Vol. 2, No.

2 Winter 1976 zyxwvut

zyxw
TOWARD A THEORY OF PERSONAL SPACE EXPECTATIONS

JUDEE K . BURGOON
zyx
AND THEIR VIOLATIONS

University of Florida

zyx
STEPHEN B . JONES
University of Utah

Proxemics literature is synthesized and placed in a theoretical framework based on

norms and expectations. Two major and three subordinate propositions are supported,
and a model for predicting effects of violations of proxemic expectations is advanced. A
sample of hypotheses generated from the model is included.

zyxwvu
In recent years, an abundance of speculation,
observation, and research on proxemic behavior has
come forth. A great deal of attention has been given
to such concerns as identifying personal spacing
norms, examining human parallels to the use of
space by animals, theorizing on the origins of
human proxemic behavior, and analyzing the ef-
fects of spatial changes. More attention is also being
focused on the manipulation of space as a com-
communication which are either intentionally en-
coded as messages or have the potential to be inter-
preted by a receiver as intentional. They need not be
symbolic-which space manipulation is not-but
they must have shared meaning and have the poten-
tial for aresponse by the receiver. Behaviors that are
not consciously committed and are either not con-
sciously perceived or are interpreted as uninten-
tional by the receiver do not qualify. Spacing be-
municative act. However, no effort has been made haviors, then, to be communication must be con-
to integrate systematically knowledge about how sciously recognized and viewed as a message by at
space is used as communication and its subsequent least one of the participants.
effects on communication outcomes. This paper is It is the contention of the authors that the com-
an effort to supply such a communication perspec- municative functions and effects of spatial relation-

zyxw
tive, to offer an initial conceptual framework within ships can best be viewed within the context of ex-
which the relationship between manipulation of pectations and violations of expectations. The con-
space and communication can be better understood. cept of violations of expectations has successfully
We have confined our focus to personal space explained other communication effects such as at-
since it appears to be most amenable to manipula- titudinal shifts due to level of language intensity
tion for communication purposes. Personal space (e.g., Burgoon & Chase, 1973). To illustrate the
refers to the inviolable volume of space that sur- viability of this framework for explaining spacing
rounds an individual. It is an invisible, dynamic, behaviors, we will develop some propositional
and transportable space the size of which is gov- statements about the nature of expectations and var-
erned by the individual’s felt need at any point in iables influencing the effects of violations of those
time. We are interested in how much personal space expectations. From these propositions we will de-
people claim during communicative interactions duce several specific hypotheses to test the model.
and how alterations in the distancing patterns affect We have simplified the analysis at this point by
the outcomes. considering spatial relationships between just two
Since we are interested in the communication interactants, one to be labeled the initiator and one
potential of such behaviors, we need to clarify what the reactant. The initiator is the individual whose
we mean by communication. The definition offered deviations will be examined for their effects on the
by Burgoon and Saine (in press) is consistent with reactant. We will therefore be focusing on dyadic
our view. They define those nonverbal behaviors as interactions from the perspective of the receiver
132 zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
(reactant). We will further confine our analysis to
Burgoon and Jones

same-sex pairs is maintained between male-male

interactions involving oral communication when we dyads and the lesser distance between female-
attempt to specify the interrelationship of variables female dyads. The difference was striking in the
that influence communication outcomes. However, Rosegrant study, where the distance between
our exploration of the potential effects of varying male-male dyads was approximately one foot
space usage will require examination of some re- greater than that of the other sex combinations. The
search that is not in itself concerned with communi- research on same-sex versus opposite-sex pairs is
cation. mixed, but Evans and Howard (1973), in their
summary of research, conclude that closer proxim-

zyxwvutsrq
DEFINING PERSONAL SPACE ity obtains in opposite-sex pairs. The conflicting
EXPECTATIONS findings may be due to the interactive effects of
some of the other normative variables.
The pivotal proposition upon which all the others One such confounding factor with sex is the sec-

zyxwvutsr
are built concerns the normative nature of distanc-
ing relationships:

Proposition I : Expected distancing in a given context

is a function of ( 1 ) the social norm and ( 2 ) the known
idiosyncratic spacing patterns of the initiator.

The proposition is predicated on two key assump-

tions: that social and idiosyncratic norms exist. The
ond variable, race. Rosegrant (1973) found black
female subjects sat closest to an interviewer, fol-
lowed by white females, white males, and finally
black males. The same study supported an interac-
tion between race of initiator and race of reactant:
white subjects sat significantly further from black
interviewers than they did from white interviewers,
while black subjects maintained approximately the
bulk of field and laboratory research on personal same distance from both black and white interview-
space has centered on the multitude of variables that ers. Other studies of the race variable have generally
define the spacing norms. Much of the research will found a preference for more intimate distancing
be condensed to substantiate that norms do exist and among blacks than among whites (e.g., Hall, 1965;
to illustrate the complexity of factors determining Baxter & Deanovitch, 1970; Aiello & Jones, 1971).
the contextual norms. We have not attempted to A few studies have found more intimacy among
exhaust the dimensions of norms or the available whites (e.g. Baxter, 1970; a small trend in Willis,

zyxwvuts
research but rather to offer a comprehensive sampl- 1966) but these may be accounted for by the social
ing. situation.
On a larger scale, cultural backgrounds also in-
Social Norms fluence normative distances. Although the notion
has recently been disputed (cf. Forston & Larson,
Watson (1972) has conceptualized two classes of 1968; Jones, 1971), anthropologists have previ-
variables that determine proxemic behavior: in- ously categorized cultures according to whether
teractant (or participant) and environmental vari- they are “contact” or “noncontact” cultures, the
ables. We have added a third category: variables former maintaining much closer distances than the

zyxwvutsrq
related to the nature of the interaction. Among the latter (Hall, 1966; Watson & Graves, 1966; Wat-
interactant variables, defining the normative dis- son, 1970). Not only may culture influence relative
tance in a given situation are the sex, race, culture, degree of closeness established, it can affect what
age, status, and coorientation of the interactants. variables are salient in specifying the norms in dif-
Numerous studies (e.g., Sommer, 1959; McBride, ferent situations. Triandis, Davis and Takezawa
King & Jones, 1965; Willis, 1966; Pedersen, 1973; (1965) found different sets of determinants of social
Rosegrant, 1973) have established sex differences. distance for different nationalities: in Illinois, race,
Whether sitting or standing, the greater distance for occupation, religion, and nationality were the
 z
VIOLATIONS OF PROXEMIC EXPECTATIONS

foremost factors; in Germany, occupation, religion, tional norms-environmental characteristics-

133

race, and nationality of the interactants were the includes such factors as amount of physical space

zy
primary determinants; in Japan, occupation, race, available in the immediate environment, population
and nationality were the key factors in that order. density, amount of sensory stimulation, and fumi-
ture arrangement. The role of environmental vari-
The fourth and fifth interactant variables are age ables is contingent on the nature of the territory in
and status. Generally, an individual is approached which the interaction takes place. Lyman and Scott
closer by a peer than by either an older or younger (1967) have delineated four types of territory: (1)
person (e.g., Willis, 1966; Pedersen, 1973). In
public territory, which is open to all, (2) home

zyxwvut
many of the age studies, age has been confounded
territory, where a sense of intimacy and freedom
with status. For instance, Willis (1966) looked at
exists for the individual, (3) interactional territory,
parents and children. Age differences may therefore used for social gatherings, which has boundaries
be accounted for in part by the strong normative (some invisible) that limit accessibility and (4) body
influence of status: higher status individuals are territory, which is highly private and the most se-
accorded more space (Lott & Sommer, 1967; verely restricted territory, only being accessible to
Mehrabian & Williams, 1968; Mehrabian, 1969; intimates. Social norms are more operative in the
Bums, 1974). Wherever an age or status differential public and interactional territories while idiosyncra-
exists, greater distance occurs. tic norms become increasingly important in the
The final set of factors to be considered are the home and body territories. Even so, certain princi-
coorientation variables, including degree of ac- ples seem to hold across territory types. One is that
quaintance, degree of liking and attraction, and the larger the physical area in which the interaction
desire for approval. The general finding for degree takes place, the more closely together the interac-
of acquaintance has been that friends maintain tants will sit (Sommer, 1962). Thus, greater dis-
closer distances than acquaintances, who in turn tances are found in home seating arrangements than
maintain closer distances than strangers (Little, in public places. Similarly, as room density or noise
1965; Willis, 1966; Russo, 1967; Evans & Howard, level increases, normative distancing is reduced,
1973). Close proximity is also taken as a sign of perhaps to prevent the intrusion of other people or
friendship (Rosenfeld, 1965). Familiarity may also outside distractions (Sommer, 1968). Furniture ar-
interact with sex to determine norm-setting. Ac- rangement arbitrarily influences distancing. The
cording to Little (1965), men establish normative types of arrangements available will determine how
distances between themselves and friends or ac- far apart individuals stand or sit. According to an
quaintances for all occasions, while women only interior designer, the arc for comfortable conversa-
establish such norms for interactions with friends tion in a home is about eight feet (Sommer, 1962).
(This conclusion must be regarded as tentative Thus, individuals will select the seating arrange-
since the methodology used is suspect). Consistent ment that best approximates that distance. They will
with the acquaintanceship distances, individuals prefer across over side-by-side seating up to the
who are attracted to one another or who are attempt- point that the comfortable conversational distance
ing to demonstrate liking will establish closer dis- has been exceeded and then will prefer the side-by-
tances (e.g., King, 1966; Lott & Sommer, 1967; side seating. When table seating is involved, the
Norum, Russo & Sommer, 1967; Mehrabian, 1968; size and shape of the table will influence the amount
Kleck, 1969; Patterson & Sechrest, 1970). Simi- of distance that each arrangement imposes and,
larly, individuals who are seeking approval will consequently, which arrangement will be selected.
reduce distance more than individuals who are at- However, the strongest preference appears to be for
tempting to avoid criticism (Rosenfeld, 1965). comer-to-comer (or adjacent for a round table) seat-
The second class of variables influencing situa- ing (Sommer, 1959). This normative pattern can be
134 zyxw
zyxwvutsrqp Burgoon and Jones

sed next.
zyxwvutsr
altered by the nature of the interaction, to be discus-

Among the specific interaction variables that de-

termine normative distancing are formality or inti-
macy of the situation and topic, familiarity of the
interactants with the setting, the purpose of the
interaction, and, in group situations, the presence of
ing on the kind of interaction required: (1) for casual
or conversational groups, subjects preferred comer
or adjacent seating, which is relatively close; (2) for
groups working on a cooperative project, subjects
preferred side-by-side seating; (3) for competitive
groups, subjects preferred opposite seating which
allowed them some protection from surveillance;
a leader. Based on anthropological observations, and (4) for coacting groups working on different
Hall (1959) established a distance classification projects, a more distant arrangement was selected.
based on the degree of intimacy or formality of an Similarly, studies of seating selections in bars com-
interaction. He delineated four categories of dis- pared to restaurants show a greater preference for
tance: (1) intimate distance, for private interactions side-by-side seating or comer seating when the pur-
or physical contact, which is 0 to 18 inches; (2) pose is intimate or social conversation, as in a bar,
personal distance, for situations involving less sen- and opposite seating when the purpose of dining is
sory involvement, which is 18 inches to 4 feet; (3) added (Cook, 1970). These studies illustrate the
social distance, for informal interactions with busi- interrelationship of such factors as furniture ar-

zyxwvutsrq
ness associates and friends, which is 4 feet to 12 rangements, amount of competing noise or stimula-
feet; and (4) formal distance, for public speeches tion (as in a bar), and space requirements of a given
and distances from public officials, which is 12 feet task in determining the normative distance.
and beyond. There is some reason to believe that the A final interaction consideration worth noting is
actual distances cited by Hall are inaccurate (cf. the presence or absence of a leader in a group. Hare
Heston & Gamer, 1972) but the relative distances and Bales (1963) have found that leaders select the
appear sound. In terms of familiarity with the set- most “central” positions or locations where they
ting, Edney (1972) found that either past experience can best control the interaction, probably because
or expectation of future experience with a room such positions offer more direct eye contact with
leads to closer interpersonal distance. This finding more people. This is consistent with the finding by
seems consistent with both Hall’s and Lyman and Howells and Becker (1962) that more leadership
Scott’s categories if it can be explained as a shift occurs from the side of a rectangular table with two
from viewing the situation as a public, relatively seats than the side with three seats. The selection of
formal setting to a more social, interactional territ- a central position by a dominant person must there-
ory because of familiarity with it. Edney speculated fore influence the distances that others are from
that subjects developed a sense of ownership of the him. Undoubtedly their selection of positions will
territory, which would be consistent with a more be dependent upon their coorientation with the
personalized view of the room. leader, their own personal desire to dominate, and
Another major dimension of distancing patterns the functional restraints of the furniture arrange-
is the purpose of the interaction. In a classroom ment.
setting, Heston and Gamer (1972) found distances
between subjects to fall within the intimate distance Idiosyncratic Patterns
range. Since the preferred seating arrangement was
a U-shape, which focuses attention away from im- It should be apparent from much of the research
mediate neighbors, subjects may have been more already cited that to predict distances between in-
willing to tolerate the close proximity which such an teractants in a given context, one must not only
arrangement imposes. In studies of distance related know what the social norm is but also know some-
to various types of group tasks, Cook (1970), thing about the behavior patterns of the specific
Norum, Russo and Sommer (1967), and Sommer individuals involved. Porter, Argyle, and Salter
(1965) found different distancing patterns depend- (1970) reported that 90 percent of the variance in
 VIOLATIONS OF PROXEMIC EXPECTATIONS

their preliminary investigations was due to indi-

zyx
z 135

of the interactants, and the nature of the interaction.

vidual differences. This wide variation in proxemic But inclusion of the element of idiosyncratic pat-
behaviors may be influenced by such variables as a terns requires direct knowledge of the individuals
person’s personality make-up and psychological involved. Consequently, the specification of actual
state at the time. Research on personality correlates expected distance in any given context involves the
of distancing has uncovered several factors that are interplay of a complex system of variables.
relevant. As already suggested, a person’s inclina- Based on both experience with the normative
tions toward dominance or submission can dictate behaviors in society and knowledge of the unique
how much space he allows between himself and proxemic patterns of those with whom we interact,
others. Hare and Bales (1963) found a direct rela- we develop expectations of what spatial relationship
tionship between dominance scores and centrality will be established with those individuals under any
of seating in a group. Related to dominance and given circumstance. As Altman (1971) expresses’it,
leadership are the findings on introversion- “(people) evaluate their experiences, build cogni-
extroversion. Leipold (1963), Patterson and tive models andexpectations about one another, and
Holmes (1966), and Williams (1963) have all found forecast likely future responses by themselves and
that extroverts approach more closely and maintain others” (p. 292). Those expectations could be re-
smaller distances than do introverts. Davis and garded as the adaptation level or comparison level
Swaffer (197 1) found a significant relationship be- for that particular context (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959;
tween dogmatism and distance. If tendencies to- Helson, 1964); i.e., they define the distance to
ward violence can be regarded as a personality fac- which we have become accustomed for that set of
tor, then it is also possible that such tendencies circumstances and to which we compare and
influence spacing. A study of prisoners cited by Fast evaluate similar situations. As long as those expec-
(1970) revealed that prisoners with a history of tations are realized, awareness of the space variable
violence required twice as much persona1 space as is probably only subconscious. From a biological or
did nonviolent prisoners. Sommer (1959) also psychological standpoint, a balanced or static state
found markedly different seating patterns among exists. The question of interest is what happens
schizophrenics. A final tangentially related study by when that balance is disrupted, when expectations
Williams (1968) found that chronically anxious sub- are violated. We know from biology that when an
jects both underestimated the distance between internal system becomes imbalanced, the organism
themselves and a partner and perceived the distance is aroused and mechanisms come into play to return
to be less than their partners did. the system to homeostasis. Similarly, several cogni-
While an individual’s personality make-up estab- tive persuasion theories argue that inconsistencies

zyxwvu
lishes expectancies about general behavior patterns, produce a state of dissonance or arousal that moti-
his psychological state at a given time can alter his vates the system to regain a balanced state, whether
normal behavior. Anxiety about what the other per- it be returning to the former one o r finding a new
son might do, or stress such as that caused by one. If violations of proxemic expectations function
criticism, generally increases interactional distance to arouse the individual in some manner, then a
(Leipold, 1963; Sommer, 1968; Dosey & Meisels, worthwhile inquiry for communication researchers
1969). In a study of mental health patients, Winnick is what kinds of messages and effects those devia-
and Holt (1961) found a correlation between emo- tions produce. There is clear evidence that the man-
tional states and aberrant seating behavior. ipulation of spatial relationships has arousal value
These idiosyncratic factors must be taken into (Sommer, 1959; McBride, King & Jones, 1965;
account if accurate predictions of distancing and McBride, 1971;Edney, 1972). The communication
distancing effects are to be made, Social norms can potential of such manipulations is not so clearly
be gleaned through observation of the environment, understood. Proposition 2 is an attempt to first
the demographic and coorientational characteristics specify what constitutes critical elements in the de-
 zyxw
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsr
136 Burgoon and Jones

zyxwvutsr
The degree of proximity also affects the amount

zyxwvutsrq
termination of effects before analyzing the exact
nature of the relationships. of interaction that takes place. Priest and Sawyer
(1967) claim that the probability of any two people
Proposition 2: The effects of violations of expectations interacting is more a function of the distance be-
are a function of ( 1 ) the amount of deviation, ( 2 ) the tween them than of any other characteristic. A study
reward-punishment power of the initiator, and (3) the of clerical workers offers empirical support: Interac-
threat threshold of the reactant.
tion was higher within worker rows than across
By “effects” are meant such considerations as rows; it was higher among workers in adjacent rows
amount of interaction, kinds of nonverbal messages than among those that were separated further, and it
used, perceptions of the initiator’s credibility, task was highest among workers seated next to each
productivity, and coorientational factors such as other within a row (Gullahom, 1952).
interpersonal attraction and liking. To better clarify While the general significance of amount of de-
the importance of each of the three major elements viation is apparent, three considerations are worth
determining effects, they will be discussed sepa- noting: First, psychophysical theory contributes
rately in detail. recognition of the role of limen or threshold values.
Until a deviation reaches some as yet undetermined
Amount of Deviation limen value, it is probably not noticeable as a viola-
tion of the norm. This would produce a range of
deviation around the nonn that would not be recog-
Proposition 2a: The amount of deviation from prox-
emic expectations inj7uences the amount and direction nized as a deviation. This region of nonrecognition
of the effects. is consistent with the principle of perceptual set.
Based on past experiences with similar situations,
It is undoubtedly self-explanatory that different people come to expect certain proxemic patterns in a
amounts of deviation from the norm are going to given circumstance. These expectations form a set;
have differential impacts. Various research efforts “normality” is seen even when slight deviations
have confirmed this common sense expectation. For occur. This range of unnoticed deviations means
example, McBride et al. (1965) found that subjects that a simple linear relationship between amount of
had higher Galvanic Skin Responses when the ex- distance and amount of effect cannot be posited.
perimenter stood three feet from them than when the Second, Helson’s adaptation level theory (1964)
experimenter stood nine feet away. Patterson and offers a plausible explanation of how amount of
Sechrest (1967) observed compensatory reactions deviation relates to effect. He describes two types of
by subjects either to increase distance when another discrepancy-positive and negative. As either type
person with whom they were conversing was ex- of discrepancy occurs, the movement away from the
tremely close or to reduce distance when the other adaptation level causes a shift from indifferent af-
person was too faraway (approximately 10 feet); for fect to positive affect. The relationship is cur-
intermediate distances reactions were less pro- vilinear: as the discrepancy moves further from the
nounced. Patterson and Sechrest (1970) also found adaptation leveI, the arc begins to approach the
that varying the distance affected ratings of the indifferent affect level again and eventually shifts
initiator on the traits of friendliness, aggressive- into negative affect so that extreme discrepancies
ness, extraversion, and dominance. Ratings were cause greater negative affect. Thus the amount of
the most favorable when only one chair separated deviation clearly influences whether the impact on
interviewer from interviewee in the row in which the individual will be positive or negative. Patterson
they were seated. The most negative ratings occur- (1968) adopted this same interpretation when he
red when the interactants were at the greatest dis- hypothesized that moderate discrepancies would be
tance (eight feet). Ratings also declined when in- more pleasurable than distances equal to or ex-
teractants sat side by side. tremely discrepant from an individual’s adaptation
 z
VIOLATIONS OF PROXEMIC EXPECTATIONS

level. If the concept of a limen value is incorporated

137

explore how modifications of distances by initiators

zyxwvu
into this model, the curve may simply begin its who reward or punish affect communication out-
ascent further from the adaptation or normative comes.
level. The initial assumption we make is that people
The third consideration, which confounds the develop evaluations of others in an interaction.
simple relationship between physical distance and These evaluations may be based on first impressions
effects, is Priest and Sawyer’s (1967) notion of or on the history of past interactions with the same
phenomenal distance. Phenomenal distance is how individual. Regardless of the basis for the evalua-
distance is perceived or interpreted. Not only may tion, individuals make judgments about the positive
certain pathologies influence an individual’s need or negative value to themselves of those with whom
for space, they may affect the actual perception of they are interacting. We have chosen to frame this
distance. Similarly, environmental factors such as evaluative dimension within a reward-punishment
density may affect perception. Most importantly, context because it appears that people approach

zyxwvuts
other nonverbal elements can influence the sensa- others who provide some kind of reward and avoid
tion of distance. Many researchers claim that it is those whose actions serve as some form of punish-
the interplay between eye contact, body orientation, ment. The terms “reward” and “punishment” are
body lean, and actual distance that determines the being used here in a broader sense than the classical
perception of proximity (e.g. Argyle &Dean, 1965; usage. Reward may take such forms as affiliation,
Hall, 1966; Argyle, Lalljee & Cook, 1968). Con- attraction, acceptance, or approval in addition to
sequently, phenomenal distance as well as actual tangible rewards. Conversely, punishment may in-
distance may have to be taken into account when clude criticism, rejection, or repulsion. Both hu-
locating the limen value in the model and when mans and many other mammalian species are af-
assessing the magnitude of distance necessary to filiative creatures, as evidenced by such activities as
yield a given effect. The social norms that have been allogrooming, allofeeding, play, gift-giving, pair

zyxwvutsr
identified and the idiosyncratic patterns of individu- bonding, and sexual relations for purposes other
als should already reflect this perceptual element; than reproduction (cf. McBride, 1971). Because
however, an eventual refinement of the model may most humans apparently need to affiliate with
require specification of how these factors, espe- others, those who are attracted to them or to whom
cially the other nonverbal behaviors, mediate the they are attracted, and those who demonstrate lik-
effects of actual spacing. ing, acceptance, or approval should be sources of
reward. Conversely, people who are themselves
unattractive, who appear unattracted to the reactant,
Reward-Punishment of the Initiator who are critical, or who reject the reactant may be
regarded as punishment sources for the reactant.
High status individuals and group leaders are exam-
Proposition 2b: The reward-punishment power of the
ples of people who should have high reward power
initiator influences the amount and direction of rhe
effecfs. by virtue of their control of tangible rewards, their
position of influence, their attractiveness, their
centrality to reference groups, or their significance
Establishing this proposition will require a to the reactant as a source of approval. Powerless,
somewhat complex chain of reasoning and much unattractive, unpleasant, or deviant individuals
reinterpretation of previous research since very little should elicit negative evaluations because, at the
has focused directly on this relationship. We will least, they have nothing to offer the reactant in the
begin by defining the concept of reward- way of improving hidher self-image or sense of
punishment power and then consider how this trans- accomplishment and, at the worst, they may be
lates into initial distance preferences. We will then irritating or even physically offensive.
138

Although the reward-punishment power of the

Burgoon and Jones zyxw
zyxw
evaluations. Sommer (1971) reported that antipathy
initiator should be relatively stable over time, it can increases distance. Kleck’s (1968) investigations of
be altered by circumstances. For example, a nor- physical deformities revealed that distance is in-
mally powerful and attractive person can become a creased from individuals who are viewed as less
punishment source by criticizing or abusing the attractive. Altman’s (1971) isolation studies dem-
reactant. Many factors, including all the attributes onstrated that subjects who are incompatible on
of the initiator and the history of interactions be- affiliation needs become highly territorial and with-
tween initiator and reactant, must be taken into draw from each other socially. These studies all
consideration to assess the net reward-punishment indicate a preference for greater, not lesser, distance
power of the interactant in a given situation. Despite between self and punishing others. It seems reason-
the complexity of these factors, determining the able that closing that distance would therefore not
actual situational power valence need not be dif- produce desirable effects.
ficult. It can simply be operationally defined as the Very little research has directly tested these po-
degree to which the reactant is predisposed to ap- sited relationships, but many findings can be inter-
proach or avoid the initiator (aside from the norms preted to offer partial support. Research on class-
for that context). The reward-punishment power of room participation offers a starting point. The class-
the initiator therefore defines the reactant’s distanc- room teacher has many characteristics of a high
ing preferences (as opposed to norm-bound expecta- reward source: he or she is granted higher status, is
tions). generally regarded as highly credible, and controls
These preferences in turn become the key to pre- both tangible and intangible rewards such as grades
dicting whether a violation of expectations produces and praise. However, the same person may be re-
a positive or negative result. At this point our model garded as having high punishment power, particu-
diverges from Helson’s. Adaptation level theory larly for students who do not perform well scholas-
predicts that any deviation will initially produce tically. In view of these considerations, the general
positive affect. It seems unlikely that in matters of findings on classroom participation are supportive
personal space, deviations by positively valued and of the functional relationship between reward-
negatively valued initiators have the same effect or punishment power and effects. Adams (1969),
even that near or far deviations by the same initiator Crawford (1969), Sommer (1969), and Tuana
have identical impact. The reasonable expectation (1969) have found that the greatest amount of par-
is for movements closer by high reward sources to ticipation comes from front, center, and aisle seats,
be viewed positively and movements away by the i.e., those seats that have the most direct visual
same source to be viewed negatively. This can be access to the instructor. Moreover, those seats tend
inferred from all of the research on liking, attrac- to be held by the better students while poorer stu-
tion, and approval seeking. Close proximity is taken dents are generally found in the seats toward the
as a message of favorable evaluation. It should back where participation is lowest. These findings
therefore follow that when an initiator who is vie- seem consistent with the expectation that reward
wed as rewarding moves closer, the reactant will sources are approached closer and have a stronger
interpret it as a sign of greater liking, attraction, or effect the closer they are, while punishment sources
approval. A move away by the same person should are avoided.
be taken as a sign of falling out of favor. For an Not only does proximity increase interaction with
unattractive source, the reactions should be some- reward sources, it can increase friendship. Byrne
what reversed. A movement closer by a punishment and Buehler (1955) in studying college classroom
figure should be more threatening and/or offensive friendship formation found that higher acquain-
while a movement away from the norm may relieve tanceship developed among students in neighboring
the reactant. Some inferential support for this view seats. Further, the intensity of these relationships
can be taken from research on distance and negative exceeded those of non-neighbor relationships over a
 z
zyxwvuts
VIOLATIONS OF PROXEMIC EXPECTATIONS 139

long period of time. A massive five-year study by male-male dyads is much greater than for female-
Priest and Sawyer (1967) revealed that liking and female dyads, male reactants could have viewed the
recognition were consistently and substantially re- invasion as a sexual advance, which should have
lated to housing proximity in a dormitory. Even produced negative reactions. For female reactants,
when persons who had more distant rooms came to the invasion could also have had sexual overtones.
be recognized, they were liked less than those who Whether it would be interpreted as positive or nega-
lived closer. A related finding by Festinger, Schach- tive would have depended, then, on the reactant’s
ter, and Back (1950) revealed that people who had view of the initiator’s attractiveness. Written com-
apartments nearer stairways or houses that faced a ments by subjects in the Heston study suggested that
court more directly than others were more popular. they were not generally attracted to the confederate
They found that friendship choice was most likely to and many, both males and females, interpreted the
occur with people living in the same apartment invasion as sexually motivated. Thus the general
building, especially if they were on the same floor. reaction should have been negative. An investiga-
These studies demonstrate that proximity and the tion by Rosegrant (1973), which controlled for at-
attractiveness of the person to the reactant are re- tractiveness of the initiator by using four confeder-
lated. If (1) individuals initially establish closer ates, produced results that may also be regarded as
distances to reward sources and (2) closer proximity consistent with Proposition 2b if it can be assumed
promotes more attraction, then it should follow that that a college-age interviewer is granted status by a
reward sources can increase positive effects up to a high school student and therefore viewed as a re-
certain point by increasing proximity (The factors ward figure. A movement closer by six inches in-
determining at what point increasing proximity no creased sociability, competence, and composure
longer has a positive effect have yet to be discus-
sed).
In addition to interaction and friendship, some
other types of effects can be analyzed in a reward-
punishment mold. Several studies have examined
the credibility of the initiator following an invasion
of the reactant’s personal space. A study by Gamer
(1972), which employed a relatively attractive
female confederate as the initiator, found that credi-
zy
ratings. An improvement in sociability was espe-
cially marked for the black interviewer. Finally, a
study on attitude change and distancing also sup-
ports the proposition. Albert and Dabbs (1970)
found that attitude change was decreased as distance
from a hostile speaker decreased.
The only findings in the research we have re-
viewed that may be considered contradictory to the
proposition came from the Garner (1972) and Porter
bility ratings on the dimensions of competence, et al. (1970) studies. In the Garner investigation,
composure, and dynamism were higher when the subjects reported less favorable attitudes toward the
reactant’s personal space was invaded than when it topic and were rated by observers as less flexible,
was not (an invasion being defined as a distance of more tense, and more verbose when their personal
less than six inches). Since females would expect a space was invaded. Subjects also had more voc-
closer distance from other females and males would alized pauses, increased arm movements, and in-
probably find a close distance by a female a sign of creased expressive movements. It is difficult to say
attraction and a form of sexual advance, it was whether these latter effects should be considered
reasonable that increased proximity improved cre- “negative.” Onone hand they may simply be inter-
dibility. In contrast, a study by Heston (1974), preted as cues of heightened arousal, which is con-
using a highly similar operationalization of inva- sistent with the underlying theoretical formulation
sion, found lower sociability ratings for the confed- of deviations creating arousal. They might also be
erate when the reactant’s personal space was in- taken as indicators that the threat threshold, to be
vaded. In that investigation, the confederate was a discussed in the next section, was being ap-
male who would probably be rated about average on proached. However, the attitude effect cannot be
attractiveness. Since the normative distance for easily explained. One remote possibility is that the
140 zyxw
zyxwvutsrq Burgoon and Jones

heightened attention to social elements decreased

interest in the interview topic of education. Informa-
tion not collected in the study would be needed to
confirm or revise this explanation of the results.
Since the study was not designed to evaluate persua-
sion, these particular results should not be taken as
disconfirmation of the proposition, but only as an
area requiring further exploration and replication.
zyxw
one. Physiological measures, direct observations,
and self-reports have all revealed an anxiety reac-
tion to encroachments on personal space (Garfinkel,
1964; Horowitz, Duff & Stratton, 1964; McBride,
King & Jones, 1965; Felipe & Sommer, 1966;
Sommer, 1969; Baxter & Deanovitch, 1970; Patter-
son & Sechrest, 1970; Patterson, Mullens &
Romano, 1971). Nonverbal indicators of anxiety
In the case of the Porter et al. investigation, the have been recorded in several investigations. These
authors concluded that proximity had no effects on have included changes in body orientation (Felipe &
evaluations of the initiator. However, their study Sommer, 1966; Patterson, Mullens & Romano,
actually produced a large number of higher order 1971); compensatory behaviors such as pulling in
interactions, most of them due to the nature of the elbows or constructing body barricades (Felipe &
situation (formal or informal) and which confeder- Sommer, 1966);reduced eye contact or threatening
ate was involved. The first interaction is explained eye contact (Argyle & Dean, 1965; Mehrabian,
by the normative distances differing from formal to 1968; Goldberg, Kiesler & Collins, 1969); back-
informal settings-expectations would vary, as ward leaning, eye shading, head scratching (Argyle
would the effects. The second source of interpreta- & Dean, 1965), and actual increasing of distance or
tion problems, the variability among confederates, flight (Argyle & Dean, 1965; Felipe & Sommer,

zyxwvutsr
is explainable by differences in the reward- 1966). Altman and Haythorn (1967) reported that
punishment power of the confederates. Some may some subjects in the isolation experiments experi-
have been more attractive than others. It is therefore enced such discomfort from being confined in a
possible that the Porter et al. study, which claimed small space with another individual that they had to
no effects for distancing, is actually consistent with end the experiment prematurely. The previously
Propositions 1 and 2b. cited study of prisoners with violent tendencies
(Fast, 1970) further supports the importance of
Threat Threshold maintaining a degree of distance between individu-
als. Also related to spacing needs are the studies of
overcrowding. Davis (1971) reports that over-
Proposition 2c: The threat threshold influences the crowding affects rates of reproduction, growth, and
amount and direction of the effects. mortality. Numerous animal studies (Dubos, 1965;
Calhoun, 1966) have documented the debilitating
Much writing and observation has focused on
effects of inadequate space.
man’s need for space. While it has been established
The conclusion to be drawn from the research is
that territorial behavior is innate in many subhuman
that at some point humans do react negatively to a
species (e.g. Ardrey, 1961), innate territoriality in
violation of their immediate space. The fact that
man has not been clearly substantiated. Regardless
extended lack of space leads to negative conse-
of the lack of a genetic basis, impressive evidence
quences suggests that anxiety reactions are jus-
exists that man has a need to maintain a certain
tified. In fact, the concept of survival value might be
amount of distance between himself and others,
appropriately applied as an explanation for the reac-
whether it be defined as a geographic territory or
tions. The intrusion of space, if too close, may
only as personal space. Strong support is implicit in
create a threat to the psychological and physical
the reactions to violations of personal space. Hall
integrity of the individual. A related explanation
(1959) in his anthropological observations noted
can be extracted from Brehm’s reactance theory
that discomfort results when distance is less than
(Brehm, 1966). According to reactance theory, a
30-36 inches, unless the interaction is an intimate
threat to attitudinal freedom causes psychological
“
VIOLATIONS OF PROXEMIC EXPECTATIONS

reactance.” Efforts are made to restore an indi- gated the effects of crowding on member satisfac-
141 z
vidual’s perceived freedom of choice. As a corol- tion. She discovered that (1) subjects in the com-
lary, an invasion of personal space may be viewed fortable, uncrowded condition were significantly
as a threat to one’s freedom of movement, causing a more satisfied with their leader than were members
negative reaction to it, such as derogation of the of groups in the uncomfortable, crowded condition;
intruder, lowered comprehension, or lowered per- (2) subjects in comfortable, uncrowded groups,
suasibility. This would be consistent with such find- some with designated leaders and some leaderless,
ings as those in Brehm and Cole (1966) in which exhibited more interest and more verbosity than did
subjects were unwilling to do a favor for an indi- their counterparts in crowded and uncomfortable
vidual whom they perceived threatened their free- groups; and (3) subjects made the most relevant
dom to make unbiased decisions. contributions in the comfortable, uncrowded groups
The combined support from proxemic research with a designated leader while least relevant com-

zyxwvu
on personal space invasions and overcrowding and ments came from crowded, uncomfortable, leader-
the deductive support from reactance theory implies less groups. Furbay studied the influence of scat-
that a threat threshold exists, that is, there is some tered versus compact seating on audience response.
point beyond which closeness becomes threatening. He was interested in predicting from seating com-
The actual threshold in any given situation should pactness to listening comprehension and attitude
be the product of two classes of factors: (1) the change. Although he found no comprehension ef-
nature of the initiator, and (2) the environmental fect, he found that groups seated compactly were
factors. If the initiator has an aggressive personal- significantly less influenced by the speech than
ity, is attempting to punish the reactant, or is physi- were those seated in a scattered manner. These
cally unappealing, the threat threshold may be findings lend further support to the propositional
reached more quickly than if the initiator is meek, statement that effects are influenced by the threat
offering rewards, or attractive. The personality, threshold.
personal attributes, and reward role of the initiator
should all influence his or her threat potential. En- DERIVATION OF A MODEL OF VIOLATIONS
vironmental factors would include all elements of OF PROXEMIC EXPECTATIONS
the context that are relevant to perceived threat.
Such considerations as total amount of physical From the literature cited to support the proposi-
space, access to escape, amount of crowding, and tions, it is possible to derive a predictive model to
amount of environmental sensory stimulation could
affect the reactant’s threat threshold. Stokols (1972)
has generated a model of crowding phenomena
which identifies the environmental qualities of
amount and arrangement of space and stressors,
such as noise and temperature, as factors contribut-
ing to the perception of crowding. According to his
model, such factors lead to stress, followed by ef-
forts on the part of the individual to restore equilib-
zy
assess whether violations of norms should have
positive or negative effects in a given situation.
Propositions 2a and 2c and related research suggest
a relationship in which the greater the deviation, the
greater the positive effect that occuls up to an op-
timum level. Beyond this optimum level, deviations
become decreasingly acceptable as they begin to
approach the threat threshold. Once they pass the
threat threshold, the effect becomes negative.
rium through behavioral, perceptual, or cognitive As noted in Proposition 2 b , the reward-

zyxwvu
responses. From this it can be inferred that com- punishment power of the source must also be taken
munication outcomes will be affected by the degree into account. From the literature reviewed it can be
of threat felt. Two investigations that extend on the deduced that violations closer than the norm should
kinds of factors determining the threat threshold and have positive effects when initiated by a reward
their communication consequences are those by source and negative effects when initiated by a
Daley (1973) and Furbay (1965). Daley investi- punishment source. Conversely, movements away
142 zyxwvutsrq Burgoon and Jones

zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrq
FIGURE 1
Initiator i s Perceived as Rewarding

Optimum
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
does not take that into account-for simplicity’s
sake, reward-punishment has only been viewed as a
dichotomous variable.

Hypotheses Derived from the Model

Level
Based on the research supporting the propositions

A ,
and the proposed relationships among the variables,
it is possible to derive several hypotheses. The sam-
ple of hypotheses included here are ones considered
most critical to evaluating the “violation of expec-
tancies” explanation of proxemic effects:

1. Individuals rated as attractive will be more

zyxwvutsrqponm
I
I
I liked when they maintain a distance closer
I
I than the norm than when they maintain the
I
c-Farther Nearer _t I normative distance or a greater distance.
I
I 2. Individuals rated as attractive will be more
Expected
DIstence persuasive when they maintain a distance
~ closer than the norm than when they main-
from the norm may have negative effects for a tain the normative distance or a greater dis-
reward source. The effects of moving away for the tance.
punishment source are hard to predict at this point,
but it is possible that it may have a slightly positive
effect by virtue of being far removed from the threat
threshold.
Figures 1 and 2 roughly illustrate the proposed
relationships.
The horizontal axis represents distance-the
amount of deviation from the norm-while the ver-
tical axis represents degree of positive or negative
distance.zyxw
3. Individuals rated as attractive will be more
accurately understood when they maintain a
distance closer than the norm than when they

z
maintain the normative distance or a greater

4. Individuals assigned high status will be more

liked when they maintain a distance closer
than the norm than when they maintain the
normative distance or a greater distance.
effects. The plateau in the center of each represents 5 . Individuals assigned high status will be more
a region of nonrecognition, that is, deviations persuasive when they maintain a distance
within the normative range or too small to be notice- closer than the norm than when they main-
able. Based on this model, an initiator who is per- tain the normative distance or a greater dis-
ceived positively (i.e., as rewarding) by the reactant tance.
can potentially improve his or her effectiveness by 6. Individuals assigned high status will be more
moving closer than expected while a negatively accurately understood when they maintain a
perceived source is better off either observing the distance closer than the norm than when they

zyxwvutsrq
norm or moving slightly farther away than ex- maintain the normative distance or a greater
pected. One other implication of the model is that an distance.
initiator who is perceived as punishing cannot
achieve the same degree of positive effects as a ( O t h e r operationalizations f o r the reward-
rewarding initiator. In reality, that may be depen- punishment variable can be substituted for attrac-
dent on the degree of positive or negative regard the tion and status in the hypotheses above. Alterna-
reactant holds for the initiator. This initial model tives could include individuals “who use praise,”
 z
zyxwvutsrq
zy
VIOLATIONS OF PROXEMIC EXPECTATIONS 143

“who control resources,” and “who have high

credibility. Similarly, other kinds of outcomes,
”

such as attraction, credibility, comprehension, and

power could be substituted for liking, persuasion,
and accuracy. The same substitutability holds true
for the next six hypotheses.)

7. Individuals who are assigned high credibil-

ity will be more liked when they move
closer than expected than will individuals
assigned low credibility.
8. Individuals who are physically attractive
will be more persuasive when they move
closer than expected than will individuals
who are physically unattractive.
FIGURE 2

I zyx
Initiator is Perceived as Punishing
I
I
I
I
I

:I fa

9. Individuals who give negative feedback

will achieve the most liking when they are
at a distance slightly greater than the norm
Far1h.r

I N*ar*r - I
I
I
I

Expected
and the least liking at distances either closer Olslancs

than the norm or much greater than the

norm. cases where subjects are strangers, norms and ex-
10. Individuals who give positive feedback will pectations should be equivalent. In cases where
achieve the most liking when they are at a subjects are acquainted, further information will be
distance slightly closer than the norm and needed on their awareness of any idiosyncracies in
the least liking at distances either just short spacing behavior. These measures should permit a
of touching or greater than the norm. reasonable test of the hypotheses generated.
11. The amount of liking achieved by a person Once the direction of the hypothesized relation-
giving positive feedback will exceed that of ships has been verified, it will be possible to
a person giving negative feedback, regard- examine the amount of variance accounted for by
less of the distances at which maximum distancing in various contexts and to specify more
liking is achieved. precisely the functional nature of the relationships.
12, Individuals will feel threatened at a greater Because proxemic relations have both biological
distance by a punishing source than by a and psychological ramifications, this line of re-

zy
rewarding source. search should confirm our expectations that the
manipulation of space has a potent impact on com-
Testing these hypotheses will require prior de- munication outcomes.

zyxwv
termination of the norms and expectations. We have
not attempted to specify actual distances for the
REFERENCES
various norms we have reviewed because in many
cases the investigations have not reported mean ADAMS, R.S. Location as a feature of instructional
distances and even where they have been reported, interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1969, 15,
conditions across studies have not been sufficiently 309-32 1.
comparable to specify the distance parameters. In AIELLO, J.R., & JONES, S.E. Field study of the pro-
testing the hypotheses, it would seem advisable to xemic behavior of young children in three subcultural
determine the norm through pilot testing under con- groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ditions identical to the experimental setting. In ogy, 1971, 19, 351-356.
144 zyxw
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
Burgoon and Jones

zyxwvutsrq
ALBERT, S., & DABBS, J.M., JR. Physical distance
and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1970, 15, 265-270.
ALTMAN, I. Ecological aspects of interpersonal func-
tioning. In A.H. Esser (Ed.), Behavior and environ-
ment. New York: Plenum Press, 1971, 291-306.
Communication Association Convention, Montreal,
April, 1973.
DAVIS, D.E. Physiological effects of continued crowd-
ing. In A.H. Esser (Ed.), Behavior and environment.
New York: Plenum Press, 1971, 133-147.
DAVIS, W.F., & SWAFFER,P.W. Effectsofroomsize
ALTMAN, I., & HAYTHORN, W.W. The ecology of on critical interpersonal distance. Perceptual and
isolated groups. Behavioral Science, 1967, 12, 169- Motor Skills, 1971, 33, 926.
182. DOSEY, M., & MEISELS, M. Personal space and self-
ARDREY, R. African genesis. New York: Atheneum, protection. Journal of Personality and Social
1961. Psychology, 1969, 11, 93-97.
ARGYLE, M., & DEAN, J . Eye contact, distance, and
DUBOS, R. Man adapting. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
affiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289-304.
University Press, 1965, 100-109.
ARGYLE, M., LALLJEE, M., & COOK, M. Effects of
EDNEY, J.J. Place and space: The effects of experience
visibility on interaction in a dyad. Human Relations,
with a physical locale. Journal of Experimental and
1968, 21, 3-17.
Social Psychology, 1972, 8, 124-135.
BAXTER, J. C. Interpersonal spacing in natural settings.
EVANS, G.W., & HOWARD, R.B. Personal space.
Sociometry , 1970, 33, 444-456.
Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 334-344.
BAXTER, J.C., & DEANOVITCH, B.F. Anxiety ef-

z
FAST, J. Body langugage. New York: M. Evans and
fects of inappropriate crowding. Journal of Consult-

zy
Company, 1970.
ing and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 35, 174-178.
FELIPE, N., & SOMMER, R. Invasions of personal
BREHM, J .W. A theory ofpsychological reactance. New
space. Social Problems, 1966, 14, 206-214.
York: Academic Press, 1966.
BREHM, J.W., & COLE, H. Effect of a favor which FESTINGER, L., SCHACHTER, S., & BACK, K. SO-
reduces freedom. Journal of Personality and Social cia1 pressures in informal groups: A study of human
Psychology, 1966, 3, 420-426. factors in housing. New York Harper, 1950.
BURGOON, J .K., & SAINE, T. The unspoken dialogue. FORSTON, R.F., & LARSON, C.U. The dynamics of
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, in press. space: An experimental study in proxemic behavior
BURGOON, M., &CHASE, L. The effects of different- among Latin Americans and North Americans. Jour-
ial linguistic patterns in messages attempting to induce nal of Communication, 1968, 18, 109-116.
resistance to persuasion. Speech Monographs, 1973, FURBAY, A.L. The influence of scattered versus com-
40, 1-7. pact seating on audience response. Speech Monog-
BURNS, T. Nonverbal communication. Discovery, raphs, 1965, 32, 144-148.
1964, (October), 31-35. GARFINKEL, H. Studies of the routine grounds of
BYRNE, D., & BUEHLER, J.A. A note on the influence everyday activities. Social Problems, 1964, 11, 225-
of propinquity upon acquaintanceships. Journal of 250.
AbnormalandSocialPsychology, 1955,51,147-148. GARNER, P.H. The effects of invasions of personal
CALHOUN, J.B. The role of space in animal sociology. space on interpersonal communication. Unpublished
Journal of Social Issues, 1966, 22, 46-58. masters thesis, Department of Communication, 11-
COOK, M. Experiments on orientation and proxemics. linois State University, 1972.
Human Relations, 1970, 23, 61-76. GOLDBERG, G.N., KIESLER, C.A., & COLLINS,
CRANACH, M.V. The role of orienting behavior in B.E. Visual behavior and face to face distance during
human interaction. IF A.H. Esser (Ed.), Behavior and interaction. Sociometry, 1969, 32, 43-53.
environment. New York Plenum Press, 1971, 217- GULLAHORN, J. Distance and friendship as factors in
237. the gross interaction matrix. Sociometry, 1952, 15,
CRAWFORD, J. Cited in R. Sommer, Personal space. 123-134.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. HALL, E.T. Human adaptability to high density. Ekis-
DALEY, J. The effects of crowding and comfort on tics, 1965, 20, 119.
interaction behavior and membership satisfaction in HALL, E.T. The silent language. Garden City, N.Y.:
small groups. Paper presented at the International Doubleday, 1959.
 z
zyxwvutsrqp
VIOLATIONS OF PROXEMIC EXPECTATIONS 145

zyxwvutsrq
HALL, E.T. The hidden dimension. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1966.
HARE, A., & BALES, R. Seating position and small
group interaction. Sociometry , 1963, 26, 480-486.
HELSON, H. Adaptation-level theory: An experimental
and systematic approach to behavior. New York
Harper & Row, 1964.
MEHRABIAN, A , , & WILLIAMS, M. Nonverbal con-
comitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969,
13, 37-58.
NORUM, G.A., RUSSO, N.J., & SOMMER, R. Seat-
ing patterns and group tasks. Psychology in the
Schools, 1967, 4, 3.
HESTON, J.K. Effects of anomia and personal space PATTERSON, M.L. Spatial factors in social interac-
invasion on nonperson orientation, anxiety and source tions. Human Relations, 1968, 21, 351-361.
credibility. Central States Speech Journal, 1974, 25, PATTERSON, M.L., & HOLMES, D.S. Social interac-
19-27. tion correlates of the MPI Extroversion-Introversion
HESTON, J.K., & GARNER, P. A study of personal scale. American Psychologist, 1966, 21, 724-745.
spacing and desk arrangement in a learning environ- PATTERSON, M.L., & SECHREST, L.B. Impression
ment. Paper presented at the International Communi- formation and interpersonal distance. Unpublished
cation Association Convention, Atlanta, April, 1972. manuscript, Northwestern University, 1967.
HORROWITZ, M.J., DUFF, D.F., & STRATTON, PATTERSON, M.L., & SECHREST, L.B. Interper-
L.O. Body buffer zones, Archives of General sonal distance and impression formation. Journal of
Psychiatry, 1964, 11, 651-656. Personaliry, 1970, 38, 161-166.
HOWELLS, L.T., & BECKER, S .W. Seating arrange- PATTERSON, M.L., MULLENS, S . , & ROMANO, J.
ment and leadership emergence. Journal ofAbnorma1 Compensatory reactions to spatial intrusion.
and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 269-272. Sociometry, 1971, 34, 114-121.
JONES, S . A comparative proxemics analysis of dyadic PEDERSEN, D.M. Developmental trends in personal
interaction in selected subcultures of New York City. space. Journal of Psychology, 1973, 83, 3-9.
Journal of Social Psychology, 1971, 84, 35-44. PORTER, E., ARGYLE, M., & SALTER, V. What is

zyxwvutsr
KING, M.G. Interpersonal relations in preschool chil-
dren and average approach distance. Journal of Gene-
tic Psychology, 1966, 108, 109-116.
KLECK, R. Physical stigma and task oriented interac-
tion. Human Relations, 1968, 21, 351-361.
LEIPOLD, W. Psychological distance in a dyadic inter-
view. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of North Dakota, 1963.
LITTLE, K.B. Personal space. Journal of Experimental
signaled by proximity? Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1970, 30, 39-42.
PRIEST, R.F., & SAWYER, 1. Proximity and peership:
Bases of balance in interpersonal attraction. The
American Journal of Sociology, 1967, 72, 633-649.
ROSENFELD, H. Effect of approval-seeking induction
on interpersonal proximity. Psychological Reports,
1965, 17, 120-122.
ROSEGRANT, T. The relationship of race and sex on
Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 237-247. proxemic behavior and source credibility. Paper pre-
LOTT, D.F., & SOMMER, R. Seating arrangements and sented at the International Communication Associa-
status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, tion Convention, Montreal, April, 1973.
1967, 7, 90-94. RUSSO, N. Connotation of seating arrangements. Cor-
LYMAN, L.M., & SCOTT, M.B. Territoriality: A neg- nell Journal of Social Relations, 1967, 2, 37-44.
lected sociological dimension. Social Problems, SCHNEIRLA, T.C. Aspectsof stimulation and organiza-
1967, 15, 236-249. tion in approach/withdrawal processes underlying ver-
McBRIDE, G. Theories of animal spacing: The role of tebrate behavior development. Advances in the Study
flight, fight and social distance. In A.H. Esser (Ed.), of Behavior, 1965, 1, 1-74.
Behavior and environment. New York: Plenum Press, SOMMER, R. Studies in personal space. Sociometry ,
1971, 53-68. 1959, 22, 247-260.
McBNDE, G., KING, M.G., & JONES, J.W. Social SOMMER, R. Leadership and group geography.
proximity effects on GSR in human adults. Journal oj- Sociometry, 1961, 24, 99-110.
PSychOlOgy, 1965, 61, 153-157. SOMMER, R. The distance for comfortable conversa-
MEHRABIAN, A. Relationship of attitude to seated tion: A further study. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 11-16.
posture, orientation and distance. Journal of Person- SOMMER, R. Further studies of small group ecology.
ality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 26-30. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 337-348.
 zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
zyxwvutsrqp
146 Burgoon and Jones

zyxwvutsrqp
SOMMER, R. Personal space: The behavioral basis of

zy
design. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
SOMMER, R. Spatial parameters in naturalistic social
research. In A.H. Esser (Ed.),Behavior and environ-
ment . New York: Plenum Press, 1971.
STOKOLS, D. A social-psychological model of human
crowding phenomena. Journal of the American Insti-
tute of Planners, 1972, 38, 72-84.
THIBAUT, J., & KELLEY, H.H. Thesocialpsychology
WATSON, O.M. Proxemic behavior: A cross-cultural
study. The Hague: Mouton, 1970.
WATSON, O.M. Conflicts and directions in proxemic
research. Journal of Communication, 1972, 22,443-
459.
WATSON, O.M., & GRAVES, T.D. Quantitative re-
search in proxemic behavior. American An-
thropologist, 1968, 68, 971-985.
WILLIAMS, J.L. Personal space and its relation to

zyxwvutsrq
of groups. New York Wiley, 1959. extroversion-introversion. Unpublished masters
TRIANDIS, H.G., DAVIS, E., & TAKEZAWA, S. thesis, University of Alberta, 1963.
Some determinants of social distance among Ameri- WILLIS, F.N. Initial speaking distance as a function of
can, German and Japanese students. Journal of Per- the speaker’s relationship. Psychonomic Science,
sonality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 540-551. 1966, 5, 221-222.
TUANA, S. Cited in R. Sommer, Personal space. En- WINNICK, C., & HOLT, H. Seating position as nonver-
glewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. bal communication in group analysis. Psychiatry,
1961, 24, 171-182.