J. The Social Use of Space 131 



with A^6, the thetas, both those of satiation and frustration, will be increased. 

 In this situation the critical point becomes the attitude of associates toward 

 such indi\'iduals. If the attitude toward this individual possessing rarely- 

 encountered characteristics is one in which the desired characteristic is 

 venerated or desired by the majority not possessing it, then the resulting 

 intense interaction will have the consequence of more frequently resulting 

 in an aaa satiation type refractory period. However, it is much more likely 

 that the strange, rare characteristic will elicit an aggressive or rejection 

 type response leading to an aap frustrating type refractory period for the 

 individual with the heightened S. 



When the iVi subgroup represents a majority, they can achieve a return 

 of their n and 9's to more nearly normal levels by ejecting the aberrant 

 A''2 individuals. However, the minority A''2 members of the A^i + A^2 group 

 suffer most from heightened m and ^'s. Therefore, their seeking escape from 

 the group becomes a motivating force greater than that of ejection by their 

 associates. 



If neither A^i or A''2 form a clear majority, the most likely result will be 

 a splitting of the group in half, but with retention of both A''! and A''2 type 

 individuals in each smaller group. This consequence derives from the 

 following ; 



When S doubles, nb doubles, the new n = 2.0. 



The "effort" of the group will be to make the easiest adjustment which 

 will make ^t = 2.0 = mo- This route lies in reducing the A^ which was an 

 Nb to an No. From Eq. (78) it follows that: 



A^i iV2 1 

 A^o=l+^ + ^-- (100) 



The best approximation any group can make is to divide in half. Each 

 half must contain nearly equal numbers of A^i and A''2. If all A^i formed a 

 group spatially distinct from the iV2 members of the former Nb, the m of 

 every member in each group would automatically return to 1.0 since within 

 each new and smaller group all members would have the same target 

 diameter. Thus, with the A'" of each new group being only O.oNb, every 

 member would experience a marked reduction in satisfaction and frustra- 

 tion thetas below optimum since the frequency of contacts /c [Ecj. (34)] 

 would automatically be reduced. 



In discussing this concept of a few divergent individuals or even a single 

 one doubling the n of the entire group, one of my colleagues remarked that 

 such an increase appears unreasonable. Three examples will suffice to 

 demonstrate the I'easonableness of this assumption. Barnett (1955) main- 



