistakes in initial planning. But the
"perfect" building does not exist, even in theory.
Accepting from the beginning that mistakes will
be made that are serious enough to need to be
rectified immediately, and allocating funds ex-
pressly for this purpose, would go a long way
toward making buildings more responsive and
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
facilitating user participation and local control of
decisions.
Personalization, as a form of continuous user
participation, is essentially the only way in which
all users of a facility can experience some of the
positive effects that the literature has associated
with user participation: creativity, competence,
satisfaction, identification, attachment, etc. Par-
ticularly in institutional environments, where tur-
nover among users is high, the level of involve-
ment personalization entails can be very mean-
ingful. Making decisions about the layout of one's
room or suite (by constructing partitions or lofts,
for example), storage location and type, colors
and furniture, lighting - as well as policies about
the management and use of common space and
facilities - are meaningful because these are the
kinds of environmental decisions most individuals
feel competent to make, and because these are
environmental elements with which one interacts
intensively day in and day out. It is at this level
that individual differences are most manifest, and
the variations among the users greatest. Con-
sequently, it is at this level that individuals should
have most control over these environmental fac-
tors so that the variety of the individuals is ex-
pressed in the variety of the supporting environ-
ment. Personalization works positively in two re-
spects here: it results in functionally and aestheti-
cally responsive environments, and the process of
deciding what changes to make is a social process
that has the potential for stimulating positive so-
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
cial interaction and a sense of community (which
is also related to satisfaction).
For those administrators or architects who as-
sociate personalization with a hodgepodge of
poorly designed changes by people untrained in
design or construction, it must be made clear that
personalization does not necessarily imply
"sweat-equity" or self-built housing (see Turner,
1976, and Warsaw, 1974, for a similar discussion).
For some students, designing and building may be
desirable. For others, working with a designer and
having the change built by someone else, or with
supervision, will be desirable. Wanders man
(1975) found that students preferred working with
an architect to planning their room by themselves.
The point is not who does it,- but who controls it.
The concern that administrators often voice
about the environment becoming visually chaotic
when modifications are encouraged does not
seem warranted on the basis of our data. Most of
the modifications made by Hampshire students
(who had relatively great freedoom to make mod-
ifications) were (typically): arranging furniture,
hanging. posters and other objects on the walls,
and in some cases building storage space for
books,stereos, and other personal items. The
opportunity to make modifications did not result
in huge numbers of students taking advantage of
the opportunity. This is similar to findings in other
studies of college dormitories (Sommer, 1974;
Becker, 1977).
The nature and extent of personalization will be
influenced by a number of different factors. These
include (1) management policies and user's nor-
mative expectations about physical modifica-
tions; (2) user's background and characteristics;
(3) the physical characteristics of the facility (eg.
rooms with high ceilings lend themselves to lofts);
(4) the amount of time the user spends in the
setting and the perceived instrumentality of that
setting for satisfying needs for achievement,
competence, and recognition.
Encouraging personalization and incremental
change in general (Alexander et. aI., 1975) is a
means of fulfilling both types of functions that
user participation can serve: to provide informa-
Housing and Society 17
 tion about user preferences and values and to
allow users to experience real control of their
surroundings. The best way to insure quality envi-
ronments is for college administration or the local
housing authority to make accessible to occup-
ants professional design experience at a reasona-
ble cost. The Community Design Centers (CDC),
organized to increase community access to pro-
fessional design services, are a model that large
institutions might easily modify for their own situ-
ations. The notion of an environmental space
manager (Boutourline, 1970) trained to help oc-
cupants or users identify problems and think
about ways of solving them is another possibility.
The savings from damage and vandalism that
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
occur as a result of residents' greater interest in
maintaining their living environment (see Ward,
1973; there is more evidence in studies of public
housing than in our data) might well finance these
kinds of services.
Design Guidelines
The following guidelines include recommenda-
tions related both to the physical design and ad-
ministration of college dormitories. Both contri-
bute to student satisfaction with their living envi-
ronment, and they are interdependent. The most
concerned and enlightened administrator is li-
mited by and dependent on the kinds of potential
opportunities the physical environment offers.
Similarly, the most flexible and potential-rich de-
sign is limited by and dependent on an administ-
ration that understands this potential and knows
how to play it, in the manner of a musical instru-
ment, to create a desired melody rather than a
series of random sounds.
Administrative Policy:
1. Student modification of their personal living
environments should be encouraged. These
modifications should be able to range from
hanging pictures on the wall and rearranging
existing furniture, to bringing some of one's
own furniture, painting walls, and building
book shelves, partitions, and lofts.
2. The administration should develop a
18 Housing and Society
mechanism to facilitate safe and satisfying stu-
dent modifications. This mechanism should
provide students with access to trained desig-
ners (who may be advanced design students)
and university personnel who have the fol-
lowing roles:
a) Suggest alternative designs students may
not be aware of;
b) Explore with students some of the sociaV
academic implications of the modifications
students propose;
c) Search for modifications that meet student
needs and safety and fire codes. This
should be a mutual problem-solving pro-
cess.
3. Rooms in which major modifications have oc-
curred should be assigned, on a final basis, to
those students who like the particular modifi-
cation. These assignments should occur after
the student who is initially assigned to the
room has been able to personally inspect it.
4. New dormitories or major renovation projects
should always involve students in the design
process. The number of students involved is
not the critical issue, but how they are in-
volved. Using more than one method to collect
information is useful, and students should be
involved in the review of proposed designs as
well as in providing information to determine
design objectives.
Physical Design:
1. The furniture provided by the university
should be largely modular. This allows the stu-
dent maximum freedom to arrange the room
according to his or her own requirements.
2. Rooms should be sufficiently large so that a
minimum of two, and preferably many more,
arrangements of typical furniture are possible.
3. Rooms should have some distinctive charac-
teristic. This may not be the same for all rooms
(by definition).
4. Materials for interior use should be selected
which permit easy hanging of objects, includ-
ing some light furniture such as book cases.
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
 References
Alexander, C. eta aI., 1975. The Oregon Experi-
ment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Becker, F. D., 1977. Housing Messages.
Stroudsberg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutch-
inson & Ross.
Bluestone, I., 1974. "Decision making by work-
ers." Personnel Administration: 19, 26-30.
Boutourline, S., 1970. "The concept of environ-
mental management." In Proshansky, H. eta
a!. (Eds.) Environmental Psychology. New
York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.
Bush-Brown, L., 1969. Garden Blocks for Urban
America. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Downloaded by [Texas State University, San Marcos] at 03:41 19 July 2016
Coniglio, C., 1974. The meaning of personaliza-
tion in residential interiors. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Cornell University.
Eigenbrod, F., 1969. The Effects of Territory and
Personality Compatability on Identity and
Security. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan.
Habraken, N. eta aI., 1976. Variations: The Sys-
tematic Design of Supports. Cambridge:
Laboratory of Architecture and Planning at
MIT.
Habraken, N., 1972. Supports.~ An Alternative to
Mass Housing. Translated from the Dutch by
B. Valkenburg, New York: Praeger.
Hansen, W. and I. Altman, 1976. "Decorating
personal places: a descriptive analysis. " Envi-
ronment and Behavior. Vol. 8, 491-504.
Vol. 7, No.1 (1980)
Lansing, J., Marans, R., and R. Zehner, 1970.
Planned Residential Environments. Ann
Arbor: Institute for Social Research.
Morton, D., 1970. "Students' Village," Progres-
sive Architecture. August 1975, 37-41.
Strauss, G., and E. Rosenstein, 1970. "Workers'
participation: a critical view," Industrial Rela-
tions, 9: 197-214.
Tulin, S., 1977. Norms and management ofspace
in condominium developments. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Cornell University.
Turner, V., 1976. Housing by People, New York:
Pantheon Books.
Van der Ryn, S. and M. Silverstein, 1967. Dorms
at Berkeley. Berkeley, Calif.: UC Center for
Planning and Development Research.
Wandersman, A., 1979. "User participation: a
study of types of participation, effects,
mediators, and individual differences." Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 11: 185-208.
Ward, C. (Ed.), 1973. Vandalism, London: The
Architectural Press.
Warsaw, L., 1974. "Programming for participa-
tion," Industrialization Forum: 45-56.
White, R., 1968. "Motivation reconsidered: the
concept of competence." Psychological Re-
view, 66: 297-333.
Sommer, R., 1974. Tight Spaces. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Housing and Society /9