Cultural and ethnic influence on proxemic behavior and invasions of personal space were investigated. 173 Chinese Singaporean undergraduates rated minimum interpersonal distance for perceived male intruders from four ethnic groups in Singapore—Malay, Indian, Chinese, and Caucasian. Rated distance scores ranked from “most distant” Indian-Chinese dyads decreasing (in order of minimum distance) through Malay-Chinese, Caucasian-Chinese, and Chinese-Chinese dyads, independent of sex.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BullockM. I. (1974) The determination of functional arm reach boundaries for operation of manual controls. Ergonomics, 17, 375–388.
2.
GiffordR. (1982) Projected interpersonal distance and orientation choices: personality, sex, and social situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 145–152.
3.
HallE. T. (1966) The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
4.
KingB. G.MorrowD. J.VollmerE. P. (1947) Cockpit studies—the boundaries of the maximum are of the operation of manual controls. (Project X-651, Report 3), Bethesda, MD: Naval Medical Research Institute.
5.
LiS.XiZ. (1990) The measurement of functional arm reach envelopes for young Chinese males. Ergonomics, 33, 967–978.
6.
LittleK. B. (1968) Cultural variations in social schemata. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 1–7.
7.
Murphy-BermanV.BermanJ. (1978) Importance of choice and sex invasions of personal space. Personal and Social Psychology Buletin, 4, 424–428.
8.
NovakE. W. R. (1978) Determination of the spatial reach area of the arm for workspace design purpose. Ergonomics, 21, 493–507.
9.
RemlandM. S.JonesT. S.BrinkmanH. (1995) Interpersonal distance, body orientation, and touch: effects of culture, gender, and age. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 281–297.
