Crowding and aggression during the COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom: The relationship between residential density, subjective crowding, privacy, and aggression

Abstract

Background: During national lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals were confined to their home environment for prolonged time with limited options to leave the dwelling. European comparative housing polls suggest social density in the home environment (square meters per person) are highest in the United Kingdom, making potentially detrimental costs to home dwellers during national lockdowns more likely. While research has extensively studied the relationship between social density and aggression across different settings, including housing, there has been limited exploration of the connection between subjective crowding and aggression, despite evidence suggesting its stronger influence. Moreover, previous studies have indicated that privacy might mediate the link between social density conditions and psychological experiences, necessitating further investigation. Objective: This study examined the relationships between residential density, subjective crowding, and perceived privacy and its psychological costs, specifically focusing on aggression during the COVID-19 lockdown. Specifically, the study examined the sequential relationship of residential density on subjective crowding on self-reported aggression. Perceived privacy was hypothesized to mediate the relationship between residential density and subjective crowding. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with individuals (n = 299) using the crowd-sourcing platform Prolific during the COVID-19 lockdown in June 2020 in the United Kingdom. Results: Path analysis with bootstrapping was used to examine the hypothesized relationships in three hierarchical models. The first model showed that self-reported aggression levels were higher for those experiencing greater levels of residential density. In the second model, residential density was found to be associated with subjective crowding, which in turn was associated with aggression. The association between subjective crowding and aggression (model two) was stronger than between residential density and aggression (model one). In the final model, perceived privacy was included as a mediator between residential density and subjective crowding, and this relationship was found to be statistically valid. This suggests that when there is a shortage of objective living space per person within a household, it can affect how residents perceive their ability to control privacy, resulting in feelings of crowding and subsequent aggression. Age, gender, and employment were controlled. Conclusions: The empirical evidence for testing the sequential relationship between residential density, perceived privacy, subjective crowding, and aggression has so far been largely neglected in housing research. Recognizing the influence of privacy regulation on aggression is essential for guiding housing design and planning, shifting the focus away from overreliance on housing size specifications towards prioritizing the quality of floor plan design to better promote residents' well-being.