{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.042490118577075096, 'fraction_numerical': 0.039525691699604744, 'mean_word_length': 5.620915032679738, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Architectural Variants of Reaction To Spatial Invasion

not approach each other without experiencing some discomfort (Barefoot et al., 1972). Individuals apparently require some minimal amount of unviolated personal space at all times; denial of this need seems to lead to the arousal of aversive affect and typically leads to flight (Felipe and Sommer, 1966), arousal (McBride et al., 1965), and to similar personal confrontation adjustments (Argyle and Dean, 1965). Since the extent and nature of spatial requirements varies across cultural, sexual, and age variables (Hall, 1969; Harnett et al., 1970; Fry and Willis, 1971), reaction to spatial invasion involves a complex of related cognitions and behaviors. It would appear that variation along certain situational, interpersonal, and personal dimensions causes correspondent changes in reactions to spatial violations (Kleck, 1969; Little, 1965; Mehrabian, 1968). Similarly, different physical and architectural features, such as the presence or absence of