Human spatial behavior has been the focus of hundreds of previous research studies. However, the conclusions and generalizability of previous studies on interpersonal distance preferences were limited by some important methodological and sampling issues. The objective of the present study was to compare preferred interpersonal distances across the world and to overcome the problems observed in previous studies. We present an extensive analysis of interpersonal distances over a large data set (N = 8,943 participants from 42 countries). We attempted to relate the preferred social, personal, and intimate distances observed in each country to a set of individual characteristics of the participants, and some attributes of their cultures. Our study indicates that individual characteristics (age and gender) influence interpersonal space preferences and that some variation in results can be explained by temperature in a given region. We also present objective values of preferred interpersonal distances in different regions, which might be used as a reference data point in future studies.
AielloJ. R. (1987). Human spatial behavior. In StokolsD.AltmanI. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 389-504). New York, NY: Wiley.
2.
AielloJ. R.JonesS. E. (1971). Field study of the proxemic behavior of young school children in three subcultural groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 351-356.
3.
AndersenP. (1988). Explaining intercultural differences in nonverbal communication. In SamovarL. A.PorterR. E. (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (5th ed., pp. 272-281). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4.
AndersonC. A. (1987). Temperature and aggression: Effects on quarterly, yearly, and city rates of violent and nonviolent crime. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1161-1173.
5.
BaldassareM.FellerS. (1975). Cultural variations in personal space. Ethos, 3, 481-503.
6.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2014). Package lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Journal od Statistical Software, 67, 1-48.
7.
BeaulieuC. (2004). Intercultural study of personal space: A case study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 794-805.
8.
BogardusE. (1954). Sociology. New York, NY: Macmillan.
9.
BorisovaL. V.ButovskayaM. L. (2004). Spatial behavior in modern Russian urban culture: Age and gender factors. In ButovskayaM. L. (Ed.), Human ethology: Modern quantitative methods (pp. 13-20). Moscow, Russia: Russian State University for Humanities.
10.
BurgessJ. W. (1983). Interpersonal spacing behavior between surrounding nearest neighbors reflects both familiarity and environmental density. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 11-17.
11.
BurgoonJ. K. (1991). Relational message interpretations of touch, conversational distance, and posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 233-259.
12.
DeanL. M.WillisF. N.HewittJ. (1975). Initial interaction distance among individuals equal and unequal in military rank. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 294-299.
13.
EpsteinY. M.KarlinR. A. (1975). Effects of acute experimental crowding. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 34-53.
14.
EvansG. W.HowardR. B. (1973). Personal space. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 334-344.
15.
EvansG. W.LeporeS. J.AllenK. M. (2000). Cross-cultural differences in tolerance for crowding: Fact or fiction?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 204-210.
16.
FaulknerJ.SchallerM.ParkJ. H.DuncanL. A. (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 333-353.
17.
FelipeN. J.SommerR. (1966). Invasions of personal space. Social Problems, 14, 206-214.
18.
FenichelE. P. (2013). Economic considerations for social distancing and behavioral based policies during an epidemic. Journal of Health Economics, 32, 440-451.
19.
FincherC. L.ThornhillR. (2012). Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 35, 61-79.
20.
FischerR.Van de VliertE. (2011). Does climate undermine subjective well-being? A 58-nation study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1031-1041.
21.
FordJ. G.GravesJ. R. (1977). Differences between Mexican-American and White children in interpersonal distance and social touching. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 779-785.
22.
ForstonR. F.LarsonC. U. (1968). The dynamics of space: An experimental study in proxemic behavior among Latin Americans and North Americans. Journal of Communication, 18, 109-116.
23.
Gérin-LajoieM.RichardsC. L.McFadyenB. J. (2006). The circumvention of obstacles during walking in different environmental contexts: A comparison between older and younger adults. Gait & Posture, 24, 364-369.
24.
GoldsteinH.HealyM. J. (1995). The graphical presentation of a collection of means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,. Series A (Statistics in Society), 158, 175-177.
25.
HallE. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Doubleday.
26.
HaydukL. A. (1983). Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 293-335.
27.
HeshkaS.NelsonY. (1972). Interpersonal speaking distance as a function of age, sex, and relationship. Sociometry, 35, 491-498.
28.
HofstedeG. (1981). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and Organizations, 10, 15-41.
29.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
HorensteinV. D. P.DowneyJ. L. (2003). A cross-cultural investigation of self-disclosure. North American Journal of Psychology, 5, 373-386.
IJzermanH.SeminG. R. (2010). Temperature perceptions as a ground for social proximity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 867-873.
33.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
34.
LittleK. B. (1968). Cultural variations in social schemata. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 1-7.
35.
MazurA. (1977). Interpersonal spacing on public benches in “contact” vs. “noncontact” cultures. The Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 53-58.
36.
MadanipourA. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. London, England: Routledge.
37.
OlssonM. J.LundströmJ. N.KimballB. A.GordonA. R.KarshikoffB.HosseiniN.LekanderM. (2014). The scent of disease human body odor contains an early chemosensory cue of sickness. Psychological Science, 25, 817-823.
38.
ÖzcanB.BjørnskovC. (2011). Social trust and human development. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 753-762.
39.
OzdemirA. (2008). Shopping malls: Measuring interpersonal distance under changing conditions and across cultures. Field Methods, 20, 226-248.
40.
PattersonM. L.EdingerJ. A. (1987). A functional analysis of space in social interaction. In SiegmanA. W.FeldsteinS. (Eds.), Nonverbal behavior and communication (pp. 523-562). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41.
RandsM.LevingerG. (1979). Implicit theories of relationship: An intergenerational study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 645-661.
42.
RappM. A.GutzmannH. (2000). Invasions of personal space in demented and nondemented elderly persons. International Psychogeriatrics, 12, 345-352.
43.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www.R-project.org/
45.
RegoecziW. C. (2008). Crowding in context: An examination of the differential responses of men and women to high-density living environments. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49, 254-268.
46.
RemlandM. S.JonesT. S.BrinkmanH. (1995). Interpersonal distance, body orientation, and touch: Effects of culture, gender, and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 281-297.
47.
SawadaY. (2003). Blood pressure and heart rate responses to an intrusion on personal space. Japanese Psychological Research, 45, 115-121.
48.
SchallerM.MurrayD. R. (2008). Pathogens, personality, and culture: Disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 212-221.
49.
SchweonS. J.EdmondsS. L.KirkJ.RowlandD. Y.AcostaC. (2013). Effectiveness of a comprehensive hand hygiene program for reduction of infection rates in a long-term care facility. American Journal of Infection Control, 41, 39-44.
50.
ShuterP. (1976). Proxemics and tactility in Latin America. Journal of Communication, 26, 46-52.
51.
SmithH. W. (1981). Territorial spacing on a beach revisited: A cross-national exploration. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 132-137.
52.
SommerR. (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
53.
SommerR. (2002). Personal space in a digital age. In BechtelR. B.ChurchmanA. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 647-660). New York, NY: John Wiley.
54.
SorokowskiP.SabiniewiczA.SorokowskaA. (2015). The impact of dominance on partner’s height preferences and height-related mate choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 220-224.
55.
SorokowskiP.SorokowskaA.OnyishiI. E.SzarotaP. (2013). Montesquieu hypothesis and football: Players from hot countries are more expressive after scoring a goal. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 44, 421-430.
56.
SussmanN. M.RosenfeldH. M. (1982). Influence of culture, language, and sex on conversational distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 66-74.
57.
ToddP. M.PenkeL.FasoloB.LentonA. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 15011-15016.
58.
TriandisH.TriandisL. (1967). Some studies of social distance. In FishbeinM. (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 199-206). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Van de VliertE. (2011). Climato-economic origins of variation in ingroup favoritism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 494-515.
61.
Van de VliertE. (2013). Climato-economic habitats support patterns of human needs, stresses, and freedoms. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 36, 465-480.
62.
Van de VliertE.PostmesT. (2012). Climato-economic livability predicts societal collectivism and political autocracy better than parasitic stress does. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 35, 94-95.
63.
Van de VliertE.SchwartzS. H.HuismansS. E.HofstedeG.DaanS. (1999). Temperature, cultural masculinity, and domestic political violence. A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 291-314.
64.
VranicA. (2003). Personal space in physically abused children. Environment & Behavior, 35, 550-565.
65.
WatsonO. M. (1970). Proxemic behavior: A cross-cultural study. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
66.
WatsonO. M.GravesT. D. (1966). Quantitative research in proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 68, 971-985.
67.
WebbJ. D.WeberM. J. (2003). Influence of sensory abilities on the interpersonal distance of the elderly. Environment & Behavior, 35, 695-711.
WorchelS.TeddlieC. (1976). The experience of crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 30-40.
70.
YeelesA. (2015). Weathering unrest: The ecology of urban social disturbances in Africa and Asia. Journal of Peace Research, 52, 158-170.
71.
ZhongC. B.LeonardelliG. J. (2008). Cold and lonely does social exclusion literally feel cold?Psychological Science, 19, 838-842.
72.
ZuurA. F.IenoE. N.WalkerN.SavelievA. A.SmithG. M. (2009). Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York, NY: Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
