In a previous experiment, Moscovici and Lkcuyer (1972) have shown that the spatial disposition of subjects influences the polarization of attitudes within a group. They employed two arrangements, one termed 'square', in which the four subjects were seated in pairs, each pair facing the other from opposite sides of a rectangular table, the other termed 'lin2, in which the four subjects were seated along one side of the same rectangular table. Polarization and risky shift were graeter in the square control condition than in the experimental line condition.
Thus the two distinct spatial dispositions resulted both in different structures of communication and in different climates of relations within the groups. In the line disposition, verbal exchanges were more difficult and nonverbal exchanges virtually non-existent due to the difficulties of reciprocal visual access. The experiment did not permit, however, an assessment of the relative influence of each of these factors. While it does not seem feasible to alter the communication network without altering the group climate, the opposite is possible. The aim of the present experiment is to study the effects of altering the group climate while holding the structure of communication constant.
The surrounding space influences a person's behaviour. The characteristics of the space which determine what this influence will be are numerous, but both size and aesthetic environment seem to be very important.
Maslow and Mink (1956) demonstrated the importance of aesthetic surroundings: A subject in a pleasant space found more energy and contentment in the photograph of a face than did a subject in an unpleasant one. Other studies found that the distance between two persons in interaction varied according to the surrounding space. Little (1965) asked subjects to place pictures of people assumed to be in interaction upon a background representing a living room, an office or a street. He expected that the distance between persons would increase in that order, that is, according to the 'impersonality' of the place. The opposite result was obtained, with the differences between the street and the other situations par-