This study investigated the effects of attitude, sex of subject, sex of invader, plane of approach, and approach trial on personal space using nonverbal, verbal, and projective measures. 10 male and 10 female subjects were approached from the front and side by a male and female invader who projected one of three attitudes: a positive, affable manner; a neutral, impartial manner; or a negative hostile manner. The factorial analysis indicated effects of sex of invader, plane of approach, and several interactions of these factors with sex of subject. These results were interpreted in terms of societal norms and potential physical and psychological threat. The observed effects of attitude were hypothesized to be a function of the different socialization processes for males and females.
References
1.
AllgeierA. R.ByrneD.Attraction toward the opposite sex as a determinant of physical proximity. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 213–219.
2.
AlovisettiM. C.Relationship between a projective and behavioral measure of personal space. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, April, 1977.
3.
ArgyleM.DeanJ.Eye contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289–304.
4.
BaileyK.HartnettJ.GibsonF.Jr.Implied threat and the territorial factor in personal space. Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 263–270.
5.
BardwickJ. M.Psychology of women: A study in bio-cultural conflicts. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
6.
BauerE. A.Personal space: A study of blacks and whites. Sociometry, 1973, 36, 402–408.
7.
BaxterJ.Interpersonal spacing in natural settings. Sociometry, 1970, 33, 444–456.
8.
BeckS. J.OllendickT. H.Personal space, sex of experimenter, and locus of control in normal and delinquent adolescents. Psychological Reports, 1976, 38, 383–387.
9.
BorcheltD. J.The relationship of several nonverbal behaviors to psychological distance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 34(1-B), 406.
DukeM.NowickiS.Perceived interpersonal distance as a function of the subject's locus of control and the race and sex of stimuli in elementary and high school children. Paper presented at Southeastern Psychological Association, April, 1971.
12.
EdwardsD. J.Approaching the unfamiliar: A study of interaction distances. Journal of Behavioral Science, 1972, 1, 249–250.
13.
EisenbergA. M.SmithR. R.Jr.Nonverbal communication. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971. Pp. 20–22.
14.
FelipeN. J.SommerR.Invasions of personal space. Social Problems, 1966, 14, 206–214.
15.
FisherJ. D.ByrneD.Too close for comfort: Sex differences in response to invasion of personal space. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 15–21.
16.
FordJ. G.The effects of attitude and personality similarity-dissimilarity and group deviancy-nondeviancy on personal space. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 35(1-B), 539–540.
17.
FrommeD. K.BeamD. C.Dominance and sex difference in nonverbal responses to differential eye contact. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 8, 76–87.
18.
GuardoC. J.MeiselsM.Factor structure of children's personal space schemata. Child Development, 1971, 42, 1307–1312.
19.
HallE.Hidden dimension. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1966.
20.
HendricksM.BootzinR.Race and sex as stimuli for negative affect and physical avoidance. Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 98, 111–120.
21.
HeshkaS.NelsonY.Interpersonal speaking distance as a function of age, sex, and relationship. Sociometry, 1972, 35, 491–498.
22.
HiatA. B.Explorations in personal space. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 31 (12-B), 7572.
23.
HorowitzM. J.DuffD. F.StrattonL. O.Personal space and the body-buffer zone. In ProshanskyH.IttelsonW.ProshanskyH.IttelsonW.RivlonL. (Eds.), Environmental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970. Pp. 214–220.
24.
KleckR.Interaction distance and nonverbal agreeing responses. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 9, 180–182.
25.
KrailK.LeventhalG.The sex variable in the intrusion of personal space. Sociometry, 1976, 39, 170–173.
26.
LeibmanM.The effects of sex and race norms on personal space. Environment and Behavior, 1970, 2, 217–242.
27.
LettE. E.ClarkW.AltmanI.A prepositional inventory of research on interpersonal distance. Research Report No. 1, 1969, Bethesda, Md., Naval Medical Research Institute.
28.
LittleK. B.Personal space. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 237–247.
29.
MahoneyE. R.Compensatory reactions to spatial immediacy. Sociometry, 1974, 37, 423–431.
30.
MehrabianA.Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 359–372.
31.
NausP. J.EckenrodeJ. J.The differences and degree of acquaintance as determinants of interpersonal distance. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 133–134.
32.
PattersonM. L.An arousal model of intimacy. Psychological Review, 1976, 83, 235–245.
33.
PattersonM. L.MullensS.RomanoJ.Compensatory reaction to spatial intrusion. Sociometry, 1971, 34, 114–121.
34.
PedersenD. M.Personality and demographic correlates of simulated personal space. Journal of Psychology, 1973, 85, 101–108.
35.
PedersenD. M.HeastonA. B.The effects of sex of subject, sex of approaching person, and angle of approach upon personal space. Journal of Psychology, 1972, 82, 276–286.
36.
PetriH. L.HugginsR. G.MillsC. J.BarryL. S.Variables influencing the shape of personal space. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1974, 1, 360–361.
37.
SewellA. F.HeislerJ. T.Personality correlates of proximity preferences. Journal of Psychology, 1973, 85, 151–155.
38.
SimmonsJ. W.Personal space and approach distance as a function of sex differences and personality variables. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 34(8-B), 4028.
39.
SobelR. S.LillithN.Determinants of nonstationary personal space invasion. Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 97, 39–45.
40.
SommerR.The distance of comfortable conversation: A further study. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 111–116.
41.
StrattonL. O.TekippeD. J.FlickG. L.Personal space and self-concept. Sociometry, 1973, 36, 424–429.
42.
TannerO.Stress. New York: Time Life, Inc., 1976.
43.
WillisR.Initial speaking distance as a function of the speaker's relationship. Psychonomic Review, 1966, 5, 221–222.
