Psych 466: Environmental Psychology

Personal Space & Territory Lecture Notes

Personal Space Personal Space: A body buffer zone that people maintain between themselves and others a portable, invisible boundary surrounding us into which others may not trespass.

First defined by Katz in 1937 from observations of animal behavior Applied to human behavior by the anthropologist Hall (1963) Sommer (1969) related personal space to psychology & public places (design) Over 140 terms used to describe personal space Functions of Personal Space: Overload Theory: too many people too close cause too much stimulation Stress: Avoid the personal stressors related to being too close with someone Arousal: Having people Within our personal space creates too much arousal that may be negative Behavior Constraint: Having personal space prevents people from taking away your personal freedom Form of Nonverbal Communication: Communicates the type of relationship you are in depending on personal space distance. Provides info with how people or why people distance themselves Personal & group privacy: Attempts to achieve your levels of privacy Intimacy-equilibrium model & Comfort models: Basically we want attain an optimal level of space Ethological Models: Functions at a cognitive level but reflects evolutionary developments. Based on what they learned, as well as the way people as a species evolved. 2 main Functional categories of personal space:

Protective Function: Serves as a buffer against potential emotional & physical threats Communication: Distance determines which sensory communication channels (e.g. smell, touch, visual input, verbal input) will be most salient to the interaction Choose distances that transmit intimate/nonintimate sensory cues: communicates type/level of relationship with others.

Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale Demo (CIDSD): Acts to simulate personal space and peoples preferences You are facing #8 People can approach you from any of the number radii Indicate how close you would want them to come by placing a mark on each of the radii Size of Personal Space: Depends on the situation Who we are with & what we are doing Individual Differences Some people always prefer minimal personal space, while others maintain larger zones (in general) Gender, race, culture & personality differences (can influence - a sort of commonality)

Hall's View of size of Personal Space: thought there was unconscious structuring of microspaces to fit different situations Table 8-1

Psych 466: Environmental Psychology

Hall's Distances

Intimate Distance: 0 - 18 inches Radiant heat, smell, touch will be a primary communication rather than talking Personal: 18" - 4' Acquaintances, more visual detail, verbal channels of communication will account more than touch. Social Distance: 4 - 12 ft Professional level of interaction, sensory input are minimal, but normal voice levels and touch is impossible Public Distance: 12 - 25 ft Giving a presentation on a stage, little sensory info, body communication and gestures are exaggerated

Hall used cross-cultural studies which indicated that cultures vary widely in spatial behavior Different social norms for what is appropriate for communication (close & far cultures) Social interactions between individuals from "close" cultures and "far" cultures

Situational Determinants of Personal Space

Attraction & interpersonal distance This is a complex relationship Classic studies: when males & females interact, increased attraction is associated with closer physical distance. Some studies: "liking" Women are more likely to be closer than males Social Psychology: Similar individuals tend to be more attractive to each other than dissimilar individuals. e.g. Looks, interests etc. Females tend to be the ones to move closer (also women tend to have smaller space in general) Other types of Similarity Age: similar age equates to closer Race or subculture: closer when they are of the same Religion: same religion = closer Sexuality: similar = closer Status: less distance with people of the same status Military- people closer in rank to a higher ranking officer interact closer together more than if the person is lower in rank in comparison to the officer Disability or stigmatizing disease status: farther away if people have disability or disease Threat level adjusts the distance associated with comfort. The more threat the farther away Type of Interaction Negative situations: larger spatial zones Women tend to react to threatening situations by expanding personal space Anger can lead to closer distances (for retaliation) or farther distances (for Protection)

Individual Difference Determinants of Personal Space **Cultural & Ethnic: mixed & inconsistant data** Contact Cultures: mediterranean, Arabic & Hispanic Cultures interact at closer distances Noncontact cultures: northern European & Caucasian American Cultures Subculture differences in the U.S.

Psych 466: Environmental Psychology

Tend to interact at closer levels with members of own subculture, but socioeconomic status similarities

may be better predictors.

Gender Differences Female-Female pairs = closer distance Male-Male = Farther distance Mixed Sex Pairs: Acquaintances: Intermediate Distance (between m-m & f-f in distance) Close relationships: Closer distances May be influenced by hormone cycles Age Differences Personal space norms appear to develop between 45 and 63 months of age, then change as children mature it stabilizes a bit and increases with age. Personal Space becomes Larger with Age Adults maintain greater distance from children as child's age increases Personality Determinants Internality-externality Externals prefer greater distances from strangers Externals believe that control is outside of them and vic versa to Internality Anxious individuals, introverts, people who work in relative isolation, people with low self-esteem, people low in need for affiliation, fielded independent individuals (rely on internal cues)

Psychopathology Schizophrenia: Individuals with this disorder require more personal space Borderline Personality Disorder: have difficulty maintaining appropriate personal distances

___________________________________________________________________ Lecture Notes Set 2

Physical Determinants of Personal Space

Maintaining close personal space in the dark causes more discomfort than being close in full illumination (touching is more likely in the dark) People exhibit greater personal space in corners vs. the center of a room Maintain closer distances when standing vs. sitting Maintain greater distances indoors vs. outdoors Greater distances in crowded vs. uncrowded conditions Theory explaining all of this: if escape is possible or more maneuverable then close distance is ok. But if their isn't an option for escape e.g. indoors, then people maintain greater distances Basically the environmental conditions and the need for escape are what mediates desirable distances

Interpersonal Positioning Effects Body Orientation Males prefer liked individuals in an across orientation (face to face) Females prefer liked individuals adjacent (side-to-side) Sommer (1965) cooperation vs. competition

Psych 466: Environmental Psychology

Cooperating pairs sat side-by-side, competing pairs sat across from each other

Spatial Zones & Goal Fulfillment Generally, impact of communication will decline aas physical distance between communicator and the target increases Is there an optimal distance for teaching? Counseling? Group processing? Is there a distance we should be trying to facilitate?

Learning Environments Teacher-student interactions at closer zones may lead to better performance With assigned seating there isn't any real difference however allowing one to choose does impact perfromance Classroom: seat choice may influence Communication Middle-front section: High communcation zone promotes verbalization & facilitates attention People who choose these seats tend to have high self-esteem, show higher participation and more positive attitudes toward educational experience, & get higher grades (correlation, with some experimental support) Professional Interactions Intermediate distances preferred for counseling situations Sone & Morden (1976): College students volunteered more personal info with therapist at 5ft distance vs. 2 or 9 ft. (psychiatric setting) Psychiatric patients tend to talk most about fears & anxieties at this distance.

Group Processes spacing to promote/facilitate interaction within a group Social spacing: furniture arrangements, architectural designs, or social factors that encourage social interactions. Arrange space so people face each other-greater interaction Leaders: Central spatial orientation that is highly visible. (people who want to be leader tend to take a seat in a central location. Also those who see people at central location as leaders more likely) Socio feudal spacing: is keeping people apart.

Consequences of inappropriate distances People find it aversive when they are constrained to interact with others under conditions of too little or too much personal space Interacting at inappropriate distances leads to negative affect & negative inferences (negative view) It is stressful to maintain in inappropriate distance. People to close also influences body mannerisms

Compensation & reciprocation Compensatory Behaviors: behaviors such as: Increased eye contact that make up for inappropriately far distances (make up for loss of emotional tie) Leaning away from a person for inappropiately close distances Reciprocal Response: a similar response is shown by the other person Moving closer when the other moves close Turning farther away when the other turns away This comes from the idea of distances affecting level of arousal

Psych 466: Environmental Psychology

During an Interaction, a change in intimacy of one person can cause arousal in the other Cognitions & attributions about the situation can influence how arousal is interpreted If the arousal is labeled as a negative emotion, a compensatory response occurs If arousal is labeled as a positive emotion, a reciprocal response occurs How we interpret our arousal response to the change in distance effects what cognitive actions we take to alter it.

Personal-Space Invasions Invasions of personal space elicit: negative affect, arousal, negative inferences, compensatory reactions, and decreased helping behavior Intensity of negative reaction varies as a function of situational conditions and individual differences. Invader: Attraction, age, gender, smokers, whether or not there is a clear reason for the invasion Males react more negatively to invasion Adults react to young children invading personal space positively, 8 year olds neutral & 10< years old as negative An ambiguous reason for the invasion elicits more uncomforting for male invaders than female invaders. Attributing their behavior as negative Women tend to be more tolerant to invasions than men. Personal-Space invasions (GROUPS) Groups will also engage in compensatory response to protect "group space" from invasion Being placed in the role of personal-space invader is aversive and is avoided if possible Willingness to invade is influenced by status: those deemd a lower status lead to more likely invasions, size of group is also a factor, larger groups are less likely to be invaded. Also influential is gender composition Territorial Behavior Definition: perceived ownership of a space Personal space determines how close people may come VS Territorial behavior determines who may come into a given space Can be individual or Group behavior Territory is maintained by evolutionary and learned factors For humans it is less about survival

For Humans: Social, Cultural & Cognitive elements characterize human Territoriality Appears to have important organing functions for human social behavior Territories can lead to feelings of distinctiveness, privacy & sense of personal identity Like other species, humans mark & defend territory Typical Markers Include: Fences Possessions Signs Doors Spoken Words People Territory can both instigate & inhibit Aggression Humans are more flexible than others species about defending territory

Psych 466: Environmental Psychology

Humans tend to defent territory as a group effort (palestine/Israel conflict) Humans show a range of territories Primary (Home/Office) Marked more to identify territory Secondary (classroom) Public (bench, Place on the beach) More likely to defend primary vs. public territories

What would life be like without territory? Life would be more disorganized There would be more locomotion or movement around places Loss of Privacy More effort to safeguard possessions More effort directed at survival