Mindmap

Personal space

The study of personal space is sometimes referred to as proxemics, and was founded by E T Hall (1959). Katz (1937) and Sommer (1969) are the seminal workers in personal space.

Personal space refers to that invisible bubble we all carry around with us which defines how close we will approach to other people and how close we will allow other people to approach us. To a very large extent it is a function of our relationship with the people involved and the society or culture to which we are accustomed. To some extent the terminology is misleading since in fact what we are considering is interpersonal space. It only becomes important when we interact with others. In addition we need to be aware that the bubble can expand or shrink. In essence we all have a construction of the amount of personal space that is appropriate between ourselves and other people in a range of situations. We only become aware of our personal space when it is invaded. It is something which maintains an invisible control over our behaviour with others most of the time.

Methods of measurement

Classification of personal space

Hall (1966) identified 4 categories of personal space, each of which can be subdivided into two sub-categories "near" and "far".

These categories may be rather artificial. It is likely that personal space spans a vast continuum which is determined by a number of factors including relationship with the person, cultural or societal norms, and the immediate environment. The important contribution of these categories lies in identifying the way in which they influence behaviour and experience. We do tend to maintain distances between ourselves and others and to reserve various distances for different people. If a stranger invades our intimate distance we feel angry or frightened.

Different cultures tend to have different sizes of personal space bubbles. For example middle eastern peoples tend to tolerate closer distances than people from Britain.

Research also suggests that the personal space bubble is not circular, but elliptical, so we will tolerate people coming closer to us at the side than in front or behind.

Personal space (or interpersonal distance) is a mechanism of communication and as such it cannot be understood independently of other aspects of nonverbal communication such as orientation, touch and eye-contact. For example, on a crowded train we may be forced to allow others to invade our personal space for periods of time. However, consider the difference between having to stand very close to someone in front of you who turns slightly to one side, tries to avoid touching you, and avoids eye contact, as opposed to someone who faces you head on, makes no attempt to avoid squashing against you, and looks you straight in the eye.

In addition, being inappropriately far apart is also uncomfortable. We know a loved one is angry with us when they sit apart, and we feel uncomfortable if someone tries to hold a conversation with us across a room. Considering these differential effects leads one to become aware of how good we generally are at reading and using nonverbal cues, including personal space, and how unaware we are of our skill.

Personal space and the concept of it is also used symbolically. We talk about being close to someone when we are good friends with them. We talk about keeping in touch or being distant. We use personal space to communicate our relationship with others, to protect our territory, and to regulate our social interaction.


Factors that influence personal space

Gender

Males interacting with other males require the largest interpersonal distance, followed by females interacting with other females, and finally males interacting with females (Gifford, 1987). However it probably depends on the situation, or the relationship, or the age group and so on as well.

Age

Some evidence suggests that personal space gets bigger as we grow older (Hayduk, 1983). Children tend to be quite happy to be physically close to each other, something which changes as awareness of adult sexuality develops. In addition the gender difference does tend to also appear at this time.

Culture

Hall (1959) identified the importance of cultural variation. He suggested that while all cultures use personal space to communicate, and tend to conform to the different categories, the size of the space within the categories varies across cultures. Hall also identified the essential issue in inter-cultural difference as the tendency to interpret invasions of personal space as an indication of aggression.

Personality

There is some evidence of personality difference but effects here need to be treated with caution given the situational dependence of traits. Extraverted and gregarious persons tend to require smaller personal space, while cold and quarrelsome people require a larger interpersonal distance (Gifford, 1982).

"Abnormal" behaviour

The relationship between interpersonal space and problem behaviours is perhaps a more interesting area. It is generally found that violent criminals require larger interpersonal distances. The evidence for psychiatric patients is that interpersonal distance depends on the specific symptoms and severity of the disorder. For example Sommer (1959) found that schizophrenic patients tend to vary from one extreme to the other, i.e. from very small to very large interpersonal distance. Since many psychiatric disorders involve withdrawal from social interaction, one would expect such disorders to include greater interpersonal distance. In addition many disorders involve attention seeking, which would appear to predict interpersonal closeness. These differences in specific symptoms do not appear to have been thoroughly investigated. And there are implications for the design of built environments designed to house these "problem people".

Situational effects on personal space.  

It is generally found that where attraction between individuals is strong, where friendships exist and where the general tone of the interaction is friendly, we are more willing to decrease our personal space requirement (Little, 1965; King, 1966). Alternatively where people dislike each other, and where the tone of the interaction is unfriendly, people move further apart (O'Neal et al, 1980; Guardo & Meisels, 1971). People with disability, the mentally ill and those who appear and behave in different ways tend to be shunned in the social arena. Interpersonal distance between ourselves and these groups tends to be much larger than for individuals who appear similar to our selves. Bull (1981) found that people moved away from a confederate who was made up to appear as if their face had been disfigured. Also the effect can be reduced by whether the disfigured person appears to be married to a facially attractive partner (Bull & Brooking, 1985)

Competition and cooperation

The cooperation versus competition effects on personal space interact with orientation. Generally people in cooperation will select a smaller interpersonal distance unless the competition requires interpersonal contact (Cook, 1970).

Tedesco & Fromme (1974) had participants interact either in competition or cooperation with each other. They then observed the same participants interpersonal space in another room after the study. Those who had been in the cooperative encounter chose a smaller interpersonal distance than those in the competitive condition. This generalised effect on interpersonal distance as a result of competition or cooperation is important given the information conveyed about attitudes and potential aggression in our choice of interpersonal distance.

Status

The general finding for status focuses on differences in status and it appears that the greater the difference in status between individuals, the larger the interpersonal distance used. There doesn't seem to be any evidence regarding personal space between same status individuals at different levels. In other words it is not clear if high status individuals require a greater distance when interacting with other high status individuals than with low status individuals in interaction. We also use interpersonal distance to assess the differential status of individuals in interaction. Burns (1964) showed that in a filmed interaction in an office setting, someone standing further away when conveying a message was judged to be a subordinate, whereas when the same individual stood closer they were judged to be of equal status.

Expectations & social perception

Our anticipation of the type of person we are going to meet in a situation also influences our choice of interpersonal distance. When we anticipate meeting a warm and friendly person we tend to choose smaller distances (Kleck, 1969). We are also less likely to offer help to someone if our personal space has been invaded (Konecni et al, 1975), however if we perceive the persons need to be great the negative effect of the invasion may be offset (Baron, 1978). It seems very clear that use of interpersonal distance is an important part of the regulation of interaction and has important effects on the relationships and hence effectiveness of the interaction.

In a world where interaction is an important part of everyday life, at work, rest or play, we need to be aware of the potential positive and negative aspects of the use of interpersonal distance. The use of interpersonal distance will be a function of the design of the physical environment. For example library seating which is cramped, the number of people sharing a small office, and the size of the aisles in a shop layout will all determine the level of interpersonal space invasion that occurs.


Theories of personal space

An interesting view on the function of personal space is provided by Argyle & Dean (1965) in their affiliative—conflict theory . This suggests that we have both a desire to be close to others, and a desire to move away, much like the approach-avoidance conflict in regard to novel stimuli observed in behavioural studies with animals. The goal of interaction is to reach a compromise in the conflict which means an equilibrium point.

An alternative view with a similar outcome, would be to apply the social constructionist perspective. This would suggest that a particular personal space involves reaching some shared representation of what is appropriate through negotiated interaction. Invasions of personal space tend to produce physiological arousal, and within the arousal level or adaptation-level perspectives we can see personal space as some form of achieved balance. In addition we can draw on the lability model of emotion here, in that an invasion of personal space produces generalised physiological arousal which leads to an appropriate emotion as a result of the cognitive appraisal of the situational cues. Hence if the invader is a loved one the physiological arousal may turn to passion, whereas if it is a stranger we may become angry. Essentially, invasions of personal space are potentially stressful depending on their context and personal appraisal, and as such are important aspects of maintaining health.