An experiment was carried out to determine how proximity is perceived as a cue in dyadic interaction. Ss held conversations with 3 confederates at distances of 2, 4, and 8 ft. and completed 21 7-point rating scales. Proximity did not account for any significant amount of variance in any scale. Confederates were perceived differently after interviews than after informal conversations. Ss did not give more favourable ratings to confederates who sat nearer their own preferred proximity, as determined by the method of limits. It is concluded that while proximity has certain dear determinants, e.g., liking and emotional adjustment, these are not reflected in the way proximity is perceived.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArgyleM.Social interaction. New York: Atherton Press, 1969.
2.
ArgyleM., & DeanJ.Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289–304.
3.
FelipeN., & SummerR.Invasion of personal space. Social Problems, 1966, 206–214.
4.
HallE. T.The silent language. New York: Doubleday, 1959.
5.
HallE. T.The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
6.
LassenC. C.Interaction distance and the initial psychiatric interview: a study in proxemics. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Yale Univer., 1969.
7.
LeipoldW. D.Psychological distance in a dyadic interview. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univer. of North Dakota, 1963.
8.
LottE. E.ClarkW., & AltmanI.A propositional inventory of research on interpersonal distance. Naval Medical Research Institute, Research Report, 1969.
9.
McBrideG.KingM. G., & JamesJ. W.Social proximity effects on galvanic skin responses in adult humans. Journal of Psychology, 1965, 61, 153–157.
10.
SommerR.Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
11.
WatsonO. M., & GravesT. D.Quantitative research in proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 1966, 68, 971–985.
12.
WilliamsJ. L.Personal space and its relation to extraversion-introversion. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Univer. of Alberta, 1963.
