Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
lity, personal space, nonverbal communication, cognitive mapping, and phenomenology. These works clearly demonstrate the interdependency of.
Typology: Slides
1 / 129
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
By
Bachelor of Arts Western Washington State College Bellingham, Washington 1974 Master of Arts Western Washington State College Bellingham, Washington 1976
Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May, 1980
the5\s
+> 853p Co-p.~
I would like to extend recognition to the one person whose dedica- tion and hard work made possible the study reported here: me, Max Portrey. Not intending to sound contrite, persons at this stage are so busy thanking others they seem to forget who wrote the dissertation. In a more serious vein, I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to a number of persons.
first introduced me to proxemic behavior and to social psychology. His interest, encouragement, sense of humor, and tennis playing has offered inspiration during the years at Oklahoma State University. The technical format and general appearance of the final draft of this dissertation are attributed to Susan Reinsch, although she could not have done so without Vikki McClaren supplying the final rough draft. Special thanks are also extended to Ms. Caren Culley and Mr. Richard Miller for their assistance in the data collection process. Appreciat.ion and thanks are extended to Drs. William Rambo, Jack Bynam, Charles Edgley for serving on my committee. And to Dr. Donald E. Allen, my adviser, a special thanks. Each departmental member.con- tributed significantly in various stages of the project. I would also like to thank Jim, Pat, and Lynette Mitchell and Dick and Francis Miller. To Jim Mitchell, for your sense of humor and edi- torial insight, my thanks. To Dick Miller, whose knowledge of sports
iii
is somewhat suspect, thanks for the opportunity to win more than a few small wagers. To Pat Mitchell and Francis Miller, who fed me during meager times, a deep thanks. A fond thank you to Lynette Mitchell, who showed me smiles. The debt I owe my parents, Phil and Donna Portrey, cannot be stated here. To my father, who taught me the value of self-accomplishment, I did it! Thank you. To my mother, who taught me how to laugh at myself, a sincere thanks. Their support and encouragement helped to instill in me the attributes needed to complete a doctoral degree, and still remain a small town kid. Finally, I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the one person who experienced the traumas of my doctoral program. To Anne Wilson Coyle, who saw me at all the high points of my graduate career: directly after finals, just before and after comprehensive examinations, and during the agonizing process of preparing this manu- script, thank you. I am not sure how she dealt with a crazed graduate student, but am glad she did. In the throes of graduate school priori- ties often become distorted, my sincere gratitude to Anne Wilson for keeping me straight. I also offer her love and thanks for brightening every single day of my life since we met: the Night of Nanook, December 20, 1977.
iv
Chapter VI. DISCUSSION: Simulated Personal Space Behavioral Personal Space. Ethological Interpersonal Distance/ Simulated Personal Space •. • •. Ethological Interpersonal Distance/ Behavioral Personal Space •. VII. SUMMARY VIII. LIMITATIONS AND CRITIQUE Criticisms of the Experimental Method: Artificiality, Random Sampling and Triviality • BIBLIOGRAPHY
Vi
Page
70
84
. • 88
Table Page I. Conceptual/Operational Congruency Across Methodology • 35
V. Mean Difference Table - Dunnett (Behavioral Personal Space Against An Ethological Control) 65
Figure T.
Interactive and Personal Space Areas • • •... Interactive and Personal Space Areas; Including Attractive and Repelling Forces.. •.. • •
vii
Page 21 25
.
The concept of territoriality was first introduced into sociologi- cal analysisi in the mid-nineteen twenties under the label of the ecological school (cf., Lyman and Scott, 1971). Park et al. (1925) provide an early statement of this approach. It is one mainly con- cerned with the structuring of macro-space. Alihan (1938) provides a summary and bibliography of this school. (For a more recent statement see Quinn, 1950; Hawley, 1950; and Theodorson, 1961.) Specifically, the study of territoriality originated in animal studies (Howard, 1920). The concept has been extended to human spatial behavior (Hall, 1963b, 1966). Hall (1936b:1003) defines human territo- riality, or proxemics, as includethe^ study a wideof^ man's variety^ structuring of spatial^ and behaviorperception from^ of thespace, structu-^ and ring of micro-space - small amounts of space that are utilized inof dailycities. interaction - and macro-space - the physical layout Simmel first introduced this structuring of micro-space. He notes: In the regard to the 'significant' (i.e. 'great man') man, there is an inner compulsion which tells one to keep at a dis- tance and which does not disappear even in intimate relations with him. The only type for whom such distance does not exist is the individual who has no organ for perceiving distance .. The individual who fails to keep his distance from a great per- sonsuperficially does not esteembe the himcase); highly, but muchon the less contrary, too highly his importune(as might behavior reveals lack of proper respect... The same sort of circle which surrounds a man - although it is value - accentu- ated in a very different sense - is filled out by his affairs and by his characteristics. To penetrate this circle by taking noticerial property constitutes is, soa violationto speak, ofan personality.extension of (^) theJust ego, as mate-there is also an intellectual's private property, whose violation effects 320). a lesion of the ego in its very center (Parsons, 1961:
Thus, Simmel illustrates that micro-proxemics is of paramount importance in both communication distance and personal integrity. The nature of micro-proxemics appears to be both interactional and
behavioral. As indicated by the interactionist perspective (Blumer, 1969; Meltzer et al., 1975) society itself may be built upon the commu- nications between and among individuals. If, as Simmel indicates, this interaction is partially governed by proxemic behavior it would prove beneficial to sociologists to ascertain the structuring of micro-space. Demarcating Personal Space The term "personal space" was coined by Katz (1937) when he used the term as metaphor to a shell of a snail. Similarly, certain like aspects were implicit in Stern's (1935) "personal nearness" or "aura", Lewin's (1935) "life space" and Von Vexhull' s (1957) analogy to a soap bubble. The attributes of territoriality, one aspect of proxemics, in- non-humans have been described most comprehensively by Hediger (1950, 1955, 1965). Contained in these works is a distinction between flight distance (personal space) and social distance. Somewhat less systematic reports have been offered by Allen (1939) and Condor (1949). Research in the area of human proxemics has increased t~emendously in the past decade following such popular writings of Ardrey (1966, 1970), Calhoun (1962) and Lorenz (1967). Equally popular are the anthropologi- cal works of Hall (1959, 1960a, 1960b, 1963a, 1963b, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1974, 1977) and the works of Sommer (1959, 1961, 1962, 1967a, 1967b, 1968, 1969). ~ommer (1959:248) has distinguised personal space from territorial behavior along four (4) major criteria. The criteria are as follows: 1) personal space is portable whereas territory is rela- tively stationary, 2) the boundaries of personal space are invisible whereas the boundaries of territory are usually marked in some manner,
5
(e.g., Bogardus, 1933, 1959; Kuethe, 1962a, 1962b, 1964) indicate a relationship to personal space. Personal space may be a form of non- verbal communication, an anchor point concerning cognitive spatial mapping, or a measurement technique of psychological distance. Goffman (1963, 1971), Stilitz (1969), Scheflen and Ashcraft (1976), and Scheflen and Scheflen (1972) address theoretical issues that include terri toria- lity, personal space, nonverbal communication, cognitive mapping, and phenomenology. These works clearly demonstrate the interdependency of these areas in actual social interactions. These inter-area relation- ships, however interesting, are beyond· the scope of research. Also closely related to, and beginning to converge with, personal space .is the area of crowding research. This convergence is occurring at the experimental and theoretical levels (e.g., Aiello et al., 1975; Anderson, 1972; Baldassare, 1975a, 1975b, 1975c, 1977, 1978; Baldassare and Teller, 1975; Baldassare and Fischer, 1977; Baronet al., 1976; Baron and Rodin, 1978; Bickman et al., 1973; Desor, 1972; Koneci et al., 1975; Lewis, 1971; Stokols et al., 1973). This seems only logical as perceptions of available space and the resultant experiencing of crowding must incorporate other spatial phenomena such as territoriality and personal space. Personal space has been discussed as to how it is distinct from its companion areas. It will be treated here as Sommer (1959, 1969), Dosey and Meisels (1969), Hall (1966) and others have suggested: an area sur- rounding a person's body which is regarded as a private area. The sanctity of this area is usually protected as Hediger notes (1953) by flight. Personal space is not a shared social distance but a private personal distance.·
6
Statement of the Problem The specific concern of this research is inconsistency of concep- tual definition, operational definition and instrumentation. Each of the above mentioned areas is plagued with inconsistency that contributes largely to the lack of consistent findings in personal space research. This lack has b~en well documented (Baldassare, 1978; Haase and Markey, 1971; Little, 1965; Meisels and Cantor, 1970; Patterson, 1973; Pedersen, 1973a, 1973b, 1973c) and would serve no pendantic purpose here. Rather the focus of this research is the attempt to isolate those sources of inconsistency with the hope of clarifying the theoretical and methodo- logical issues involved, i.e. conceptual/operational congruency. As 'this research is primarily concerned with the assessment of methodological artifacts within personal space research, the expected contributions will be in that area. These data should illustrate the importance of operational procedures by illustrating the variant results obtained from non-standardized instructional sets, experimental task and instrumentation. Further, it is suggested that, due to the various spatial areas depicted by the instructional sets utilized, these data are consistent with Hallian (1966) conception of the human construction of micro-space. The review following will be concerned with outlining the major theoretical perspectives forwarded in the area. Of primary interest will be the conceptual definitions offered by the various theorists. A theoretical model developed by Portrey and Bynum (1980) dramatizing the dynamic aspects of spatial structuring, as indicated by Hall, will be presented. Directly following the theoretical review will be a review of the methodologies under consideration. The operational procedures
Theories in Personal Space Research Hayduk (1978) and Evans and Eichelman (1976) identify four (4) major theories in personal space research: 1) the Dean Argyle equili- brium theory, 2) the Dosey-Meisels protection theory, 3) the Duke- Nowidki social learning theory, and 4) the Nesbitt-Stevens stimulation theory. Others have recently attempted a reconceptualization of perso- nal space (cf., Altman, 1975, 1976; Stokols, 1976) this work has been too imprecise and casual for inclusion with the more concise theoretical models of personal space. In addition to the four theories identified by Hayduk and Evans and Eichelman, a detailed account of the Portrey- Bynum electro-magnetic model, derived from Argyle-Dean, Dosey-Meisels, and Hall (1966) will be presented.
The Argyle-Dean Intimacy Equilibrium Theory
The Argyle-Dean theory (1965) is constructed upon four (4) salient characteristics in dyadic interactions. These characteristics are: 1) the amount of eye contact, 2) the interaction distance, 3) the intimacy of topics discussed, and 4) the amount of smiling. They see each of these characteristics as subject to approach and avoidance forces (Hayduk, 1978). The dynamic interplay among the four occurring before
8
a relatively stable interaction distance is reached. Eye contact pro- viding the source for information gathering is an approach force whereas some psychological state, such as anxiety, may be an avoidance force. These antithetical forces somehow establish a medium point betw,een staring and complete avoidance of eye contact. Each of the four esta- blishes an equilibrium as the interact proceeds. The Argyle-Dean theory deals with approach (presumably for inter.;_ action) and avoidance (guarding against the intrusion of personal space). Of primary concern is an interaction distance. The equilibrium model they present appears to deal with the four criteria as establishing a function intimacy, or interactional distance. What these authors fail to note is that perhaps the four criteria they postulate are functio- nally depend.ent themselves upon the interpersonal distance. As participants move closer, eye contact decreases, signalling an avoidance force (Aiello, 1972), guarding against personal space intrusion. Thus the interaction distance established is a function of a personal space distance of the interactants not a functional equilibrium established by the four criteria. It is precisely this protective dimension of personal space that helps to establish interactional distances, an aspect of spatial structuring Argyle and Dean fail to treat in their model. The theory is built by transforming the set of four "independent criteria", by introducing intimacy (interactional distance) as another equilibrium. It is difficult to follow this line of reasoning as their discussion indicates these four characteristics are far from independent. By definition, each of the four are functionally dependent; changes in any produces changes in the others.
ll
The Dosey-Meisels Protection Theory This theory is based upon a single proposition consistent with that of Sommer (1969). As mentioned earlier, this proposition depicts per- sonal space as a private, not shared in interaction, spatial area: "personal space may be conceived in the sense of a body-buffer zone, one .. that can be used for protective purposes. This applied to threats to ones self-esteem (e.g., Semmel, 1949) as well as bodily harm" (Dosey and Meisels, 1969, p. 93). This theory conceptually presents personal space as a dependent variable and perceived threat as an independent variable. However, the n~verse ordering is just as plausible, as indicated by the review and critique of Argyle-Dean, but not implied nor discussed within the con- fines of the Dosey-Meisels theory. As presented, greater perceived threat produces larger personal space distances. For any particular degree of threat there is a threshold value for distance, all distances equal to or of greater value (distance) should be satisfactory (Hayduk, 1978). Given this proposition, if the protection function of personal space is viable, any subsequent measuring of personal space after a threat has been presented may reflect spatial areas somewhat larger than
actual personal space requirements. This is indicated in Dosey and Meisels discussion of threshold distances. Thus an accurate assessment of personal space dimensions seems problematic. When considered, a number of studies have supported the protection
draw these ~tudies under the rubric supplied by Dosey and Meisels. This precludes entertaining a general statement of support for the theory. Note, as Argyle and Dean deal primarily with interactive distance, Dosey and Meisels treat personal space exclusively. If an adequate theory of micro-proxemics is to be forwarded, it must not pursue one aspect of spatial structuring at the expense of the other. These two theories indicate the conceptual conflict contained within ~icro proxemic research. A synthesis must occur if progress is to be made in the area. Explicit conceptual definition of the aspect of spatial structuring under consideration must be presented. As operational procedures follow from conceptual definitions, it is clear that strict adherence to the conceptual definition will precipitate concise opera- tions. TI1e Duke-Nowicki Social Learning Theory
specific restriction imposed involves locus of control as a form of
