Abstract
Knowing who we are, and where we are, are two fundamental aspects of our physical and mental experience. Although the domains of spatial and social cognition are often studied independently, a few recent areas of scholarship have explored the interactions of place and self. This fits in with increasing evidence for embodied theories of cognition, where mental processes are grounded in action and perception. Who we are might be integrated with where we are, and impact how we move through space. Individuals vary in personality, navigational strategies, and numerous cognitive and social competencies. Here we review the relation between social and spatial spheres of existence in the realms of philosophical considerations, neural and psychological representations, and evolutionary context, and how we might use the built environment to suit who we are, or how it creates who we are. In particular we investigate how two spatial reference frames, egocentric and allocentric, might transcend into the social realm. We then speculate on how environments may interact with spatial cognition. Finally, we suggest how a framework encompassing spatial and social cognition might be taken in consideration by architects and urban planners.
Highlights
Understanding the nature of spatial knowledge is a classical issue in psychology, philosophy, and behavioral biology; it is a core practical problem for architects designing effective buildings. Heidegger (1962) suggested that human beings are always spatial beings when addressing how we find ourselves in the world, a space shaped by the activities we engage in
In particular we investigate how two spatial reference frames, egocentric and allocentric, might transcend into the social realm
With a grounding in evolutionary theory, we review the role of individual differences in spatial tasks, and how the built environment can restrict or promote spatial cognition, and how that influences one’s selfhood
Summary
Understanding the nature of spatial knowledge is a classical issue in psychology, philosophy, and behavioral biology; it is a core practical problem for architects designing effective buildings. Heidegger (1962) suggested that human beings are always spatial beings when addressing how we find ourselves in the world, a space shaped by the activities we engage in. Heidegger (1962) suggested that human beings are always spatial beings when addressing how we find ourselves in the world, a space shaped by the activities we engage in. Understanding the nature of spatial knowledge is a classical issue in psychology, philosophy, and behavioral biology; it is a core practical problem for architects designing effective buildings. Such a view might appeal to adherents of embodied cognition, who take the perspective that thought itself is emergent from the interaction between the environment, the body, and the mind (Wilson and Golonka, 2013). Our interaction with space may define what human beings are capable of, and how we define ourselves. In modern times investigations on the attributes of spatial cognition receive a considerable amount of attention (Klatzky, 1998; Burgess, 2006; Mou et al, 2007), and best practice in architecture and urban planning requires knowledge of spatial cognitive abilities to create practical, safe, efficient, and accessible environments (Marquardt and Schmieg, 2009; Marquardt, 2011)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
