Journal of Environmental Psychology (1989) 9, 279-296

INFERENCES ABOUT HOMEOWNERS' SOCIABILITY:

IMPACT OF CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS A N D OTHER
CUES

C A R O L M. W E R N E R * , S O N J A P E T E R S O N - L E W I S t and
B A R B A R A B. B R O W N *

* Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, U.S.A. and
t Department of Afro-American Studies, 807, Gladfelter Hall, Temple University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Abstract

Previous research suggests that U.S. residents may use holiday decorations on their
home's exterior to communicate friendliness and cohesiveness with neighbors. In the
present research, we examine whether strangers (naive raters) can accurately identify
the more friendly residents, and what aspects of the homes' exteriors contribute to their
impressions. We also examine the possibility that residents who decorate for Christmas
but who have few friends on the block may be using the decorations and other cues as a
way of communicating their accessibility to neighbors. Participants rated residents
based only on photographs of their home and front yard. Stimulus homes had been
preselected to represent the four cells of a two by two factorial design crossing the
presence/absence of Christmas decorations with the resident's self-rated social contact
with neighbors (low/high). As expected, a main effect for the decorated factor indicated
that raters used Christmas decorations as a cue that the residents were friendly and
cohesive. Decoration interacted with sociability in a complex but interpretable way. In
the absence of Christmas decorations, raters accurately distinguished between the
homes of sociable and nonsociable residents; in open ended comments, they attributed
their impressions to the relatively more 'open' and 'lived in' look of the sociable
residents' homes. When Christmas decorations were present, raters actually attributed
greater sociability to the nonsociable residents, citing a more open appearance as the
basis for their judgments. The results support the idea that residents can use their
home's exterior to communicate attachment and possibly to integrate themselves into a
neighborhood's social activities.

Introduction
W r i t e r s f r o m v a r i o u s disciplines h a v e n o t e d t h a t in m a n y societies, h o m e s r e p r e s e n t
i m p o r t a n t s y m b o l s o f p e r s o n a l a n d c o m m u n i t y identity to their residents ( A l t m a n &
Chemers, 1980; A l t m a n & W e r n e r , 1985; A m a t u r o et al., 1987; B o n n e s et al., 1987;
C o o p e r , 1976; R a p a p o r t , 1969). F u r t h e r m o r e , h o m e s are believed to d o m o r e t h a n
simply e m b o d y the hous/ehold's sense o f i d e n t i t y - - t h e y are also believed to
c o m m u n i c a t e those identities to the o u t s i d e world. A l t h o u g h this l a t t e r h y p o t h e s i s
m a k e s intuitive sense, there is little e m p i r i c a l evidence to s u p p o r t it. I n the p r e s e n t study
we e x a m i n e the extent to which a resident's sociability with n e i g h b o r s is c o m m u n i c a t e d
We thank Irwin Altman for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript, Donald P. Hartmann for
statistical advice, and Bryan Gibson, Lois Haggard, Paul Harris, Benita Kelly and Vince Bracken for help
with coding the qualitative data.

0272-4944/89/040279 + 18 $03.00/0 © 1989 Academic Press Limited

280 C . M . Werner et M.

to naive outsiders via her home's exterior, and what features of the home contribute to
accurate impression formation. The study is part of a larger project on how U.S.
residents can use decorations and upkeep to communicate information about their
cohesiveness and accessibility as a means of integrating themselves into a
neighborhood's social fabric.
Neighbor-oriented sociability can be described in terms of Altman and his
colleagues' theoretical analysis of the home (Altman & Chemers, 1980; Altman &
Gauvain, 1981). They conceive of the social and physical aspects of home as
representing two dialectic processes, individual/communal identity, and residents'
accessibility/inaccessibility to others. In the identity dialectic, homes depict residents'
uniqueness or individualized identity as well as common bonds or identification with a
larger social group. Altman and Gauvain argued that many aspects of homes reflect
this dialectic, including site selection and orientation, construction materials,
architectural style, and so on. They describe practices of many groups around the
world, detailing how community values are expressed in some aspects of the home (e.g.
the use of common materials and design), while individual values are expressed
simultaneously in other aspects (e.g. in the quality of the materials; details and
elaboration of the design).
Empirical evidence for the association of home with communal identities is available
for a limited set of communal variables. A number of studies confirm that features of
the home vary according to social group memberships of the residents. For example,
home appearance, personalization, and upkeep correspond to residents' ethnic identity
(Arreola, 1981; Greenbaum & Greenbaum, 1981), expressions of social class and
lifestyle preferences (Duncan, 1973; Hanson & Hillier, 1982; Kimber, 1973; Laumann
& House, 1972; Pratt, 198 l; Weisner & Weibel, 1981), as well as religious identification
(Oxley et al., 1986).
In the accessibility dialectic, homes are instrumental in regulating the degree of
openness and accessibility that residents display to others. Altman and Gauvain
discussed thresholds and entryways as places where residents could selectively admit or
turn away visitors; in addition, they discussed the proximity and orientation of
dwellings, the use of removable or permanent barriers, the careful use of windows and
other features that could selectively make the home more Or less accessible to outsiders.
In their analyses of homes in Western Europe, Lawrence (1984) and Korosec-Serfaty
and Feeser (1978) also discussed the entry as a semi-permeable boundary with special
features and uses. Brown (1985) extended this discussion to point out that the same
feature might communicate different messages to different audiences, such as
personalizing decorations that might welcome friends and neighbors, but warn a
burglar that this is a well-defended home. Along these lines, Duncan and Duncan
(1976) noted that among one group in India, stark and ill-maintained home exteriors
were considered appropriate, were evaluated positively by network members, but did
not reflect the levels of warmth and hospitality that network members would receive
inside; at the same time, the exteriors did appear to reflect the residents' relative
closedness to outsiders.
Few empirical investigations reveal whether the accessibility or openness of a
resident can be inferred by others. Canter (I 969) found that observers discriminated
homes on the basis of their 'friendliness', although he used plans and line drawings
rather than actual homes in this work. In another study, Sadalla, Burroughs and Quaid
(1980) found that photos of residents' living rooms could convey the residents'
 Impressions of Sociability 281

graciousness and warmth, factors indicative of openness to visitors. And one study
reveals that outsiders can gauge residents' sociability and cohesiveness with neighbors
from photographs of home exteriors (Harris & Brown, 1989).
Although the identity and community dialectics can be distinguished, they also can
contain quite a bit of overlap. In previous investigations with U.S. samples, the present
authors have examined relationships among house decor and residents' accessibility
and communal identity. In that work, accessibility to neighbors has been inferred from
actual contacts and friendships with neighbors, and communal identity has been
indexed via attitudes expressing attachment to the neighborhood and a sense of
cohesiveness with neighbors (i.e. desire to remain on the block; feelings of belonging).
Brown and Werner (1985) found strong associations between having many social
contacts on the block and feeling attached to the neighborhood. Furthermore, the
presence of Halloween decorations was a good predictor of both of these variables,
suggesting that such decorating may be linked to both the accessibility and identity
dialects. Werner et al. (1985) reported similar associations among Christmas
decorations, depth of friendships, and attachment to the block. In addition, Werner,
Brown and Peterson-Lewis (1984) found that residents who put their Christmas
decorations on the entrance to the home had more friends and expressed more positive
attitudes than those who put their decorations away from the entrance. We argued that
deliberately placing decorations at the entrance could be seen as a sign of welcome to
neighbors, and thus symbolized both cohesiveness with and openness to neighbors.
Brown and Werner (1985) speculated that decorations could be part of a dynamic
process wherein decorations actually led to increased contact with neighbors and
attachment to the neighborhood. Thus, a resident might have put up decorations to
express cohesiveness, the decorations then served as cues that helped elicit visits from
neighbours. These visits could lead to friendships and greater cohesiveness, and
perhaps to regular, predictable and even synchronized decorating, and to the beginning
of the cycle once again. In terms of the present line of thought, the decorations may
have been put up to serve community/identity functions, but their presence may have
also symbolized and served accessibility functions.
This link between residents' expressed cohesiveness and their neighbors' perceptions
of their accessibility is the focus of the present investigation: do others attribute
greater sociability to residents who decorate at Christmas than to those who do not
decorate? Thus, we again use holiday decorations as a cue to residents' openness to and
identification with neighbors. Whereas in the previous study we discovered that
decorators were more accessible and more likely to express feelings of communality
with neighbors, in the present study we hypothesize that those who decorate will be
perceived as more open to and communal with neighbors.
A number of studies suggest that features of the home besides holiday decorations
may also communicate openness and communality, but the diversity of features and
communal identities suggests that these features may be quite variable across homes
(Arreola, 1981; Duncan, 1973; Greenbaum & Greenbaum, 1981; Hanson & Hillier,
1982; Kimber, 1973; Laumann & House, 1972; Oxley et al., 1986; Pratt, 1981, Weisner
& Weibel, 1981).
Consequently, in the present investigation in addition to comparing decorated and
nondecorated homes, we compared homes of residents known to be active or inactive
in their social relationships with neighbors. In contrast to most research on
environmental judgments that uses only rating scales, we also asked participants to
 282 C . M . Werner et a/.

discuss the reasons for their judgments so that we could get a more comprehensive view
of the cues that convey openness and communality, Thus we examined whether
resident openness can be gauged by judges, and what features lead to that judgment.
We conducted an impression formation study using a two
(Decorated/Nondecorated for Christmas) by two (Resident's Self-described Social
Contact: Low/High) factorial design. Naive raters were asked to study pictures of
homes and to estimate how accessible and communal to neighbours the resident was.
We hypothesized a main effect for decoration, with residents of decorated homes being
perceived as more accessible and communal with neighbors. Although there was a
possibility of a significant main effect for self-rated social contact, we were more
confident in hypothesizing a significant interaction such that raters would see
differences between the homes of socially active and inactive residents, but these
differences would be obscured by the presence of Christmas decorations. Thus, there
should be no difference in ratings of residents in decorated homes, but with respect to
nondecorated homes, socially active residents would be rated as more attached and
accessible than less socially active residents. We also asked people to indicate what
features of the homes had influenced their ratings, and used these open-ended
comments to clarify and add substance to the questionnaire ratings. And finally, we
asked respondents to indicate their confidence in their ratings, and hypothesized that
the Christmas decorations would enhance raters' confidence.
Brown and Werner (1985), Oxley et al. (1986), and Werner et aL (1984) have all argued
that holiday decorating in the U.S. is in part an expression of cohesiveness with
neighbors. In this respect, the factorial design used in the present study distorts the
natural associations between decorating and sociability (in a typical neighborhood,
most residents should be in the nondecorated/unsociable or decorated/sociable cells),
however it does allow us to test an additional hypothesis concerning residents in
transition. We suspect that residents who decorate but know few of their neighbors will
hold more cohesive attitudes than residents who know few neighbors and do not
decorate. That is, it may be that the nonsocial decorators are actually interested in
getting to know more people in their neighborhood--are interested in becoming
'socially active' residents--and they may use Christmas decorations and other cues to
express this interest. An additional purpose of the present study, then, is to examine the
hypothesis that the home exteriors of low contact/decorators will be seen as more
similar to those of socially active residents than they are to homes of low
contact/nondecorating residents.
Method
Participants
There were 58 male and female volunteer undergraduate students who participated for
extra credit in their Introductory Psychology classes. Data from an additional six
participants were omitted because of errors made when using the rating forms. Most of
the participants lived in (and indeed had grown up in) the city from which the stimulus
homes were drawn and therefore were in a position to draw inferences about residents
from the home's exterior and context.
Design and stimulus materials
A repeated measures design was used such that all subjects viewed four slides, one from
each cell defined by the two (resident's sociability) by -two (home decorated) factorial
design. In order to increase the generality of the results and to provide a diverse array of
 Impressions of Sociability 283

homes for the open-ended comments, four examples of each cell were used, resulting in
a four-level between groups factor: set of slides. The decision o f which homes to assign
to each set was done randomly with the proviso that the sets be approximately equal
with respect to the presence o f cars (thought to be a salient cue regarding income
and whether the resident was at home). Except for the presence of Christmas
decorations and exclusion of one home with a dog in the front yard, no other physical
features were involved in the selection of stimulus homes or their assignment to groups.

Selection o f stimulus homes

A randomly selected subset o f homes included in the Brown and Werner (1985) study
was photographed at Christmas time. Two views were taken: a close-up of the
entrance and a full view of the home and yard, including the parkway and edge of the
street. Size and angles varied somewhat from photograph to photograph in order to
obtain the best and most comprehensive view of each home.
Approximately one month later, interviews were conducted with the female heads of
the households. The interviews provided the information on neighboring relationships
with others on the block, as well as attitudes expressing cohesiveness with neighbors.
F r o m the sample of 32 photographs, 16 homes were selected that represented the four
cells in the Self-rated Social Contact by Decorated factorial design.
Self-ratings of social contact were made on a 10-item scale (alpha = 0.89) tapping
different neighboring relations varying in depth from 'know by sight' to 'consider to be
intimate friends'. Respondents used a m a p of their block to indicate which
relationships they had with each neighbor; mean scores represent simultaneously the
extensiveness and depth of contacts with neighbors. A two-way A N O V A revealed that
the 16 stimulus homes did differ significantly and appropriately on the neighboring
score (see Table 1), Main effect for sociability: F(1, 12) = 57.35, p < 0.001). There was
also a main effect for decorated, F(1,12)=8.82, p < 0 . 0 1 3 , but no interaction,
F(1, 12) < 1).
A N O V A s on other data revealed that the four cells were comprised o f quite similar
families and houses; there were no differences in levels of education, family size, square
footage of the home, number o f rooms, or years of residence. There were no members

TABLE 1
Social contact and social cohesiveness among residents' of the stimulus homes

Decorated Undecorated

Low Low
Sociable sociability Sociable sociability

Contact
Extent and depth of social contact 0-89 0.44 0.74 0.25
Cohesiveness
Satisfaction with block as place to live 5-55 5.65 5-45 4"55
Perceived sense of community on block 5"50 5.75 5.50 4'19
Identification with block 6"50 4-85 4'80 4'95

Note: See Brown and Werner (1985) for more details about these composite scales. For the social contact
scale, scorescould range from 0.0 to 1.0,and indicate simultaneously,the extent and depth of friendships with
neighbors. For the cohesivenessscales, scores could range from one to seven, with higher scores indicating
more positive attitudes.
284 C . M . Werner e t M.

of religions that do not celebrate Christmas in the sample; in 10 homes the residents
were Mormon, the dominant local religion.
Residents in transition
We hypothesized that identifying a group of people with relatively low social contacts
who decorate for holidays may provide an opportunity to study a group in transition
from low to high contact. This appeared to be the case in the sample of homes used as
stimuli in the present study. Examination of a single item in the self-ratings indicated
that the low contact decorators wanted 'to get to know better' a higher percentage of
their neighbors than did low contact nondecorators (32% vs 8%, t(6) = 1"58,p < 0.07).
In addition, although the differences are not significant statistically, the low contact
decorators had been in residence fewer years (3.75) than had the other groups (high
contact decorators, 5.75; high contact nondecorators, 5.50; low contact nondecorators,
6.75). It is interesting to note that the low contact decorators were more similar to the
two high contact groups in the numbers of Mormon residents (each had three members
of the LDS religion, whereas the remaining group had only one).
As might be expected given their greater interest in getting to know more
neighbors, nonsociable people who decorated held more positive attitudes toward the
block than nonsociable residents who did not decorate. Indeed, as can be seen in Table
1, for questions of satisfaction with the block and perceived sense of community,
nonsociable residents who decorated had attitudes as positive as the two groups of
socially active residents. Although the means provide an intriguing picture of the four
groups, separate two by two ANOVA's yielded no significant main or interactive
effects.
Dependent variables
Participants made ratings of social cohesiveness and accessibility on the same seven-
point scales as had been used by the residents themselves in Brown (1983) and Brown
and Werner (1985); some items were written in positive and some in negative forms,
however in our descriptions, all are stated in the positive form. Cohesiveness items
tapped the extent to which raters thought that the resident would feel bonded to the
block and be an integral part of the neighborhood (e.g. participates in neighborhood
activities; feels responsible for things which happen on the block). Accessibility items
tapped the extent to which raters thought that the resident would know neighbors and
would welcome them into her home and yard (considers the neighbors to be close or
intimate friends; enjoys having neighbors in for social visits). In addition, there were 11
bi-polar adjectives selected specifically for the present study (e.g. warm/cold,
open/closed, friendly/unfriendly). Factor and reliability analyses indicated that raters
used the cohesiveness and accessibility items as a single construct, resulting in a single
scale comprised of 25 items. Cronbach's alphas were calculated separately for each
condition, and averaged 0.92 (range: 0"91-0.93). In the remainder of the manuscript, we
use the terms 'perceived sociability' 'sociability', 'open/sociable', among others to refer
to this dependent variable.
In order to avoid the possibility that impressions of sociability were not made
autonomously but were based on other impressions of the residents, we included a set
of items designed to provide discriminant validity. These five items were intermixed
with the cohesiveness/accessibility items and included such bi-polar adjectives as
wealthy, creative, and educated. Factor and reliability analyses indicated a single scale
with an average Cronbach's alpha of 0.75 (range across the four conditions was 0"63 to
0.85; an additional six items were omitted because they did not comprise a coherent
 Impressions of Sociability 285

scale). Discriminant validity would be implied if the independent variables had a

different impact on this dependent variable than on the open/sociable scale.

Procedure
Participants came into the laboratory in small groups (usually six to ten people) and
were told that we were conducting a study of how people formed impressions of
neighbors based only on the appearance of their home and yard. They were told to
imagine that they were a new resident on a block containing the four homes they were
about to see, and to rate the residents on the questionnaire items. The two views of each
home were presented side by side (close up ofentryway and full view of home and yard)
until all ratings had been completed. Raters were given as much time as necessary to
form and record their impressions. Two groups of participants saw each set of
slides; the order of presentation was reversed for the two groups, however there were
insufficient numbers of participants to use order as a factor in the design.

Open-ended comments
After making their ratings, participants wrote out 'the two or three things that most
influenced [their] impression o f the resident'. A two-step process was used to develop a
general picture of these comments that reflected specific features or 'characteristics' o f
homes and yards (e.g. color scheme; shape of bushes). These characteristics were then
combined into more general categories. The general philosophy behind this process
was to allow the characteristics and general categories to emerge from the comments
and only to propose a structure after a full count had been made of the characteristics.
That is, rather than deciding a priori that we would look for comments about upkeep
or landscaping and then only code comments that fit with our expectations, we tried to
use all of the comments provided by participants. We then sorted them into
characteristics and general categories that made sense in terms of the whole set of
comments, our knowledge of social conventions regarding houses and yards, and
categories used in previous research.
Participants' evaluative comments were summed into four general qualities. (To be
conservative, comments whose evaluative tone could not be discerned and
characteristics that were not mentioned were assigned scores of zero). The four
qualities or categories are: openness and accessibility; neatness and upkeep; traces of
presence/looks 'lived in'; and attractiveness. The four categories were based in part on
previous research indicating that 'neatness' and 'traces indicating that residents were
home' were correlated with residents' attachment to the neighborhood, or social
cohesiveness (Brown, 1983). Openness/accessibility was designated as a category
because of its central importance to the present study. Attractiveness was included
because of the possibility that people would keep their homes and yards attractive in
order to indicate accessibility to and cohesiveness with neighbors (see Oxley et al., 1986,
for similar reasoning).
The category labeled 'open and accessible' was comprised of a total o f eight
characteristics all relating to the idea that the house was easy to identify, easy to get or
see into, or the residents were accessible to neighbors: 'windows' (e.g. many, large,
curtains open, etc.), 'large house numbers', 'house close to street', 'house close to others
on block', 'landscaping does not obscure the house', 'entryway inviting', 'porch light left
on', and 'no fence', 'Neatness' was comprised of'sidewalks shoveled clear of snow' and a
single category that included any comments about neatness and upkeep or their
opposite ('icicles [left hanging above door] are lame', 'snow piled up on car...', 'a bit
286 C.M. Werner et al.

disorderly--knocked over things on the steps', 'very nice and clean looking', and so on).
'Traces of presence' or 'looks lived in' was comprised of four items: 'footprints in the
snow', 'garage door left open', 'car present' and a general category representing 'lived in'
(most items were stated negatively, e.g. 'looked abandoned', 'cold' 'empty' 'lonely',
'gloomy'). Attractiveness was comprised of evaluative statements made about four
items: color of house or trim, attractiveness or extensiveness of landscaping,
attractiveness of exterior decor, and attractiveness of architectural features (including
building materials).
Thus, there was a two-step process for deriving the four general categories. First, the
individual comments were combined into 18 different characteristics, and then these
characteristics were combined into the four categories. An additional category
specified a priori was 'Christmas decorations' (see below). A second rater coded the
comments from 64% of the participants, yielding a Cohen's kappa of 0.87, well above
the recommended standard of 0.60 (Hartmann, 1982). Also high (0"89) is an alternative
reliability index based only on perceived occurrences (Winter, 1973). Four additional
raters assigned the characteristics to the categories with, on average, 84% agreement
compared to the 25% agreement that would occur by chance. The high degree of
agreement at both steps in the process supports these as reliable and conceptually valid
categories.
For 'open', 'neat', 'attractive' and 'lived in', data used in analyses were the mean
scores in each of these categories. These scores could range from - 1 to + 1, with a
negative 1 indicating that 100% of the people had made negative comments about all
of the characteristics in that group, and a positive 1 indicating that 100% of the people
had made positive comments about all of the characteristics in that group. In most
cases, both positive and negative comments had been made, and a positive sign
indicates that the bulk were favorable, whereas a negative sign indicates that the bulk
were negative.
Comments about Christmas decorations were coded 0 if no mention was made, and
+ 1 if any mention was made of the Christmas decorations (e.g. 'nice wreath'). Three
people explicitly noted that the Christmas decorations were missing from one or more
homes (e.g. 'no Christmas spirit'), however, this was too infrequent to be useful in
analyses, and such comments were assigned scores of 0. Similarly, although a few
respondents made comments about the creativity or attractiveness of the decorations,
this was too infrequent to aid interpretation of this category.
In part because of missing data (four of the homes did not elicit comments for certain
categories) and the resulting zero variances, the coded data did not meet the
assumptions of MANOVA and they were analysed instead by five separate ANOVA's
that selectively omitted the unusable groups. In order to protect against spurious
findings, we specified a priori that the only effects considered would be the interactions
between sociability and decorating. The analyses of these open-ended responses will be
presented after the closed-response ratings have been considered.

Results

Rating scales
A four (Group of stimulus homes) by two (Decorated/Undecorated) by two (Self-rated
Sociable/Unsociable Resident) between and within subjects multivariate analysis of
 Impressions of Sociability 287

variance was used to analyse the evaluative ratings. Decorated and Sociability were
within subjects factors. The dependent variables were: Perceived sociability; perceived
wealth and status; and confidence in judgments. All multivariate tests are Pillais trace
tests, and all post-hoc contrasts are by Tukey's H S D using the univariate error terms.
Although we anticipated different patterns to the three dependent variables, M A N O V A
analyses were used as a conservative strategy.*
Perceived status. Because perceptions of wealth and status are used to demonstrate
discriminant validity, those data will be presented first. As expected, the ratings of
wealth and status Were quite complicated, and included significant univariate F's for
every interaction involving the G r o u p factor. Thus, the variability in homes above and
beyond the selection variables (i.e. the independent variables) was noticed and was
translated into different impressions o f residents' status, occupation, education, and so
forth. Detailed presentation of these results is beyond the scope of the present paper,
however, this variable has served its purpose: The greater complexity of results
indicates that the more straightforward ratings of sociability are not simply the result
of a halo effect having its origin in perceptions of wealth and prestige. That is, the fact
that the discriminant items varied with set of slides whereas--as reported b e l o w - - t h e
sociability items did not vary with slide set, supports the idea that perceptions of wealth
and status are influenced by idiosyncratic features of the homes whereas perceptions of
sociability are influenced by more universal characteristics. (We also note t h a ~
according to the reliability analyses--this dependent variable contains more error
variance, and it should therefore be more difficult to achieve significant relationships
between it and other variable.)
Confidence in judgments. Participants were only moderately certain a b o u t the
correctness of their judgments; the overall certainty rating was 4.4, just about the
midpoint of the seven-point scale. In contrast to expectations, the confidence with which
participants made their ratings was not enhanced by the presence of Christmas
decorations, univariate F(1, 54) < 1. Indeed, there were no significant univariate F's for
confidence judgments (except see note, Table 2).
Perceived sociability (rating scales). As hypothesized, there was a significant main
effect for Decorated, such that residents of homes with Christmas decorations were
rated as significantly more open and sociable than residents whose homes did not have
decorations (see Table 2), Multivariate F ( 3 , 5 2 ) = 12.29, p < 0 . 0 0 1 , Univariate
F(1, 54) = 7"59,p < 0.008. More important, Decoration interacted with self-rated Social
contact (Multivariate F(3, 5 2 ) = 9-53, p < 0-001, Univariate F(1, 54) for perceived
sociability = 24.99, p < 0.001). Examination of the cell means indicated two sources to
this effect. As expected, a m o n g nondecorated homes, socially active residents were
accurately identified as being more sociable and open than socially less active residents.
Thus, in the absence of Christmas decorations, raters could detect differences in the
homes o f - - a n d make accurate inferences about socially active and inactive residents.

* The first data analysis yielded univariate homogeneity of variance tests indicating acceptable levels of
homogeneity,all Cochran's C tests,p > 0.19. However,the analysisalso indicated that one of the groups had
a singular variance covariance matrix. A comparison of two MANOVA'S,one including and one omitting
the singular cell, indicated no differenceswith respect to significant multivariate effects,one differencewith
respect to univariate effects,and no differences in the patterns of means (the sizes of the multivariate and
univariate Fs did change a little, with some increasingand others decreasing). For these reasons, and in order
to include as many participants and homestylesas possible,we present the results based on all four groups of
slides; the single conflicting univariate F was ignored.
 288 C.M. Werner et M.

TABLE 2
Mean scores on rating scales and open-ended comments as afunction o f Christmas decorations and
self-rated sociability

Decorated Undecorated

Low Low Interaction

Sociable sociability Sociable sociability F(1, 54)

Rating scales
open/sociable 4-08 ac 4.65 b 4'48 bC 3"76" 24"99~
wealth/status 4.57 "° 5"12 c 4"57 ~a 4-14 e 21-15.+
confidence 4.12 4-67 4'59 4.28 §
Open-ended comments**
open/accessible -0.039 ° 0'013 b 0'024 b -0-060" 22-82~
neat/cared for 0-009" 0.095 "c - 0"009" - 0" 155 ab 4-57*
traces/lived in 0'038 a 0-135" 0.077 a -0.115 b 17.76:~
attractive 0.026 bc 0.115 b - 0 " 0 4 7 "c -0"115" 8"21t
Christmas
decorations 0-333 0.422 Sociability M E : F(1, 54) < 1

* p < 0-04; # p < 0,006; ~ p < 0.001.

Within each row, means with at least one common subscript do not differ (Tukey's HSD, alpha = 0,05). In
traces/lived in, the critical difference is 0164; the obtained difference between the first and last groups is 0.153,
which we estimated to be a marginally significant difference.
§ This univariate F, while significant for the total sample, was not significant in the analysis that excluded the
singular cell, and so is ignored.
** One home received no comments regarding attractiveness and four received no comments regarding a
'lived in' look, resulting in zero variances for the relevant cells. Because of the repeated measures design, none
of the data from groups seeing these homes could be used, and therefore one group was omitted from analysis
of attractiveness and three groups were omitted from analysis of'lived in'. Means and F for 'attractive' are
based on 48 participants, df's for the interaction are (1,45); means and F for 'lived in' are based on 13
participants, df's for interaction are (1, 12). Examination of the means for all homes (where a 'no comment'
was equivalent to a score of '0' or 'neutral'), indicated similar patterns to those reported above.

The other source of the Decorated by sociability interaction was a significant

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s o c i a l l y a c t i v e a n d less a c t i v e r e s i d e n t s i n h o m e s t h a t did h a v e
C h r i s t m a s d e c o r a t i o n s , p < 0.05. I n t h i s case, h o w e v e r , it w a s t h e s o c i a l l y less a c t i v e
r e s i d e n t s w h o w e r e r a t e d as a p p e a r i n g m o r e o p e n a n d s o c i a b l e t h a n t h e i r m o r e a c t i v e
counterparts. Thus, in contrast to the hypothesis that participants would not
discriminate between socially active and inactive residents' homes if both were
d e c o r a t e d , t h e y a c t u a l l y r a t e d t h e less a c t i v e r e s i d e n t s ' h o m e s a s a p p e a r i n g m o r e o p e n . *

Open-ended remarks
Examination of the open-ended comments helped us to interpret the ratings of both
n o n d e c o r a t e d a n d d e c o r a t e d h o m e s . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n , w e first d i s c u s s t h e
nondecorated homes, comparing comments made about sociable and nonsociable
r e s i d e n t s ' h o m e s , a n d t h e n give a m o r e d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e d e c o r a t e d h o m e s ,
m a k i n g t h e s a m e c o m p a r i s o n s . T w o h o m e s o f e a c h t y p e a r e i l l u s t r a t e d in F i g u r e s 1

* Except for a Slide set by sociability interaction, Multivariate F(9, 162)= 5-15, p <0.001; Univariate
F(3, 54) = 7.22, p < 0.001, there were no other significant effects involving this dependent variable. The effect
will not be considered here because it is not central to the present hypotheses and does not contradict the
more important sociability by decorated interaction; however detailg of the results are available from the
authors.
 Impressions of Sociability 289

ii

FIGURE 1. Nondecorated: unsociable residents.

through 4. To protect residents' identities, only the entryways are shown, so the figures
provide some though not all cues on which judgments a n d comments were made.

Nondecorated homes. When using the rating scales, participants evidenced clear
discrimination between socially active and inactive residents when the homes were not
decorated for Christmas, and these impressions were paralleled by the open ended
comments. For nondecorated homes, analyses indicated that homes of socially active
residents were described as more open and more 'lived in' than the homes of socially
less active residents. There were no significant differences in the extent to which

FIGURE2. Nondecorated: sociable residents.

290 C.M. Werner e t al.

participants commented about upkeep and neatness in these homes, but comments
tended to be more negative than positive. Similarly, there was no difference in
comments regarding attractiveness, however both sociable and nonsociable homes
elicited more negative than positive comments. Because these numbers are averages
across all characteristics in a category and raters rarely made more than one comment
per category, their absolute size is quite small; however their signs and relative
magnitude do present interpretable patterns. The general picture that emerges is t h a t - -
among those who did not display Christmas decorations--the homes of socially active
people were seen as open and 'lived-in', whereas homes of socially nonactive people
were seen as relatively closed and abandoned; homes of both groups were regarded as
somewhat messy and unattractive.
Decorated homes. When using the rating scales to describe residents of decorated
homes, participants rated the socially active residents as being less open and sociable
than the socially inactive residents. This finding has two interpretations that can be
addressed with the open-ended responses. One interpretation is that a Christmas
decoration was such a strong cue that it actually overwhelmed the other more negative
features of socially inactive i'esidents' homes. If this is true, then the open-ended
comments about these homes should parallel the comments made about the
nondecorated homes (i.e. sociable residents' homes described as more 'open' and 'lived-
in') except that there should be more comments about the Christmas decorations on the
nonsociable residents' homes. An alternative interpretation is that it is not the
Christmas decorating but some other aspect of the homes that led to the different
ratings. Thus, as argued previously, socially less active people who decorate at
Christmas are just as attached to the block as socially active residents, and may use
their home and yard to communicate this attachment to their neighbors. This pattern

!~U ~i~!~!!~ilI ~i? ~

FIGURE 3. Decorated: unsociable residents (desire more contact with neighbors).

 Impressions of Sociability 291

FIGURE4. Decorated: sociable residents.

would show up in raters making more favorable comments about the less socially
active residents' homes, but no difference in allusions to Christmas decorations.
Examination of the open-ended comments about the two groups of decorated
homes tends to support the latter speculation. Although there were no differences in the
frequencies of comments regarding attractiveness, upkeep, or appearing lived in,
homes of socially less active residents tended to elicit more comments related to
openness, p < 0"04. There was a tendency for raters to mention more frequently the
Christmas decorations on the low social contact homes, however, the difference was
not significant, F(1, 54)< 1. Thus, these analyses suggest that attributions o f greater
sociability to socially inactive than socially active decorators stems not from any
especially noticeable, remarkable, or numerous Christmas decorations, but more likely
from the perception that these residents simply had more open appearing homes.

Residents in transition
Because of our overriding interest in the perceived meaning of Christmas decorations,
in the above analyses we examined sociability as a function of whether the resident had
or had not decorated for Christmas. In particular, we examined impressions of
decorators, and found few differences between comments made about socially active
and inactive residents, supporting the idea that the latter group is in a transition from
low to high contact with neighbors. Further insights about the psychology of the
socially inactive decorators are available via comparisons of that group with the
socially inactive nondecorators. I f the socially inactive decorators are indeed using their
home exteriors to express cohesiveness with neighbors, (a) our naive raters should rate
the decorators as being more sociable on the rating scales; and (b) in their open-ended
comments, the participants should describe the two sets of homes quite differently.
This was the case. As can be seen in Table 2, socially inactive residents who decorated
were rated as being more sociable than socially inactive residents who did not decorate.
This difference in ratings was echoed in participants' comments about the two groups
of homes. Decorated homes were described as being relatively more open, more lived
in, more attractive, and more neat and cared for (all differences significant at p < 0.05,
except for neat, which is marginally significant). These results are congruent with the
view that the socially inactive decorators are very different from socially inactive
292 C.M. Werner et al,

nondecorators; they are interested in getting to know more people in their

neighborhood--are interested in becoming socially active residents--and may be using
attractive, open, and neat decor as well as Christmas decorations to express this
interest.

Manifestations of accessibility
Although the general categories of comments are useful in testing hypotheses and
making comparisons between groups, they do not explain the physical mechanisms for
creating open and accessible appearances (or closed and inaccessible appearances).
Examination of the comments house by house indicated first and foremost that
different characteristics were salient for each home; although two homes might be rated
as equally open, the reasons for those ratings were often quite different. This pattern
reflects the richness and importance of using multiple stimulus homes, but also suggests
that different characteristics may have emerged if a different group o f stimulus homes
had been used. Indeed, in some cases, it may be a gestalt or total configuration that
leads to an open or closed appearance rather than any particular characteristics. With
these caveats in mind, we present in Table 3 a general summary of characteristics used
to describe open homes.
The comments are presented without regard to their frequency, but instead with
respect to the features' degree of modifiability. So aspects of the architecture and site
selection are not modifiable, and should be considered when the home is originally
purchased. Features requiring major expenditures of time, effort, and money are
somewhat modifiable (e.g. paint color, major landscaping), and day to day activities are
the most modifiable o f all. For individuals who might want to utilize this information
for creating open appearances, this table indicates that there are many simple and
TABLE 3
Comments made about open-appearing houses

(1) Fixed features (architecture, context)

A-- Many windows facing front
B-- Door accessible from street
C-- House towards front of lot
D-- Other homes close by
(2) Modifiable features (decorative aspects)
A - Vivid but not flashy colors
B-- Light colored door
C-- Curtains evident
D - - Interesting landscaping
E-- Landscape does not obscure house
(3) Easily modifiable (apparent usage)
A-- Upkeep
1. Walks and driveway cleared of snow
2. Shrubbery neatly trimmed
3. Paint, siding, etc. in good repair
4. No clutter on porch
B-- 'Lived-in' look
1. Curtains open
2. Personalizing objects in view
3. Cars visible
4. Footprints in snow
 Impressions of Sociability 293

relatively inexpensive cues that can be used in this neighborhood to signal an interest
in meeting neighbors and becoming integrated into social activities on the block
(e.g. simple cues that the resident is home such as visible but opened curtains, open
garages; shoveled walks; neat and well-groomed exterior).

Summary and Discussion

As hypothesized, naive viewers were able to make accurate inferences about residents'
sociability and openness. The main effect for Christmas decorations indicated t h a t - -
for this neighborhood and set of participants--these holiday decorations were
interpreted as a sign o f the residents' cohesiveness and contact with neighbors. Indeed
in their open-ended comments, almost half (27) of the 58 participants mentioned the
Christmas decorations on at least one of the decorated homes; several said explicitly
that the decorations were done for the neighbors. The interaction between social
contact and decorations indicated that other cues also contributed to perceptions of
sociability. Thus, viewers accurately discriminated between socially active and inactive
residents in the absence of decorations. They cited a seeming openness and a lived-in
appearance as the reasons for their judgments.
Viewers rated socially inactive decorators as appearing more sociable than socially
active decorators. By examining raters' open-ended comments, we were able to
discount the hypothesis that Christmas decorations might have been a salient cue in the
context of an otherwise unfriendly looking home. Instead, comments indicated that
decorated homes of people who did not know many of their neighbors were more open
looking than the decorated homes o f people who knew many of their neighbors. A
comparison to socially inactive nondecorators indicated that socially inactive
decorators were rated as appearing more sociable, and that their homes were described
in open-ended comments as being more neat, open and attractive.
This pattern of results is consistent with low contact/decorators' stated attitudes of
cohesiveness towards the block and interest in knowing more neighbors, and fits with
our description of them as being residents in transition. Thus, these individuals did not
know many of their neighbors, but they liked them and the neighborhood as much as
residents who knew many neighbors; furthermore, they liked them and the neighbor-
hood more than their nondecorating counterparts (i.e. the low contact/nondecorating
residents). These differing attitudes were communicated to the viewers through a
variety of cues, including the presence of Christmas decorations.
In summary, the results support the primary hypothesis that Christmas decorations
in this community can be 'read' by outsiders as evidence of social cohesiveness, and
furthermore, that a 'resident in transition' may use her home's exterior to communicate
her desire to interact with neighbors.
Our confidence in these fi~adings is enhanced by an eclectic research strategy that
included both judgment scales and qualitative ratings, a diverse array of homes, four
different homes to represent each 'type' of resident, existing rather than artificially
created stimulus homes, and multiple naive participants and trained raters. We also
note that religious preference of the resident seems not to control decorating in the
group of stimulus residents, so decorating for religious reasons does not provide a
viable alternative hypothesis to our proposal that decorations serve communicative
functions.
At the same time, there is a question as to whether the sociability/accessibility cues
 294 C.M. Werner e t al.

identified in the present study would be relevant in other kinds of housing, in other U.S.
cities, or in other countries. In accord with a contextual approach to research, we
assume that some of the cues would generalize to other settings, but that others are
unique to this one, and only empirical research can distinguish between the two.
Indeed, one challenge for new residents may be in identifying and using the significant
cues of their new neighborhood. This may help them to signal an interest in friendship,
but also to dispel neighbors' concerns that this person 'might not fit in'.
In addition, it would be interesting to know the extent to which individuals can
accurately identify sociability when it is manifested through another culture's semantic
code. That is, if the achievement of individual/community identity and accessibility/
inaccessibility are universal processes, individuals may be able to sense these latent
messages despite the diversity of their manifestations.

Implications for Theory and Practice

A fundamental assumption of this research is that homes reflect the dialectic processes
of individual/community identity and accessibility/inaccessibility to neighbors. By
including some items that explicitly tapped raters' impressions of communal attitudes
and activities and other items that explicitly tapped perceived accessibility, our
methodology made it possible to measure these processes separately. However, as
proposed by Gauvain et al. (1983), data analyses indicated a single general scale. Those
authors noted that among Egyptian Nubians the exterior of the home was adorned
with highly decorated plates; they suggested that not only did the plates reflect both of
these dialectics, but furthermore that they contained both sides of each dialectic. Thus,
the existence of the plates symbolized unity with the community, but the particular
style and location represented the resident's unique identity. Furthermore, the plates
were removed when the family was in mourning, signifying that they wished to be
alone, so the presence and absence of the plates were a cue to the residents' accessibility
or inaccessibility to visitors.
This does not mean that it would not be possible to distinguish between symbols of
accessibility and those of cohesiveness, but more likely that the two always co-occur at
the level of neighboring relations: People who are friends with their neighbors feel
attached to the neighbourhood. On the other hand, if the target of communality were
outside the neighborhood (such as a religious or professional organization), it would be
possible to see homes with relevant symbols of communality but no sign of
accessibility. Similarly, a residence that also served as a business might exhibit various
symbols of openness and accessibility without necessarily exhibiting signs of
cohesiveness with the neighborhood or any other group.
The study also has implications for practice. Table 3 provides a listing of cues that
residents can use if they wish to appear more accessible to neighbors. As noted above,
this does not mean that these are universally agreed upon cues: other observers may use
different cues in making judgments about residents' sociability. Similarly, there may be
other cues that signal sociability, such as the use of different cues in different
neighborhoods and countries, or the use of cues that are only evident during certain
times of the year, such as children's toys and working sprinklers that are only visible
during temperate weather (cf. Brown & Altman, 1983). Indeed, evidence from related
work indicates that residents who have chairs and tables on the front porch or who
spend a great deal of time outside working in their yards are seen as more sociable by
 Impressions of Sociability 295

their neighbors (Oxley, Haggard, Werner & Altman, unpublished data). Anecdotal
evidence also supports the idea that homes with porches appear more able to foster
social interaction. Philadelphia families left homeless by a disastrous fire rejected the
city's proposed replacement homes, and insisted that they be redesigned to include
front porches. In summary, then, this study provides some but not by any means
definitive information about what cues contribute to images of sociability.
And finally, we should mention that the same physical feature may provide more
than one kind of information. Thus, porches m a y convey information about
sociability, but they can also convey information about surveillance opportunities. The
latter cue can communicate increased safety to residents but can also deter burglary
and other kinds of criminal activity. Thus, the total meaning of a physical feature must
be considered in the context of its time and place (e.g. seasonal activities and
neighborhood norms) and the people involved (e.g. varying age groups; resident vs
outsider).

References
Altman, I. & Chemers, M. M. (1980). Culture and Environment. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I. & Gauvain, M. (1981). A cross-cultural and dialectic analysis of homes. In L. Liben, A.
Patterson & N. Newcombe, Eds., Spatial Representation and Behavior Across the Life Span,
pp. 283-319. New York: Academic Press.
Altman, I. & Werner, C. M., Eds. (1985). Home environments. Human Behavior and Environment,
vol. 8. New York: Plenum.
Amaturo, E., Costagliola, S. & Ragone, G. (1987). Furnishing and status attributes: a
sociological study of the living room. Environment and Behavior, 19, 228-249.
Arreola, D. D. (1981). Fences as landscape taste: Tucson's barrios. Journal of Cultural Geography,
2, 96-105.
Bonnes, M., Giuliani, M. V., Amoni, F. & Bernard, Y. (1987). Cross-cultural rules for the
optimization of the living room. Environment and Behavior, 19, 204-227.
Brown, B. B. (1985). Residential territories: cues to burglary vulnerability. Journal of
Architectural Planning and Researeh, 2, 231-243.
Brown, B. B. & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: an
environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 203-220.
Brown, B. B. (1983). Territoriality, street Jorm, and residential burglary: social and environmental
analyses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Brown, B. B. & Werner, C. M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality, and holiday decorations:
the influence of cul-de-sacs. Environment and Behavior, 17, 539-561.
Canter, D. (1969). An intergroup comparison of connotative dimensions in architecture.
Environment and Behavior, 1, 37-48.
Cooper, C. (1976). The house as a symbol of self. In H. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson & L. G. Rivlin,
Eds., Environmental Psychology, pp. 435-448. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Duncan, J. S. (1973). Landscape taste as a symbol of group identity. Geographic Review, 63,
334-355.
Duncan, J. S. & Duncan, N. G. (1976). Housing as presentation of self and the structure of social
networks. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge, Eds., Environmental Knowing: Theories,
Research & Methods. PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.
Gauvain, M., Altman, I. & Fahim, H. (1983). Homes and social change: a cross-cultural analysis.
In N. R. Feimer and E. S. Geller, Eds., Environmental Psychology: Directions and
Perspectives, pp. 180-218. New York: Praeger.
Greenbaum, P. E. & Greenbaum, S. D. (1981). Territorial personalization: group identity and
social interaction in a Slavic-American neighborhood. Environment and Behavior, 13,
574-589.
Hanson, J. & Hillier, B. (1982). Domestic space organization: two contemporary space-codes
compared. Architecture and Behavior, 2, 5-25.
296 C . M . Werner e t al.

Harris, P. B. & Brown, B. B. (1989). Detecting resident territoriality in the home: how accurate is
the naive observer? Unpublished manuscript, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 84112.
Hartmann, D. P. (1982). Assessing the dependability of observational data. In D. P. Hartmann,
Ed., Using Observers to Study Behavior, pp. 51-65. New Directions for Methodology of
Social and Behavioral Science, no. 14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kimber, C. T. (1973). Spatial patterning in the door yard gardens of Puerto Rico. Geographical
Review, 63, 6-26.
Korosec-Serfaty, P. & Feeser, D. (1978, September). Formes de l'accueil et du reject dans
l'habitat: Fonctions et statut de l'entree d'immeuble (Forms of welcome and rejection in the
home). Neuf (No. 76), 25-37.
Laumann, E. O. & House, J. (1972). Living room styles and social attributes: patterning of
material artifacts in an urban community. In E. O. Laumann, P. Siegel and R. W. Hodges,
Eds., The Logic of Social Hierarchies, pp. 189-203. Chicago: Markham.
Lawrence, R. J. (1984). Transition spaces and dwelling design. Journal of Architectural Planning
and Research, l, 261-276.
Oxley, D., Haggard, L. M., Werner, C. M. & Altman, I. (1986). Transactional qualities of
neighborhood social networks: a case study of 'Christmas Street'. Environment and
Behavior, 18, 640-677.
Pratt, G. (1981). The house as an expression of social worlds. In J. S. Duncan, Ed., Housing and
Identity: Cross-cultural Perspectives, pp. 135-180. London: Croom-Helm.
Rapaport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall.
Sadalla, E. K., Burroughs, J. W. & Quaid, M. (1980). House form and social identity: a validity
study. EDRA: Environmental Design Research Assoeiation, No. 11,201-206.
Weisner, T. S. & Weibel, J. C. (1981). Home environments and family lifestyle in California.
Environment and Behavior, 13, 417~460.
Werner, C. M., Altman, I., Oxley, D. M. & Haggard, L. M. (1985). People, place and time: a
transactional analysis of neighborhoods. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman, Eds., Advances in
Personal Relationships, Vol. 1 (pp. 243-275). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Werner, C. M., Brown, B. B. & Peterson-Lewis, S. (June, 1984). The Individuality/Communality
and A ccessibility/Inaccessibility Dialectics in Christmas Decorations. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Environmental Design Research Association, San Luis Obispo, CA.
Winter, D. G. (1973). The Power Motive. New York: Free Press.

Manuscript received 20 February 1989

Revised manuscript received 27 September 1989