While certain roommates have grown close over the course of the semester: my roommate, Kelly, and me, Erin and Allison, Maddie and Dalianna, Hema and Aurora, this is not an exclusive assumption. What is perhaps most interesting is the way what intrinsically should be considered “functional distance” breaks down when it does not catalyze face-to-face contact between individuals. Festinger notes that such a phenomenon is measurable in the “number of passive contacts that position and design encourage,” however, when comparing new and old dorms, it is obvious to see that simple placement of individuals (e.g. rooms by stairwells) is negligible if such location does not increase interaction (35). In effect, he assumes there can a prediction between what is expected to increase passive contact and the formation of friendships. In new dorms, such as mine, doors are very often closed because they are heavy, and sound does not travel well between insulated walls. This then helps to explain why although my room is closer to the bathroom, and rooms like Jordan and Xara’s and Kay’s are closer to the elevator and stairs, this has little bearing on how sociable we individually are with the rest of the hall. Thus, functional distance cannot be as universal or applicable to situations as perhaps often considered. In reality, those who go to and from …show more content…
This is because the mere exposure effect can induce liking by familiarity, of which is greatly sought after in a foreign college environment and perpetuated by other means such as classes, extracurricular activities, events, study places, friend groups, etc. This explains certain cross room and cross hall relationships: Joyce and Hema are close because they are always practicing for their music club, Kelly and I are close because we finish homework late at night in each other’s company. Such inoculation, over time, increases