Personal Space and Human Spatial Behavior
Personal Space and Human Spatial Behavior
In 1960’s Edward Hall coined the term “proxemics” to refer to ways in which people use physical space to regulate social interaction
All humans learn hundreds of rules and cues about space as they grow up based on their culture.
There are 4 interrelated topics of human spatial behavior or proxemics:
- Personal space (Chapter 5)
- Territoriality (Chapter 6)
- Crowding (Chapter 7)
- Privacy (Chapter 8)
Personal Space - Often used to refer to the whole area of human spatial behavior
Concept is used in many other fields - E.g., Anthropology, sociology, and architecture
Early influences
First coined by Katz in 1937
1950’s Hediger (animal psychologist) suggested animals are surrounded by a series of bubbles or balloons that allow proper spacing
Edward T. Hall study of proxemics or the study of spatial behavior in the 1950-60’s
The Silent Language (1959)
The Hidden Dimension (1966)
Robert Sommers - Personal Space: The behavioral basis of design (1969)
Focus on how design and furniture arrangements influence social behavior
Both Hall and Sommer adopted the idea of personal space as a “bubble or balloon”
“Bubble” idea doesn’t fit with the true meaning of human spatial behavior
Personal Space - The interpersonal distance and orientation chosen during ongoing social interactions (text)
Primary Functions
- Protection
- Communication
Protection Function
- Buffer against potential emotional and physical threats
- Common thread in several environmental theories
- Overload theories (protect against too much stimulation)
- Stress and arousal theories (protects against over-arousal leading to stress
- Behavioral constraint theory (protects our privacy and personal control)
Middlemist, Knowles and Matter (1976)Controversial Field Experiment
Hypothesized that personal space invasions produce physiological arousal
Communication Function
Communicates:
- Attraction and intimacy
- Power
- Status
2 Kinds of Personal Space
- Alpha Personal Space – the objective, externally measurable distance and angle between interacting individuals
- Beta Personal Space is the subjective experience of the distance and angle between interacting individuals
- 24% larger than Alpha
Measuring Personal Space
3 BASIC RESEARCH METHODS (Aiello, 1987)
- Simulation and Questionnaire methods
- Quasi-projective or laboratory methods
- Naturalistic or field methods
Simulation and Questionnaire methods
Require the P’s to imagine some interaction with others and to project into the situation how they think they would behave.
Include techniques such as manipulating dolls, or miniature symbolic figures
Problems: Remembering what is felt like
New version uses computer avatars
Quasi-projective or laboratory methods
Involves P’s using their own body in relation to a real or imagined other person under lab conditions as if a real interaction was occurring
Stop-Distance Method – common method
a confederate approaches the P’s until they feel uncomfortable or the instructions say “feel comfortable” and the results are very different
Interactional Method
Involve the direct and usually unobtrusive observation of people in actual interactions in laboratory situations
Naturalistic Observation Method
Measuring unplanned distances of people in natural setting
- Uncontrollable variables
- Unknown relationships
- Ethical issues
- Measurement difficulties
Situational Influences
Hall (1963) suggested that Americans use 4 ranges of personal space in their interactions with others
They depend on the quality of the relationships, the activity and the sensory qualities
Personal Space Distances (Hall, 1966)
- Intimate distance - for embracing, touching or whispering
- Close phase - less than 6 inches
- Far phase - 6 to 18 inches
- Personal Distance for interactions among good friends
- phase - 1.5 to 2.5 feet
- Far phase - 2.5 to 4 feet
- Social Distance for interactions among strangers
- Close phase - 4 to 7 feet
- Far phase - 7 to 12 feet (business distance)
- Public Distance used for public speaking
- Close phase - 12 to 25 feet
- Far phase - 25 feet or more
Cultural Differences
Hall also observed that cultures vary widely in terms of human spatial behavior and PS distances
Other researchers have confirmed some of these differences (Aiello, 1987, Remland, Jones, and Brinkman, 1995)
He attributed these differences to cultural norms regarding sensory modalities that are appropriate for communication between people
Contact Cultures
- More immediacy
- People stand close together
- A lot of physical contact when communicating
- Generally located in warm climates
Non-contact Cultures
- Less immediacy
- People tend to stand apart
- Touch less or not at all when communicating
- Generally located in cool climates
Contact groups
Arabs: Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Republic
Latin Americans: Bolivia, Cuba, Equador, El Salvador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Venezuela
Southern Europeans: France, Italy, Turkey
Non Contact Groups…
East Asians: China, Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, Thailand
South Asians: India and Pakistan
Northern Europeans: Austria, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland
North Americans: United States, Canada
Different cultures set distinctive norms for closeness (for example in speaking, business, and courting), and that standing too close or too far away can lead to misunderstandings and even to culture shock.
Not knowing the correct distances for particular kinds of communication can result in partial or complete communication failure.