1. Community Noise Noise is everywhere (indoors as well as outdoors) Noise seems accepted as a necessary evil in industrial society Noise gets less media attention than other, more conspicuous forms of pollution Noise affects health/well-being Unlike industrial noise, watchdog agencies are less obvious in community noise Aircraft noise may always be present Women, children, and the elderly are especially vulnerable since they spend more time in their homes and neighbourhoods

3. Hans Selye 1907-1982 Selye was the pioneer in stress theory. Stress was defined as the nonspecific response of the body to any demands made upon it.

4. Stress and Health Cognitive appraisal of stress (Lazarus’ model) Perceptions of danger varies with group membership and value systems Physiological effects Psychological effects Coping attempts Certain groups are more at risk Prolonged stress is life threatening

5. Noise and Health Increase in hypertension (high blood pressure) Increased consumption of medication Increased hospital admissions Increase in physician visits Increase in cardiovascular problems Increase in sleep problems Increase in mortality Lower birth weight babies Slower height and weight gains in children Hearing loss

6. Noise and Children Children may be more vulnerable because: –Spend more time outdoors –Physical growth/development is incomplete –Better hearing –Poorer listening skills –Less developed language skills –Immature attention mechanisms –Requirement of a higher signal/noise ratio –Weak frustration coping skills

9. Car alarms are another instance of urban noise

10. Noise Effects in Children Poorer auditory discrimination Reduced physical growth Slower psychological development Poorer progress on standardized tests Lower tolerance for frustration Heightened blood pressure Lessened perceptions of control Lowered attentiveness Heightened distractibility

11. Bronzaft (1981) P.S. 98 is located 220 feet from an elevated train line—classes were disrupted every 4.5 minutes for a 30 second interval. Mean Reading Achievement Test Scores Before Noise Reduction Quiet SideNoisy Side Grade 22.652.25 Grade 33.062.63 Grade 56.235.05 Grade 66.945.99

13. Bronzaft (1981) Students on the noisy side did significantly poorer on the standardized reading test. After noise reduction (rubber rail mounts, acoustic ceilings), total noise decreased 6- 8dBA (train noise level = 81-83 dBA) There were no significant reading test differences for quiet and noisy classrooms following the noise reduction interventions. Is a Hawthorne effect possible?

14. Page (1977) Experiment 1 Noise level% helping 50 dB60 80 dB45 100 dB35 Dependent measure: picking up dropped cards

15. Page (1977) Experiment 2: Dependent measure:picking up dropped packages Noisy street (92 dB)80% Helped Regular street (72 dB)90% Helped Provided physical help: 72% males, 39% females Proved verbal help: 14% males, 45% females

16. Mathews & Canon (1975) Experiment 1: Condition% helping Natural noise (control, 48 dB)72 Medium white noise (65 dB)67 High white noise (85 dB)37 Dependent measure: Number of arithmetic problems willing to solve

17. Experiment 2: No cast condition% helping Natural noise (50dB)20 High noise (87 dB)10 Cast condition Natural noise (50 dB)80 High noise (87 dB)15 High noise: lawn mower running with muffler removed Low noise: usual background noise in the residential neighbourhood

18. Possible Explanations for Less Aid Under Noisy Conditions: Information overload may cause screening of inputs and a de-emphasis on needs of others Noise may function as a distractor Noise may prevent verbal communication, raising costs (efforts) of social interaction Production of negative affect and mood change: irritation, annoyance, unpleasantness Aversive quality of noise may lead to escape, reducing likelihood of assistance

19. Cohen & Lezak (1977) Slide content Calm Distress Quiet2.132.06 Noise1.381.44 Dependent variable: Number of social cues slides remembered The data supports Milgram’s overload model

20. Korte & Grant (1980Location: Dundee, Scotland (pop. 200,000) 2 locations in central business district Noise noise (75 dB)Low noise (70 dB) Novel Items: 1. Pink party hat worn by female, balloons tied to a tree. 2. Sign: “Attention: Project in Progress”, female holding bright yellow teddy bear.

21. Korte & Grant (1980) Location: Dundee, Scotland (pop. 200,000) 2 locations in central business district Noise noise (75 dB)Low noise (70 dB) Novel Items: 1. Pink party hat worn by female, balloons tied to a tree 2. Sign: “Attention: Project in Progress”, female holding bright yellow teddy bear.

22. Korte & Grant (1980) Dependent measure: Awareness of object Noise Level High Low Present35%56% Absent65%44% Support for Milgram’s Overload Model