To compare three different methods of assessing personal space, 88 subjects were tested during a therapeutic interview by means of in vivo participation, photographic observation, and a model technique. The results suggested that use of the photographs and the model fall into the same category (both are projective techniques) but that use of the model gives a closer prediction of actual behavior than the photographs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BroekmannN. C.MöllerA. T.Preferred seating position and distance in various situations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1973, 20, 504–508.
2.
CronjéF. J.‘n Ondersoek van Persoonlike Ruimte in die Terapeutiese Onderhoud. Unpublished Master's thesis, Univer. of Stellenbosch, 1975.
3.
HaaseR. F.The relationship of sex and instructional set to the regulation of interpersonal interaction distance in a counseling analogue. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17, 233–236.
4.
HaaseR. F.MarkeyM. J.A methodological note on the study of personal space. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 122–125.
5.
HorowitzM. J.DuffD. F.StrattonL. O.Body buffer zone. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1964, 11, 651–656.
6.
KinzelA.Body buffer zone in violent prisoners. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1970, 127, 59–64.
7.
KuetheJ. L.Social schemas. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 31–38.
8.
LittleK.Personal space. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 237–247.
