|
Resumen:
|
The objective of this work is to study and understand how the personalization of spaces allows observers to make inferences about their owners. A space is considered to be personalized when the owner performs a repertoire of behaviours, depositing a series of signals or codes related to their values, beliefs (Altman and Chemers, 1984), statuses and preferences (Becker, 1977), in order to thereby see himself or herself reflected in it and to feel he or she is the owner of that space (Aragonés and Pérez-López, 2009), at the same time as communicating his or her sense of identity (McAndrew, 1993). Looking beyond the definition of this term, there is evidence that this personalization allows observers to form an idea of the person who inhabits the place (Gosling, 2008; Pérez-López, 2011). The place where one can see this personalization most clearly is probably in a person’s dwelling. More than a simple construction, this is a place linked to family history and the values and beliefs of the owner. It reflects both a personal and private identity that is not accessible to everyone and a social and public identity (Cooper, 1974). The distinction that Cooper makes between personal and social identity is evident in the different rooms inside a dwelling. Social identity is reflected in the rooms that are normally accessible when people visit—principally the living room and sometimes the kitchen—whereas personal identity is expressed in rooms such as the bedroom, which is considered to be a more private and intimate space (Cooper, 1995). Building on this distinction, this work studies inferences about owners of bedrooms. More specifically, the sample of bedroom owners used comprises university students who live with their parents and who have exclusive, nonshared use of their bedroom. This definition of the sample has not been come about randomly. First, it was necessary for the owners to reside with their parents because, if they lived alone, the traces of personalization would be found throughout the dwelling, and not brought together in a single space. Secondly, it was necessary for these owners to have an exclusive use of the bedroom so as to be able to make sure that the traces within it belonged to one person..
|
