Personal Space

Josien Caris S0312983 Roger Voncken S0313149

Contents Summary
3

1. Introduction
2. Proxemics 2.1 Hall 2.2 Space 2.3 Distance 2.4 Territoriality 2.5 Monochronic and polychronic time 2.6 High and low- context cultures 2.7 Sex differences

4 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 12

3. Small group ecology

3.1 The influence of attitude on seating 3.2 The influence of seating on attitude

4. Conclusion

References

13

Summary

Each person has an invisible boundary around their body into which other people may not come. If someone pierces this invisible boundary, which is your own personal space, they will feel uncomfortable and move away to increase the distance between them. The size of your own personal space changes, depending on a number of things like the relationship to the people nearby, the person's emotional state, cultural background, and the activity being performed. When a person is alone, his or her individual distance is infinite; but personal space is always carried, although it disappears in certain situations such as crowding. When personal space is violated, people react with defensive gestures, shifts in posture, attempts to move away, and actually moving away. Proxemics is the study of the human use of space within the context of culture and has been point out by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall. He mentioned that there are three fundamental areas related to proxemics: space, distance, and territory. In an attempt to identify and classify the distance people use, Hall identifies four types of distances: intimate, personal, social and public distance. These distances can vary according to personality and environmental factors, since an abnormal situation could bring people closer than they usually are. Territoriality insures the propagation of the species by regulating density. It provides a frame in which things are done; places to learn, places to play, save places to hide. Thus it coordinates the activities of the group and holds the group together. People find it important to have a place of their own. People, unlike animals, determine personal distance culturally, not genetically, and so acceptable distance varies from culture to culture. So Hall's first distinctions were between what he calls monochronic and polychronic time. Monochronic time is characteristic of low-involvement peoples, who compartmentalize time. Polychronic people, possibly because they are so much involved with each other, tend to keep several operations going at once. These two time orientations tend to produce two other significant cultural phenomena: the difference between high and low context cultures and also sex differences have been reported in personal spacing. Sommer has investigated the idea that certain arrangements of people are more suited to certain activities than others, not from the standpoint of specific practical tasks such as might occur in a work situation, but that of certain attitudes (cooperation, competition, or separate action). But not only the attitude of people is important for choosing a particular seat, but the seat itself also stipulates the way people are able to interact with each other. The position of chairs are often very determinative for a conversation.

1. Introduction: personal space

On a particular day Julius Fast, one of the mayor authorities of body language, was sitting at a table with a psychiatrist who was a friend of his. They were eating lunch in a restaurant opposite each other at a table for two. His friend took a packet of cigarettes from his pocket, lit one and laid the pocket just in front of Fasts place setting while continuing to talk. Fast found that he was uncomfortable, but was unable to define this in more detail. This uneasiness increased as his friend pushed his place setting toward the packet of cigarettes. When the friend then leant over the table directly towards Fast, the latter felt so irritated, that he had to interrupt the conversation. Then his partner leant back and said smiling: I have demonstrated to you a basic fact of body language. Initially I pushed my cigarettes packet towards you. We already divided the table in two, on the basis of established convention; respected the others half. I put my cigarettes into your half, and thereby broke the agreement. Although you did not know what I was doing, you felt more uncomfortable, but you still did not know why (Fast, 1970, 22-23). What Fast is describing is the classical reaction to a threat to one territory or movement into the personal space of an individual. Because, when two people are talking to each other, they tend to stand a specific distance apart. Each person has an invisible boundary around their body into which other people may not come. If someone pierces this invisible boundary, they will feel uncomfortable and move away to increase the distance between them. The size of your own personal space changes, depending on a number of things like the relationship to the people nearby, the person's emotional state, cultural background, and the activity being performed. For strangers that you meet in a public room, the personal space could be as much as one metre. For close friends, it can be a lot less. Robert Sommer, Professor of Psychology, sees individual distance and personal space as closely related, he says that "individual distance may be outside the area of personal space" (Sommer, 27). He establishes the difference with this image: When a person is alone, his or her individual distance is infinite; but personal space is always carried, although it disappears in certain situations such as crowding. When personal space is violated, people react with defensive gestures, shifts in posture, attempts to move away, and actually moving away. There are three main purposes of personal space and all have to do with interpersonal boundary regulation (www.radford.edu) 1. Protective function: serves as a buffer zone against potential emotional and physical threats like stress; 2. Adjusting sensory input: regulate amount of sensory information we get from others and prevents overloads; 3. Communication function: level of closeness and intimacy that we desire with another.

2. Proxemics
2.1 Hall The anthropologist Edward T. Hall is most associated with proxemics, the study of the human use of space within the context of culture. People handle space differently the way they do largely determined by the culture in which they are immersed. Proxemics is a term Hall has coined for the interrelated observations and theories of mans use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture (Hall, 1966 p. 101). Proxemics is one of the most important aspects of non-verbal communication. He argued that differing cultural frameworks for defining and organizing space, which are internalized in all people at an unconscious level, can lead to serious failures of communication and understanding in crosscultural settings. There are three fundamental areas related to proxemics: space, distance, and territory. Hall has devoted in his book to the senses, the physiological base shared by all human beings, to which culture gives structure and meaning. There are three proxemic manifestations. One, the infracultural, is behavioral and is rooted in mans biological past. The second. Precultural, is physiological and very much in the present. The third, the microcultural level, is the one on which most proxemic observations are made (Hall, 1966, p. 103). 2.2 Space Proxemics as a manifestation of microcultural has three aspects (Hall, 1966, p. 103): fixed-feature; semifixed-feature; informal.

Fixed-feature space is one of the ways in which people organize activities. Houses, buildings, cities, rooms, etc. are organized spatially. Objects and activities are related to these spatial arrangements; and if objects or activities are moved, people react. The important point about fixed-feature space is that it is the mold into which a great of behavior is cast. Buildings are one expression of fixed-feature patterns, but buildings are also grouped together in characteristic ways as well as being divided internally according to culturally determined designs. The layout of villages, towns, cities, and the intervening countryside is not haphazard but follows a plan which changes in time and culture (Hall, 1966, p. 103-106). Semifixed-feature space is of primary importance in interpersonal communication, because it can be used in many different ways to convey meaning. Hall mentions two types of semi-fixed feature space: Socio-petal spaces are those which bring people together and stimulate involvement, while socio-fugal spaces keep people apart and promote withdrawal. Furniture arrangement in public places has a distinct relationship to the degree of conversation. Some spaces such as railway waiting rooms in which the seating provisions are formally arranged in fixed row, tend to discourage conversation: sociofugal spaces. Others such as the tables in a European sidewalk caf, tend to bring people

together: sociopetal spaces (Hall, 1966, p. 108-111). Informal space is significant because it includes the distances people unconsciously maintain when they interact. Informal spatial patterns have distinct bounds and such deep, if unvoiced, significance that they form an essential part of culture. To misunderstand this significance may invite disaster (Hall, 1966, p.111). He classified informal space into four subcategories: intimate, personal, social, and public (http://ciadvertising.org) 2.3 Distance People have certain patterns for delimiting the distance when they interact, and this distance varies according to the nature of the social interaction. In an attempt to identify and classify the distance people use, Hall identifies four types of distances: intimate; personal; social; public.

These distances can vary according to personality and environmental factors, since an abnormal situation could bring people closer than they usually are. It should be noted that some individuals never develop the public phase of their personalities and, therefore, cannot fill public spaces; they make very poor speakers or moderators. Other people have trouble with the intimate and personal zones and not can not endure closeness to others Each of the four distance zones described below has a near and a far phase (Hall, 1966, p.113-116). Intimate distance ranges from body contact to approximately 45 cm. At intimate distance, the presence of the other person is unmistakable. Sight, olfaction, heat from the other persons body, smell, and feel of the breath all combine to signal unmistakable involvement with another body. According to Hall, the close phase, up to15 cm, includes intimate activities which require extensive contact of the bodies while the far phase, from 15 to 45 cm, does not allow for much, if any, body contact (Hall, 1966, p. 116-119). Personal distance consistently separates the members of the non-contact species. It might be thought as a small protective sphere that a person maintains between itself and others. Personal distance ranges from 45 to 120 cm between people. The close phase, 45 to 75 cm, permits one person to touch another, while the far phase of personal distance, 75 to 120 cm, "an arm's length" does not permit this. Subjects and personal interest can be discussed at this distance (Hall, 1966, p. 119-120). Social distance is the casual interaction-distance between acquaintances and strangers. It is common in business meetings, classrooms, and impersonal social affairs. Social distance ranges from 120 to 360 cm. Its close phase, 120 to 210 cm, is the characteristic of informal interaction, while more formal interaction requires the far phase 210 to 360 cm. Some physical barriers such as desks, tables, and counters, usually make people keep this distance. Proxemic behavior of this sort is culturally conditioned and arbitrary (Hall, 1966, p. 121-123).

Several important sensory shifts occur in the transition from the personal and social distances to public distance, which is well outside the circle of involvement. Public distance is at 360 cm or more. Its close phase, 360 to 450 cm, provides the amount of space generally desired among strangers, while its far phase 450 cm or more is necessary for large audiences. In this case, speech must be projected or amplified to be heard. 2.4 Territoriality A great deal of the research on the social use of space has also been developed around the concept of territoriality. A manifest example we know in our daily life about territory and personal space on human communication is the sign on the automobile bumper sticker: "If you can read this, you're too close". The tern territoriality means a geographic area that indicates ownership and defense of this territory against "invaders" (http://ciadvertising.org). The removal of boundary markers and trespass upon the property of another man are punishable act much of the Western world. The distinction is carefully made between private property, which is the territory of an individual, and public property which is territory of the group (Hall, 1966, p.10). Hediger, an animal psychologist, described the most important aspects of territoriality and explained succinctly the mechanisms by which it operates. Territoriality insures the propagation of the species by regulating density. It provides a frame in which things are done; places to learn, places to play, save places to hide. Thus it coordinates the activities of the group and holds the group together. It keeps animals within communicating distance of each other, so that the presence of food or an enemy can be signaled. An animal with a territory of its own can develop a inventory of reflex responses to terrain features. When danger strikes, the animal on its home ground can take advantage of automatic responses rather than having to take time to think about where to hide (Hall, 1966, p.8) For people it is important to have a place of their own. People, just like animals, also have their own territory. For example, people find it terrible when there has been burgled in their houses. Not only because of the fact that they miss valuable things, but worse is the idea that someone has been in their territory (www.lichaamstaal.com). 2.5 Monochronic and polychronic time People, unlike animals, determine personal distance culturally, not genetically, and so acceptable distance varies from culture to culture. Whenever people from different countries come into repeated contact they begin generalize about each others behavior. Understanding personal space in a different culture from your own is a matter of knowing the differences in behaviour between cultures. Hall's first distinctions were between what he calls monochronic and polychronic time. Monochronic time is characteristic of low-involvement peoples, who compartmentalize time; the schedule one thing at a time and become disoriented if they have to deal too many things at ones. Polychronic people, possibly because they are so much involved with each other, tend to keep several operations going at once. Therefore, the monochronic person often finds it easier it function he can separate activities in space, whereas the polychronic tends to collect activities. If, however, these two

types are interacting with each other, much of the difficulty they experience can be overcome by the proper structuring of space. Monochronic northern Europeans, for examples, find the constant interruptions of polychronic southern Europeans almost unbearable because it seems that nothing ever gets done. Since order is not important to the Southern Europeans. The costumers with the most push get served first, even though he may have been the last to enter. Americans are mostly monochronic. The Italians, for example, are largely polychromic (Hall, 1966 p.173). 2.6 High and low- context cultures These two time orientations tend to produce two other significant cultural phenomena: the difference between high and low context cultures. These terms refer to the fact that when people communicate, they take for granted how much the listener knows about the subject under discussion. In low-context communication, the listener knows very little and must be told practically everything. In high-context communication the listener is already 'contexted' and so does not need to be given much background information. Low-context people include Americans and Northern Europeans; they compartmentalize their personal relationships, their work, and many aspects of day-to-day life. Consequently, each time they interact with others they need detailed background information. The French, high-context people, are much higher on the context scale than either Northern Europeans or the Americans. This difference can affect virtually every situation and every relationship in which the members of these two opposite traditions find themselves (http://www.cs.ucr.edu). For example, Westerners visiting St Petersburg usually experience culture shock when they first come to Russia. They watch ordinary exchanges of conversation on the street and in shops that seem, by Western standards, to be angry shouting matches. People constantly appear to be trying to cut in front of them in lines. The standard newcomers' conclusion is that Russians are indescribably rude. What we read as anger is in fact often only the raised volume and close distance of a personal conversation. But foreigners' mistaken perceptions are one of the chief reasons why so many of them seem so jumpy when they first arrive. In western eyes people are yelling at and shoving them, flirting with them and perhaps even molesting them by intimate touching. But then, inevitably, as one begins to meet Russians at home, or at a business meetings, where hospitality, formality, and elaborate courtesy are far more developed than in the West, one finally sees that Russians in fact have manners. In the context of personal space follows the next example; a Northern European in a queue at the bank in Russia to change money will stand directly behind the person in front, at a culturally acceptable distance of between 0.5 to 1.3 meters. A Russian entering the scene will assume that I am waiting for somebody or am undecided about which line to get in, and will unashamedly sidle in to the right of what seems to be the only person in line, at a distance of about 5 centimeters. If the northern European doesn't immediately follow his example, others will come and do so, and he will be standing, slightly to one side, of a line of a dozen people, still not getting his money changed (http://www.friendspartners.org)

Here's a nifty chart Hall has created to describe some of the predictable patterns between cultures with differing time systems: MONOCHRONIC PEOPLE do one thing at a time concentrate on the job take time commitments (deadlines, schedules) seriously are low-context and need information are committed to the job adhere religiously to plans are concerned about not disturbing others; follow rules of privacy and consideration show great respect for private property; seldom borrow or lend emphasize promptness are accustomed to short-term relationships Table 1: www.cs.ucr.edu The point mentioned above can lead to some interesting questions, because what happens when a person with a very large personal space, who likes to keep people at a distance, interacts continually with people with small personal spaces, who like to get close? What will the first person's reaction be if these people unknowingly continue to move inside his or her invisible boundaries? What will the monochromic people feel subconsciously about the polychronic person? 2.7 Sex differences Sex differences have been reported in personal spacing, as well, with women usually feeling more comfortable at closer distances than men. Still other research suggests that interpersonal distance is influenced by social relationships. Women prefer more distance between themselves and an oppositesex stranger than men do. Experiments shows that when people asked pairs of friends and strangers to stand at various distances from each other, both men and women felt more comfortable when an opposite-sex friend stood close than when a stranger of either sex stood at that distance. In general, women tend to stand closer when talking with friends than do men. Understanding these sex differences can help us behave appropriately in social situations with both men and women (http://www.dushkin.com). POLYCHRONIC PEOPLE do many things at once are highly distractible and subject to interruptions consider an objective to be achieved, if possible are high-context and already have information are committed to people and human relationships change plans often and easily are more concerned with those who are closely related (family, friends, close business associates) than with privacy borrow and lend things often and easily base promptness on the relationship have strong tendency to build lifetime relationships

3. Small group ecology

3.1 The influence of attitude on seating Textbooks of group dynamics and applied psychology frequently allude the idea that certain arrangements of people are more suited to certain activities than others. Sommer has investigated this problem, not from the standpoint of specific practical tasks such as might occur in a work situation, but that of certain attitudes (cooperation, competition, or separate action) and observed and observed how people arranged themselves (Sommer. 61-63). In both examples it is clear that there is a psychological reason why people will sit the way they do. Percentage of students choosing this arrangement Seating Arrangement Conversing Cooperating Co-acting Competing

42

19

46

25

32

41

43

20

11

51

0 Total: 100

0 100

13 100

18 100

10

Percentage of students choosing this arrangement Seating Arrangement Conversing Cooperating Co-acting Competing

63

83

13

12

17

36

25

20

10

51

63

Total:

100

100

100

100

3.2 The influence of seating on attitude These examples shows that the place people sit often are linked with the attitude they have towards other people. But not only the attitude of people is important for choosing a particular seat, but the seat itself also stipulates the way people are able to interact with each other. The position of chairs are often very determinative for a conversation (www.lichaamstaal.com). Figure 1: www.lichaamstaal.com

Personal contact: the angle position (A-B or A-C) This position is usually used by people in a pleasant, casual conversation. This position creates good possibility for gestures and observing the other person. Looking and frowns away is easier in this position compared with a face to face position.

Next each other: the cooperative position (B-E or C-F) This is the position which occurs usually when two persons are willing to cooperate. Sitting next to a person creates a more intimate sphere, with no physical barriers in between. It is the most strategic position to work on a common project and promotes a balanced exchange of ideas. Sitting beside each other at a table, is also a good position for a person to explain something to the other. The mutual relation indicates equivalence. In this position you are sitting close beside the other and therefore it is difficult to look at each other. Furthermore it gives less possibility for using gestures.

11

Against each other: the competitive position (B-C or E-F) The competing persons choose to sit directly across from one another to see each others work, and to stimulate competition by being able to see how the other is doing. The face to face position can create a defensive, competitive or competing sphere. This position is taken as people compete each other with or when a person has to give another a reprimand. Conversations in this position are short and tend to be tot the point.

Strangers: the independent position (B-F or C-E) This position is taken by people who doesnt want to interact with each other. This elaboration can be found for example in a library. People dont come there for a conversation. They sit slanting to each other, everyone to its own part of the table. Because of this the eye contact is expect to be minimum. The same can be noticed in the train. As long as there are places free, a person doesnt choose to sit beside or face to face towards the other. In a park where strangers meet each other, there is something similar: each person sits on the extreme side of a bench. It concerns here the dividing of territory. This dividing of territory indicates that there is a lack of interest in the other person and it can be experienced as hostile if this imaginary territorial boundary gets exceeded.

12

4.Conclusion

In this paper we have tried to explain you a phenomena you probably werent aware of, something that is a part of you, which is personal space. Now knowing what personal space is, you understand your own actions and the actions of others better, because of personal space. Look out for personal space in your every day live and notice how interesting as well as funny it is. For instance sit next to a stranger in a further empty train. It can be pretty funny to notice how uncomfortable the person next to you gets, but not knowing why. Later on you can tell him what you did, like the experiment in chapter 1.

13

References
Fast Julius: Body language: 1970, Evans, New York. Hall Edward T.: The hidden dimension, 1966, Doubleday & Company, Inc. Lyle Jane: Body language de taal van het lichaam: 1992, uitgeverij Helmond, Helmond. Meel van: de psychologie van het gebaar: 1986, Dekker & de Vegt, Nijmegen. Sommer, Robert: Personal Space: 1969, The Behavioral Basis of Design, Prentice-Hall.

http://www.radford.edu http://ciadvertising.org http://www.lichaamstaal.com http://www.cs.ucr.edu http://www.friends-partners.org http://www.dushkin.com

14