theories of nonverbal behavior: a critical review of proxemics research

Theories of Nonverbal Behavior: A Critical Review of Proxemics ResearchAuthor(s): Dair L. Gillespie and Ann LefflerReviewed work(s):Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 1 (1983), pp. 120-154Published by: Wiley-BlackwellStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/202049 .Accessed: 01/11/2012 06:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley-Blackwell and John Wiley & Sons are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto Sociological Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/stable/202049?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

This chapter reviews developments and difficulties in the nonverbal behavior literature. Despite the atheoretical bias of the discipline, four implicit models may be found there-the ethological, the enculturation, the internal states, and the situational resource models. After reviewing research based on these models, we conclude that the situational resource paradigm has much to offer nonverbal theorizing.

THEORIES OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF PROXEMICS RESEARCH

Dair L. Gillespie UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

Ann Leffler UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Two central shortcomings are generally acknowledged concern-

ing the literature on nonverbal behavior: the field lacks systematic

theory, and it is a morass of conceptual and methodological problems.

(See, for example, Birdwhistell, 1970; Duncan and Fiske, 1977; Edney,

1974; Evans and Howard, 1973; Harper, Wiens, and Matarazzo, 1978;

Hayduk, 1978; Henley, 1973a, 1977; Kendon, 1975; Weiner and others,

1972.) The area is relatively young, spans a number of disciplines, and

provides a rich variety of observations and ad hoc studies. But as in

many new fields, the choice of variables is often eclectic-based more

120

Theories of Nonverbal Behavior

on research custom or novelty than on theoretical considerations. Moreover, statistical significance rather than contribution to overall variance is used to determine meaningfulness, and it is assumed that all statistically significant results are compatible and equally important. As a result one encounters mere shopping lists of nonverbal dependent variables (approach distance, eye contact, and so forth) or independent variables (affiliation, emotional arousal, cultural norms, gender, and so forth). Little effort is devoted to ascertain the relative contributions of specific independent variables to variance in specific dependent variables. In consequence, pastiches of possibly inconsistent findings are substituted for theory and conceptual developments tend to be post hoc and ad hoc interpretations of individual studies rather than a guide to

hypotheses for the field itself. Nonetheless, it will be argued here that from the nonverbal

literature may be inferred a framework within which nonverbal theory can be specified and advanced. The implicit causal models underlying the literature rest upon the conflicting postulates of four classic paradigms about human behavior: the ethological/sociobiological paradigm, the enculturation/socialization paradigm, the internal states

paradigm, and the situational resource paradigm.1 Since these paradigms generate conflicting and testable predictions concerning the genesis of nonverbal behavior and the type and degree of nonverbal variance within and between individuals, their relative merits may be

empirically assessed once they are theoretically contrasted within the four-paradigm framework. What follows, therefore, is a theoretical treatment of each. We shall find that the situational resource paradigm has an important contribution to offer nonverbal theorizing.

The ethological paradigm asserts that nonverbal behavior is at least partly innate or genetically determined, with certain general patterns inflexible within species. The enculturation paradigm claims that nonverbal behavior reflects contingent, somewhat arbitrary, but indi- vidually stable norms inculcated in all members of a society through socialization. The internal states paradigm contends that nonverbal behavior, whether innate or learned, fluctuates as a function of ego's individual attributes or internal psychological states. Finally, the situational resource paradigm asserts that nonverbal behavior is learned but varies within cultures and across internal states, depending on the statuses of all those concerned and on the constraints of the situation.

121

Sociological Theory

Thus differential access to social resources produces asymmetric patterns of nonverbal activity whereas relatively equal access produces symmetric behavior. And individuals are predicted to change behavioral patterns when their relative rankings change.

Given the enormous number of nonverbal studies, for review

purposes the literature will be narrowed to what Hall (1963) calls

proxemics-the spatial dimensions of nonverbal behavior. Proxemic variables have received more research attention and lend themselves to

precise measurement more easily than other nonverbal variables; thus

they can serve to illustrate the utility of a rigorous theoretical framework for nonverbal research in general. In discussing proxemic models, differences rather than similarities will be highlighted. It is in

principle possible to synthesize all four paradigms, but given the cur-

rently atheoretical eclecticism of the literature, such an attempt would be premature. First it is necessary to determine how the theories differ and then to disentangle independent variables so that their relative contributions to proxemic variance may be determined.2

In the following review, three types of evidence for the superior- ity of the situational resource model will be offered: theoretical and

empirical weaknesses in research produced by other models; evidence from such research indirectly suggesting the importance of relative

status; and, finally, the greater power of the situational resource paradigm to predict and explain the critical feature of nonverbal variation not only between individuals but also within the same individual.

The Ethological Model

Ethological theory, based on Darwinian biology, posits that all observable characteristics of all organisms, including human behavior, arise from genetic arrangements (Barash, 1977; Darwin, 1965; Fox, 1974). Thus in principle human behavior is adaptive, for its genetic basis rests on natural selection, certain genotypes being favored over others according to the relative reproductive success or failure of their associated phenotypes (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970; Wilson, 1978).

Spatial behavior is a central topic in ethological work. Along with aggression and dominance, it has been a classic focus of ethological study at least since the publication in 1920 of Howard's Territory and Bird Life, and it routinely appears as a chapter head in ethology

122


texts. Indeed so central is the topic to ethology that Ramsey (1969) proposes that territorial patterns are the clearest species-demarcating characteristics known to ethology and should therefore be used as the basis for taxonomic classification. The significance of spatial behavior in ethology is also indicated by the fact that, along with the facial

expression of emotion, it comprises one of the two areas of human behavior concerning which ethological analysis claims to be most

developed (Wilson, 1974). Its emphasis on innate mechanisms distinguishes ethology from

all other proxemic models. Although it acknowledges a link between status and spatial behavior, for instance, its genetic determinism com- mits it to the postulate that even this proxemic variance reflects genetic differences. Here, however, it will be argued that ethological research fails to document the genetic etiology of human proxemic behavior. Furthermore, the ethological emphasis on species-wide genetic uni-

formity blinds it to within-individual changes,3 and even proxemic variance between individuals can be explained only by reference to undocumented genetic differences between individuals.

There are two major traditions in ethological studies of human proxemics, both based on concepts from animal research. The first

emphasizes territorial invasions as indicators of spatial ownership; the second, the covariance of rank and spatial ownership.

The goal of the first tradition, territorial research, is to show that humans display flight distance or territory ownership or both. Flight distance is a hypothesized area around an individual, intrusion into which causes that individual to flee. Its size is assumed to be genetically variant between species. As for territory ownership, an organism must defend a certain area against conspecific intruders to be considered territorial. Defense can be observed either directly in the behavior of the defending organism or indirectly by investigating whether other subjects avoid entering the territory in question. Organ- isms may exhibit both flight and fight patterns, depending on the survival utility of the area under challenge, reproductive and nutri- tional contingencies, and other genetically related factors. Both patterns are taken to demonstrate genetic mandates. Thus the dependent variables in the territoriality tradition tend to be fight/flight behavior whereas the independent variable tends to be the presence or absence (or sometimes the intensity) of conspecific invasion. Occasionally the

123

Sociological Theory

presence of territory ownership is investigated indirectly; here owner-

ship is operationalized as the degree to which subjects avoid intruding on the owner's space. Based on hypotheses from animal work concern-

ing which individuals possess the largest amount of territory (say, males as compared to females), the research design in these cases involves measuring how closely subjects approach individuals hypothesized to possess large territories versus approaches to individuals

hypothesized to possess small territories.

Explicitly ethological investigations of intrusions and territor-

iality suggest that humans do indeed use fight/flight patterns to regu- late space apportionment and they respond to transgressions with stress (Barash, 1973; Baxter and Rozelle, 1975; Eastman and Harper, 1971; Efran and Cheyne, 1974; Felipe and Sommer, 1966). To show

species uniformity, however, it is crucial that subjects behave alike, since it is this invariance which suggests that innate species-wide defense mechanisms, and therefore innate patterns of space ownership, may be at work. But in fact most subjects neither come to fisticuffs nor

instantly depart in invasion situations. So to demonstrate the univer-

sality of territoriality, fight/flight "defense mechanisms" are intro- duced. These are defined so broadly that almost every reaction to intrusion is interpreted as indicating their occurrence, rendering the

argument unfalsifiable. The following types of behavior have been described as defense responses to invasions: departures, turning away or moving one's chair away from the intruder, erecting barriers of books or clothing, vocalizations, facing away, pulling in the shoulders,

placing one's elbows at one's side, drawing in the head, blocking one's face with one's hands, eye movement, head and torso shifts, hands at crotch behavior, stance shifts, disorganization of vocalization patterns, nervous smiling, and looking over one's shoulder (Barash, 1973; Felipe and Sommer, 1966; Baxter and Rozelle, 1975; Harris, Luginbuhl, and Fishbein, 1978). Consequently, short of welcoming or not perceiving the interruption, subjects in such studies could hardly display failure to "defend," despite response variability.

Wilson (1978), on the other hand, handles the problem of individual behavioral variations by attributing them to individual genetic variations; but the role of genetic determination remains undocumented.4 It is far more parsimonious to attribute flight, stay, and the whole array of defense responses to socialization-for example, norms

124


concerning the social definitions of invasions and appropriate responses to it (Lindskold and others, 1976)-or to situational factors- such as perceived relative social statuses of intruder and victim-than to a genetic mandate for which no evidence is offered. Indeed, both Barash (1973) and Felipe and Sommer (1966) acknowledge the possibility of such situational effects in their data.5 Thus the genetic basis of

territoriality patterns remains unsubstantiated. The second tradition in human ethological proxemics attempts

to link dominance rather than defense with territory. The research question then becomes the connection between the size or location of a subject's territory and his or her rank in a group. This procedure exceeds the limits of the classic ethological definition of territory, which requires only that the area be defended. Nevertheless, the procedure is faithful to one standard ethological analysis of the function of territory: it maintains dominance hierarchies. Studies in this tradition include DeLong (1970, 1971, 1973), Lott and Sommer (1967), and Bailey, Hartnett, and Gibson (1972).6 For instance, Bailey and colleagues suggest that subjects approach females more closely than males, the higher rank of males according them more territory. In general, it is reported that the higher-ranking the subject, the more and better space she or he enjoys.

As with the fight/flight tradition, so with the link between status rank and space: a situational resource analysis may be used in place of untestable genetic assumptions. For instance, if females command less territory than males, as the findings of Bailey and coworkers suggest, this conclusion can as easily be explained by means of socially as by genetically ascribed rank (Henley, 1977). Furthermore, unlike ethology, a situational analysis can avoid untestable explanations which require that data be gathered on the genetic composition of all subjects-clearly an impossible undertaking. The situational resource model in addition can explain changes within an individual, some- thing a genetic paradigm cannot do.

Thus the major problem with ethological work is that it offers no evidence to support its central contentions that defense and dominance proxemic patterns are innately determined in a nontrivial way, including among infrahuman species. (Evidence of individual variation, even in the highly hierarchical and territorial male stickleback fish, has been presented by Van Den Assem, 1974.) Nothing in the

125

Sociological Theory

corpus of ethological work demonstrates either species-wide genetic invariance or an individual-level genetic component to human proxemic behavior. The next step is to examine proxemic models which do not assume that space use is innate. We begin with the model based on the most general level of analysis: the enculturation/socialization

approach.

The Enculturation/Socialization Model

It was an enculturation theorist, Edward T. Hall, who coined the word proxemics (1963) and undertook the first study of purely human

space use (1959). The model thus enjoys a venerable place in proxemics theorizing. It contends that cultural and subcultural memberships con- tribute most markedly to proxemic variance, following the arbitrary but consistent and pervasive cultural norms of each group. Like norms in general, proxemic norms produce uniform individual behavioral

patterns through the socialization process and internalization. Thus, although norms may mandate similar proxemic changes among all members of a group (for instance, all may move closer as they become more friendly), proxemic variance within cultures and individuals is

mainly minimal. Enculturation theorists rely on two kinds of evidence to demon-

strate the cultural and subcultural determination of human space use.

First, spacing patterns are compared between cultural groupings and then claimed to show the predicted variance unless the compared groupings share (assumed) exogenous cultural similarities. Thus American and Latin American patterns are said to differ whereas Latin American and Mediterranean patterns may appear similar because of their common Romance heritage (Hall, 1959, 1969). Second, discom- fort and friction in cross-cultural encounters are analyzed as functions of proxemic inflexibility, for people persist in expecting and display- ing culture-bound patterns of space use. Both arguments will be exam- ined here. The model itself will be analyzed in terms of its assumptions that within-cultural groupings such as ethnicity (or gender) are simply subcultural rather than resource unequal, that other interactionally differentiating factors produce minimal variation, and that cultural

groupings are as proxemically monolithic as it suggests.

126


Comparisons Between Cultures and Between Subcultures. With

respect to the first thrust of the model-research into cultural differences-results are contradictory and difficult to interpret. Hall (1959) argues that proxemic patterns, like nonverbal patterns in general, comprise silent languages that differ by culture and subculture

just as verbal languages and dialects do. In The Hidden Dimension (1969), his most systematic proxemics treatment, Hall contrasted Amer- ican patterns with those of other cultures. He concluded that American culture could be termed moderately noncontact compared with the

English (noncontact) and the French (contact) on a continuum of preferred interaction distances and personal space requirements. Other researchers, attempting to systematize his heavily anecdotal evidence, subjected Hall's findings to laboratory testing (Watson, 1970; Watson and Graves, 1966). Watson reported that natives of contact regions touched more than natives of any noncontact region, and his tables showed that the overall contact/noncontact dichotomy also distin- guished subjects with respect to seating distance (1970, p. 85). Other cross-cultural studies report less straightforward results. Smith (1981) found Hall's predictions about proxemic patterns on beaches correct, but he also reported that outcomes of these comparisons depend on whether one examines shape of territory, size, central tendencies of encroachment, or encroachment variances. Mazur (1977) compared seating arrangements (for example, on opposite ends of benches) and seating distance at public benches in contact versus noncontact cultures. He concluded that cultures did not differ on seating arrangements but did differ on seating distance-the supposedly noncontact Americans sat closest. Outdoor observations of London dyads by Heshka and Nelson (1972) resulted in more conflicting evidence: Eng- lish dyads exhibited mean interaction distances ranging from 11.0 to 19.9 inches, depending in large part on degree of acquaintance. This range barely exceeds the intimate distance that Hall says marks intense, private interactions among his "moderately noncontact" Americans. Further, it is much closer than expected for the "aloof" English, who Hall reported to prefer interaction distances of 8 feet.

With reference to subcultural proxemics differences, research has focused on subcultures in the United States. Hall has suggested that ethnicity affects proxemics-specifically, if somewhat inconsis- tently, that American blacks prefer closer interaction distances than

127

Sociological Theory

American whites (1969, p. 170). It can also be inferred from his work that Mexican-Americans represent a contact subculture and should, therefore, interact more proximally than whites. Baxter (1970) reported that interaction distances indeed varied by ethnicity. Mexican- American pairs stood closest, followed by Anglos; blacks, however, stood farthest apart. Bauer (1973), on the other hand, found that on an

experimental task blacks approached a black same-sex experimenter more closely than whites approached a white same-sex experimenter; presumably blacks preferred closer interaction distances than whites. But Willis (1966), measuring interaction distances between same-race

pairs about to converse, found that blacks stood farther apart than whites, although the difference only reached the 0.10 level of

significance. Besides the clearly inadequate specification of the enculturation

model for these complex and inconsistent results, it is unclear what cultural and subcultural effects would remain were these operationalized more precisely and other effects partialed out. One problem is that

rigorous definitions of culture have been avoided; as a result, purportedly cultural distinctions are on occasion culturally meaningless. As Watson himself indicates, his regional groups and the contact/noncontact culture proxy actually include predominantly arbitrary clumps of

geographically, economically-and culturally-disparate countries.7

Nor, as Mazur (1977) points out, have situational effects been clearly disentangled from cultural and subcultural effects, and it is not clear what purely cultural effects would remain were the two sets of factors

separated. Hall's aloof English versus somewhat gregarious Americans can be reconciled with Heshka's and Nelson's closely interacting Eng- lish dyads, for example, by arguing that the pooled research shows a main effect for degree of acquaintance, possibly modified by the outdoor English versus (evidently) indoor American locations; what it does not show, however, is a main effect for culture. In like fashion, the

pooled subcultural research could be taken to infer a situation x

subculture interaction whereby black/white proxemic differences vary by research setting, interaction type, and so forth; what it does not

suggest is a main effect for race. A final difficulty in specifying the enculturation model is its

tendency to confound culture and status and to assume simply that observed effects are cultural. To demonstrate proxemic differences

128


between cultures, for instance, Hall consistently offers such evidence as that in prosperous English homes fathers are allocated several rooms

(1969, p. 140 ff.); the contact-loving Japanese bed down together under a single quilt by the hearth in winter (p. 150); and Arabs, lacking any appreciation of personal space at all, not only "feel and pinch women in public conveyances" but even go so far as to give their servants tiny sleeping quarters and then spy on them there (p. 157). But such enculturation assumptions are not immediately plausible; a stratum analysis, that high status affords more space and more control of space than low status across cultures, fits the data at least as well.8 Likewise the subcultural research does not disentangle stratum from ethnicity, although it is known that socioeconomic status and ethnicity are

highly correlated;9 thus status rather than subculture may determine ethnic proxemic differences.

Culture Clashes and Proxemic Invariance. Besides cross-cultural and subcultural differences, evidence of culture clash is also used to

support the enculturation model. The model assumes culture so powerfully affects proxemic patterns that mainly they do not vary. Thus members of one culture are assumed to behave identically with compa- triots as with members of other cultures. The latter, also inflexibly and

unconsciously wed to their own patterns, respond negatively and eth- nocentric conflicts ensue (Bauer, 1973; Baxter, 1970; Hall, 1969, 1974; Thompson and Baxter, 1973; Watson, 1970). Only Thompson and Bax- ter and Hall offer evidence for this argument, however, and the evidence does not actually demonstrate proxemic invariance by culture. Using the subcultural differences reported by Baxter (1970), Thompson and Baxter (1973) successfully predicted most advance/retreat patterns in cross-ethnic dyads of Mexican-Americans, Anglos, and blacks. But by restricting its scope to mutual movers, their study may have inadver-

tently selected an unrepresentative subject pool characterized by precisely the unusual inflexibility it meant to test. It certainly does not answer the key question of whether cross-ethnic encounters produce mutual moves.

Similarly, Hall's approach to racial conflict in the United States simply assumes subcultural proxemic inflexibility and ignores the possible role of stratum. For instance, he attributes white reluctance in hiring blacks to nonverbal inflexibility and ethnocentrism by both groups in job interviews (1969, pp. 182-183; 1974, p. 6). Scarcely dis-

129

Sociological Theory

cussing white power and racist ideology (the fact that whites control the jobs he discusses, for example), Hall instead says that black inter- viewees fail because they rely on nonverbal signals which in black culture indicate motivation, but which in the white culture of the interviewers indicate indifference. However, this interpretation assumes that black job applicants behave similarly in the presence of a white interviewer-higher ranking by race, occupational status, and the interview situation itself-as they would among black peers. On the contrary, the work of Cooke (1972), Horton (1972), and Kochman

(1972) indicates that black nonverbal patterns flexibly reflect racial stratification, following white norms in interactions with whites. Too, according to Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974), whites behave differ-

ently in the presence of blacks than in the presence of whites on a number of nonverbal measures, including spatial distance. Thus it is

by no means clear what racial conflicts can be attributed to purported enculturation and proxemic inflexibility effects rather than to stratification effects.

In sum, then, with respect to subcultural, cultural, and culture- clash comparisons, similar problems apply. Even bracketing the em-

pirical inconsistencies and questionable definition of culture in enculturation research, the model is problematic because it necessarily assumes that situational resources have minimal impact in order to

argue that normative cultural influences are maximal. Consequently it assumes that controlling for unequal social or economic resources is

unnecessary, for all differences are attributable to socialized and indi-

vidually consistent behavioral styles, not to relative resource inequality in the situation. Yet enculturation research, which assumes uniformity within cultures in order to show diversity between them, may as easily be interpreted as suggesting the reverse. Within a culture, members

may exhibit different proxemic patterns depending on their relative ranks in a situation whereas similarly positioned members of a different culture may exhibit proxemic resemblances in similar situations. Thus it is uninformative to talk in purely general terms of "Arabs," "Japanese," "females," "American blacks," and so forth, since the status and resources accompanying these characteristics, and the relative

standing of other interactants in the situation, are as important as the

subject's group memberships per se.10

130


The Internal States Model

The internal states model suggests that proxemic patterns are the properties of individuals, not of group membership or social relations. Thus proxemic behavior varies by underlying moods, affect orientations, or personality characteristics. In the internal states models that emphasize the proxemic impact of volatile inner states (such as

moods) over stable ones (such as personality structures), proxemic change within individuals is expected when internal states shift.

It is a central contention of this section that the internal states model lacks empirical support. The model also tends to confound internal states with social relationship factors, inadvertently manipu- lating the latter while attempting to explain results in terms of the former. Among the social factors accidentally aroused may be a status

discrepancy between subjects and experimental staff. Research bearing on this problem supports the argument that relative status affects proxemic behavior.

A Review of Research. Given the plethora of studies based on the internal states model, we shall restrict our discussion to dependent variables that involve actually approaching or being approached. Independent variables had to be directly phrased in psychological terms, for instance referring to subjects' attitudes, or they had to be based on another theory itself formulated in terms of internal states.11 These restrictions produced a set of eighteen studies, the relevant features of which are listed in Table 1.

As can be seen in the fourth column of Table 1, although all studies phrase independent variables in terms of internal states, only a minority actually operationalize any independent variables in this way. (They are coded "all," "some," or "none" or are annotated in the fourth column.) Within this minority, the most common outcome is a failure to reject the null hypothesis. Although, of course, technically no definitive conclusion can be reached from this failure, together these studies suggest that internal states have little effect on proxemic behavior.

Attempts have been made to link distancing with the internal states factors of personality, schizophrenia, self-concept, anxiety, body image, introversion, and objective and subjective deviance. Results are mainly negative. For instance, tracing proxemics to personality, Sewell

131

Sociological Theory

and Heisler (1973) attempt to correlate the twenty-two subscales of the

Jackson's Personality Research Form A with approach distance. The

only significant results are negative correlations between distance and exhibition and between distance and impulsivity. Furthermore, since subscores are presumably correlated, the overall experimental alpha is

unknown; but had they been independent, a finding of two significant correlations out of twenty-two is scarcely more than chance would

predict if each were tested at the 0.05 level. Another example concerns schizophrenia, investigated by both

Horowitz, Duff, and Stratton (1964) and Sommer (1959). The Horowitz team reports that among females, schizophrenics approached male and female hospital staff less closely than nonschizophrenics did, though among males approaching males no such differences appeared. Sommer (1959) too obtained complex results: individual schizophrenics sat closer to a confederate than did other subjects, but pairs of

schizophrenics sat further apart than pairs of other subjects. Taken

together, these results suggest no straightforward main effect for schizo-

phrenia on approach distance.

Similarly, Bailey, Hartnett, and Gibson (1972) report that anx-

iety, first measured on a personality test and then aroused experimen- tally, became associated with male and female distance choices only when approach and being-approached scores were combined. Results from a Dosey and Meisels (1969) study, where anxiety was measured on a Rorschach scale, confirm the lack of connection between anxiety and

distancing for both genders as well as between distancing and the Rorschach measure of body image. And, finally, Meisels and Canter

(1970) gave some female subjects an introversion/extraversion inven-

tory and scored others on objective and subjective deviance; these were not found to atfect distance. Indeed, the only internal factor straight- forwardly affecting proxemics is self-concept. Stratton, Tekippe, and Flick (1973) chose from among their initial subjects a group of nine- teen males and fourteen females who scored unusually high, low, or

consistently average on physical self, personal self, and social self subscales of a self-concept test. Within this group, high scorers approached a male experimenter more closely than low scorers did.

In sum, then, of all internal state factors argued to affect proxemic distancing-personality, schizophrenia, self-concept, anxiety, body image, introversion, and objective and subjective deviance-only

132


self-concept has been shown to have clear and consistent effects. And even this conclusion is somewhat tentative in light of the possibility that self-concept may be associated with hierarchical ranking on performance factors (Lee and Ofshe, 1981).

Internal States, Social Relations, and Status Differentiation. Fre- quently internal states research, although claiming to manipulate psychological factors, actually involves quasi-social ones, including status differentiation. The confusion between internal and external factors occurs, first, when internal state variables are measured following a real or imagined interaction that is posited to have affected internal state scores (see Mehrabian, 1968; Mehrabian and Diamond, 1971; Patterson, 1977). The consequence is that scores may reflect some aspect of the interaction instead of (or in addition to) the underlying internal dimension supposedly being tapped. There is another way in which external variables inadvertently become entangled with internal ones: to arouse inner states, it is often some aspects of relationships between people that are actually manipulated. The inner states are then assumed to be activated and to organize proxemic variance even when internal valid- ity checks suggest the presumed inner state was not in fact aroused ap- propriately (see Chaikin, Sigler, and Derlega, 1974; Kleinke and Pohlen, 1971). Kleinke and Pohlen, for instance, aroused "positive attitude" by introducing some subjects to a cooperative, gaze-averting confederate; but these subjects' attitudes toward him did not differ from those of other subjects with whom the confederate interacted differently.

As the fifth column of Table 1 indicates, many of the relations manipulated involve possible status components. These may be of two types. The first, coded separately in column three, concerns staff/subject interactions and is described below. The second involves more direct implications inferable by subjects about an experimental task. Dosey and Meisels (1969) used a "stress" factor in addition to the internal factors discussed previously; but to arouse it, they ran subjects in groups, telling stressed subjects first that they would be evaluated on physical appearance and second that they would learn their appearance scores. As a result, they directly manipulated two aspects of a status- differentiating quasi-courtroom relationship in which possibly stressed subjects were actually assigned a low-status defendant role. The (conflicting) results are attributed to stress rather than to the status differentiation simply by fiat.

133

Table 1. Internal States Studies of Proxemic Behavior.

Was Distance Were Internal States Do Results Measured During Factors Operation- Is a Status Support Initial

Interaction alized via Relational Interpretation Hypothesis? with Experiment Manipulation? of Findings (Yes, No,

Study Hypotheses Staff Member? (All, Some, None)a Possible? Mixed)b

Bailey, Hartnett, and Gibson (1972)

Chaikin, Sigler, and Derlega (1974)

Coutts and Schneider (1976)

Dosey and Meisels (1969)

Horowitz (1965)

Horowitz, Duff, and Stratton (1964) Kleinke and Pohlen (1971)

Anxiety affects distancing

Attitude (expectancy) affects leaning

Acquaintance, kind of task, gaze pattern of partner affect distancing Stress, body image, anxiety affect distancing

Tension and disorganization affect distancing Schizophrenia affects distancing Partner's gaze pattern and game strategy affect distancing

Yes

Yes

Some

All

No All

Yes for one measure

Yes

Yes

Yes

Some

All

None

All

Yes Mixed (results on combined distance measure only)

Yes Mixed (positive expectancy produced more forward leans but not a more positive attitude; no difference between control and negative expectancy groups)

No Mixed (cooperative task decreased distancing)

Yes Mixed (stress affected subjects' approach to each other but not to experimenter)

No data No data

Yes Mixed (held in one of two experiments)

Yes No

Mahoney (1974)

Mehrabian (1968)

Mehrabian and Diamond (1971)

Meisels and Canlter (1970)

Patterson (1977)

Pedersen and Shears (1974)

Rosenfeld (1966)

Sewell and Heisler (1973)

Sommer (1959)

Stratton, Tekippe, and Flick (1973) Tesch, Huston, and Indebaum (1973)

Approach affects learning Attitude affects distancing Affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection affect distancing Introversion, objective and subjective deviance, stress affect distancing Affiliation, sensitivity to rejection, social de- sirability, feelings of ease and pleasantness all affect distancing Acquaintance and kind of interaction affect distancing Affiliation affects distancing Personality affects distancing

Schizophrenia affects distancing

Self-concept affects distancing Attitude similarity, evaluation expectancy, liking affect distancing

Yes All

No (Task involved imagi- nary interaction)

No No, but may have reflected a prior interaction

Yes Some

Yes Some; the rest may have reflected a prior interaction

No All

Yes All

Yes

Yes for one measure

Yes

Yes

None

None

None

All

Yes No

No Yes

No Mixed (held for affiliative tendency only

Yes No

Yes No

No No, since control group showed similar patterns to treatment group

Yes Yes, but data not presented

Yes Mixed (2 of 22 personality scales correlated with distance)

Yes Mixed (conflicting results on peer vs. staff interactions)

No Yes

Yes Mixed (held for liking only)

a'By maniipulating the interaction or information about the interaction. b'Tihis column1 indicates onIly whether r rsults were significant, not whether alternati ve cxplanations of results are possible.

136 Sociological Theory

Even where quasi-social relational manipulations, including status differentiations, are involved, the results of internal states research still tend to be negative or mixed (see the last column of Table 1). This outcome, however, does not reflect a deficiency in the explana- tory power of social factors per se. In the first place, internal states research manipulates social factors unsystematically and imprecisely. To arouse the trait of instrumentality, for instance, Pedersen and Shears (1974) used a three-level treatment factor wherein level 1 subjects played a four-person competitive game, level 2 subjects sat confined by twos in a tiny isolation box, and level 3 control subjects merely waited alone. The mainly flat proxemic results cannot be attributed to the social factors manipulated, since these constitute a theoretically mean-

ingless combination of competition, confinement, and group size. In the second place, as Bailey, Hartnett, and Gibson (1972) acknowledge, the lack of strong findings in internal states quasi-social research may reflect a uniform status discrepancy that causes subjects to behave dif-

ferently in the presence of staff than they do among status equals. If this is true, then experiments involving subject/staff interactions

actually expose supposedly different treatment groups to the same status manipulation. And if it is also true that this status discrepancy affects proxemics more powerfully than the factors supposedly manipulated in internal states research, one would predict precisely the pattern of negligible results actually found in the overwhelming majority of studies that required subjects to interact with staff. Evidence, some of it from research using nonpsychological models, supports these possi- bilities. Unless a direct approach task is used, subjects seem to stay further away from staff than from each other, even when staff are confederates rather than acknowledged members of the research team. This pattern may be seen in the findings of Giesen and McClaren

(1976), Hendrick, Giesen, and Coy (1974), Pellegrini and Empey (1970), Sewell and Heisler (1973), and Tesch, Huston, and Indebaum (1973).

In sum, then, the primary argument against the internal states

paradigm is that it simply assumes internal motives cause behavior,

ignoring the relational and status overlay that may be involved. Indeed, Birdwhistell (1970) and Duncan and Fiske (1977) argue that internal states may reflect situational and interactional factors and should thus be considered dependent rather than independent variables in nonverbal analysis. As C. Wright Mills's vocabularies of motive concept (1963) illustrates, what the self and others attribute to an actor as motives rest


more on socially accepted rationales for behavior than on its empirical causes. Vocabularies of motive are unlikely to include status-

differentiating factors, but these may nonetheless be causally impli- cated, as Goffman's description of the status-associated touch system in a hospital suggests: "Doctors touch other ranks as a means of convey- ing friendly support and comfort, but other ranks tend to feel that it is

presumptuous for them to reciprocate a doctor's touch, much less initiate such a contact with a doctor" (1967, p. 74). Here status (doctor versus other ranks), not internal states (feelings of friendliness, pre- sumptuousness, and the like), determine the behavioral outcome: doctors touch more. The same may be true for other types of proxemic behavior.

The Situational Resource Model

The situational resource model asserts that proxemic behavior varies as a function of structural factors-factors that derive their

meaning only by references to social relations between and within

groups. These factors concern the nature of the group in which individuals find themselves, membership in other groups, and position in each. Being situational, proxemic behavior is not determined by fixed characteristics of ego alone; it is the relative status composition of the

pair or group that predicts space-claiming behavior. Thus proxemic patterns are expected to change when social arrangements shift, for individual repertoires are postulated to include multiple patterns suited to multiple situational mandates. High rank produces more

rights to space, a greater right to invade with impunity low-status subjects' space, and greater ability to protect rights to space than low rank affords.

References to the merits of the situational resource model abound: for example, Kendon (1973), Lyman and Scott (1967), Scheflen with Ashcraft (1976), Sommer (1969, 1971). Indeed, the paradigm receives positive notice in passing from theoreticians using all other models (see Wilson, 1978; Hall, 1969; Argyle, 1967). But aside from

correlating status and nonverbal behavior, empirical research is lack-

ing. Several recent studies however, have found that situational resource factors, including status-related factors, affect proxemic behavior. We contend that this research, combined with evidence from

137

Sociological Theory

alternative models discussed previously, supports the specific theory that relative status is a major organizer of proxemic behavior.

An Overview. Beginning with the group itself, it has been found that groups are allocated group territory or interactional space and, moreover, that both members and nonmembers respect its inviolability and adjust their proxemic patterns accordingly (Cheyne and Efran, 1972; Efran and Cheyne, 1973; Knowles, 1973). What produces group space is not the mere copresence of several people in the same area but rather the existence and intensity of interactions among them and the number of people involved (Cheyne and Efran, 1972; Knowles, 1973; Lindskold and others, 1976). Within group space, situational factors continue to operate in the allocation of space among group members. Factors investigated include the joint versus solitary nature of the task

(Batchelor and Goethals, 1972) and the degree of acquaintance and age (Heshka and Nelson, 1972). But the most important social factor linked to proxemic patterns within groups is status differentiation.

Dating back to Steinzor (1950), a number of studies have

reported correlations between leadership and interaction rates and between interaction rates and proxemic patterns (Felipe, 1966; Hearn, 1957; Leavitt, 1951; Silverstein and Stang, 1976; Sommer, 1961; Strodt- beck, Simon, and Hawkins, 1958). With the exception of two possible disconfirmations (Bass and Klubeck, 1952; Sundstrom and Altman, 1974), this literature suggests that rank, participation rates, and proxemic behavior are strongly linked. Thus, for instance, Leavitt (1951) and Strodtbeck, Simon, and Hawkins (1958) found a connection between an individual's seating position and his or her chances of

being rated group leader. Relative Status and Space Use. Attempting to clarify these corre-

lations, several recent studies concluded that status does shape space use. Regardless of the status dimension involved, status inferiors show different proxemic patterns than status superiors. Seen to affect proxemic behavior similarly are socioeconomic cues, occupational rank, age and gender differential, age or college-standing cues, and gender and role-related rank on an experimental task. Evidence of status-

engendered proxemic change has also been reported. With respect to socioeconomic cues, Dabbs and Stokes (1975)

found that passersby approached a female confederate more closely when she was sloppily attired than neat. Although the authors say that

138


beauty shaped these differences, they admit the actual distinction was how prosperous the confederate looked. The impact of socioeconomic status on proxemics has been confirmed by Henley (1973a), who reports that in dyads of mixed prosperity the more advantaged members touched their partners significantly more often than their

partners touched them.

Occupational rank has also been shown to affect proxemics. Thus Dean, Willis, and Hewitt (1975), observing navy personnel, found that people approaching a superior stayed further away than

people approaching a peer. Furthermore, the higher the superordinate ranked above him, the further back the subordinate stayed. Finally, the distance a superordinate stayed from subordinates he approached varied a great deal, leading the authors to suggest: "The superior has the

option of a formal (more distant) or more intimate (less distant) interaction, while a subordinate is usually required to initiate a formal interaction" (p. 298). Both Henley (1973b) and Goffman (1967) offer corroboration for this observation; Goffman reports that even when doctors touched lower-ranking hospital personnel, the latter did not have the freedom to reciprocate. Thus occupational subordinates and

superordinates exhibit different proxemic patterns: the former are re- stricted to a formal, distant style; the latter enjoy the prerogative of a more intimate style as well.

Proxemics has also been traced to age and gender differentials by Henley and to age or college-standing cues by Knowles. Henley (1973a) reports that in dyads discrepant by age or gender, the higher-status members (males, the older) touched their partners significantly more than their partners touched them. Knowles (1973) found that groups of younger confederates in casual clothing, low-status by virtue of cues concerning age or undergraduate standing, were invaded more often than groups of older confederates in relatively formal attire. Knowles also suspected that of the 25 percent of passersby who did invade, many were faculty and administrators. Thus not only are high-status people touched and invaded less often than low-status people, but they tend to touch and invade others more often.

Final support for the proxemic effects of status-differentiating factors is research by Leffler, Gillespie, and Conaty (1981, 1982), testing not only status but also the impact of status change. Subjects, run in dyads of various gender compositions, were initially assigned the role

139

Sociological Theory

of teacher (high status) or student (low status) on an experimental task; then roles were reversed and a similar task was assigned. Results indicate that in the initial interaction high-status subjects (teachers and

males) took more space, intruded more often, and touched more fre-

quently than low-status subjects (students and females). Furthermore, status changes produced proxemic changes. Across interactions, sub-

jects assigned high status took more space, intruded more, and touched more than they did when assigned low status. It has been remarked that individual flexibility linked to status is a critical claim distinguishing the situational resource model from other models; it appears that the claim is justified.

Thus a variety of status dimensions affect proxemic behavior

similarly. Seen as recipients of others' behavior, status inferiors are

approached more closely and touched more often than status superiors, regardless of which single-status dimension is used. Seen as activators rather than recipients of proxemic arrangements, inferiors approach more distantly and touch less often than superiors do. In discrepant- status pairs, as might be expected, inferior members encroach upon superiors less often than superiors encroach upon them. And proxemic change follows status change. The sole exception to this pattern of

findings is Weitz (1972), who reports that neither the race nor the class of a fictitious partner-to-be affected the distances subjects chose in

preparing for the interaction. Distance was measured projectively, however, not behaviorally, and indirectly at that-coders merely rated how "friendly" choices seemed. The common trends of the remaining studies suggest that it is relative status per se, rather than the specific dimension used, that organizes space use.

Additional support for the situational resource theory of proxemic behavior comes from recent reviews of nonverbal and proxemic research using gender as an independent variable (Frieze and Ramsey, 1976; Gillespie, 1978; Henley, 1973b, 1977). These reviews all conclude that although the enormous number of gender studies have previously been judged to show no consistent gender effects, they become inter-

pretable once gender is considered a status-differentiated factor rather than the result of enculturation into the female role or the result of a feminine genetic or psychological state. Thus reinterpreted, gender studies usually report that females display what in fact appears to be a

pattern of low-status behavior (neither initiating touch nor invading),

140


especially in the presence of males; similarly, males display high-status patterns (invading, touching), especially in the presence of females.

Thus correlational, causal, and gender research all support the

theory that status is a powerful organizer of proxemic behavior. Too, it has been contended throughout that research based on other paradigms also supports this theory. To review this argument: ethological find-

ings suggesting a status component to proxemic behavior are most

parsimoniously explained in terms of structural relations rather than in terms of genetic etiology; the latter explanation, besides resting on invalid assumptions about proxemic invariance, is also untestable.

Similarly for enculturation/socialization research: Besides a questionable definition of culture and a tendency to produce conflicting results, this research confounds culture and subculture with stratum and fails to support its crucial claim of individual proxemic invariance. In con-

sequence, it offers as much support for the situational resource postulates of status effects and individual change as for its own culturally deterministic tenets. Finally, although the internal states model lacks empirical substantiation, this very outcome may reflect a status discrepancy between staff and subjects across treatment groups.

Implications for Further Research. Thus both direct research and research based on other models support the specific situational resource theory that relative status organizes proxemic patterning. Since in the past this theory has received insufficient research attention, it raises as many questions as it answers. The theory does not clarify how different status dimensions interact to affect proxemic behavior, for instance, nor whether specific (situation-related) or diffuse (general status characteristics) ranks have the most impact. It is also unknown whether status differentiates proxemic patterns only where one subject ranks high and the other low or whether it also differentiates equally low and equally high pairs of subjects from each other. Too, given the distinctive emphasis on the group, it is essential to expand the research beyond its mainly dyadic confines.

Nonetheless, in exploring these issues the structure of interactions and the distribution of economic and social resources should remain as central a concern for microlevel phenomena as for macro- level phenomena (see Blumberg, 1978; Kanter, 1975, 1977; Mayhew, 1980; Ryan, 1971; Sennett and Cobb, 1972). Proxemic behavior seems to be learned in the sense that humans acquire a variety of behavioral

141

Sociological Theory

modes appropriate to superordinate, subordinate, and equal rankings. What determines the particular pattern displayed, and thus proxemic variance, are the structural characteristics of the situation, not the

particular features of individuals in it. Reflecting the larger distribution of resources represented there, individuals display proxemic cues

appropriate to their relative ranks. Differential access to social and economic resources in the macro-order produces asymmetric patterns of nonverbal activity among the participants in the micro-order.

Further, individuals change behavioral displays when their relative

rankings change, both within situations and between situations. The implications of this argument for the study of interaction in

small groups are great. First, of course, more attention must be focused on nonverbal behavior as well as verbal and cognitive behavior, since nonverbal behavior seems to exhibit profound structural effects.

Second, small-group hierarchies have sometimes been conceptualized as meritocracies wherein people are ranked in terms of the stable behavioral competencies with which they enter (see Bales and others, 1951; Goetch and McFarland, 1980; Willard and Strodtbeck, 1972). This

review, on the other hand, suggests the reverse may be true. As in

macro-orderings, in micro events too the behavioral patterns that indi-

viduals display may reflect rather than cause the distribution of resources in social structures.

Notes

1. This model has been referred to as the power model or power

analysis (Henley, 1977; Polk, 1979) or the resource control model

(Crosbie, 1979). 2. Studies in which subjects were children, and studies using

projective rather than behavioral measurements of proxemics, have

been excluded from this analysis. Nor will research concerning the

proxemic effects of gender be emphasized. The decision to eliminate

studies on children was motivated by the difficulty of generalizing to

adults from such research, since each model can be taken to imply that

the behavior of children and adults differs. Projective studies have been

eliminated because the evidence suggests that projective measures do not

correlate well with actual behavior (Hayduk, 1978; Weitz, 1972; Wicker,

1969). That this shortcoming characterizes proxemic behavior specifi-

142


cally is suggested in findings reported by Dosey and Meisels (1969), Pedersen and Shears (1974), and Stratton, Tekippe, and Flick (1973). Meisels and Canter (1970) do report a significant association of r = 0.65 between projective and behavioral closeness, but this is hardly large enough to justify measuring the latter by means of the former.

Finally, with respect to gender effects, these have been exten- sively evaluated elsewhere both for proxemics and for nonverbal behavior generally (Frieze and Ramsey, 1976; Gillespie, 1978; Henley, 1973b, 1977), and these evaluations will be addressed here. For the convenience of readers who wish to examine the enormous gender literature

directly, however, the sex of objects has been specified throughout this review.

Since we assign theoretical models to articles rather than to authors, the same author occasionally appears under more than one heading. This unfortunate outcome illustrates the need to specify theory so that theoretical rationales may be selected more rigorously.

3. For general discussions of human variations within individuals, see Chapple (1976), Harris (1968), and Berger and others (1977). For evidence on human proxemic variations within individuals, see Leffler, Gillespie, and Conaty (1981).

4. Examples of nonethological research positing similar reactions to intrusion as ethology predicts include Krail and Leventhal (1976), McBride, King, and James (1965), Patterson, Mullins, and Romani (1971), and Sundstrom (1975). Nonethological links between rank and proxemics are discussed throughout this review.

5. Mahoney (1974) argues that no systematic observations of subjects in "nonintrusion" conditions had been made, except for sim- ple flight responses. Her study indicates that purportedly defensive or compensatory reactions to intrusion also occur without intrusion in libraries.

6. The study conducted by Bailey and colleagues exemplifies the problem of eclecticism: While an ethological rationale is offered for this set of findings, an internal states rationale is offered for another set. We discuss the latter in the section on internal states.

7. An additional problem with the regional touch results is that they do not employ a common error term against which regional contributions are assessed; instead they separately compare the six regions two at a time, resulting in a high and unspecifiable probability of Type I errors (Kirk, 1968, p. 78).

143

Sociological Theory

8. Frieze and Ramsey (1976) report an Altman and Nelson find-

ing that in lower-middle-class American homes, mothers have rooms of their own less often than fathers, and these are violated more often than fathers' rooms.

9. For instance, Bauer reports that black subjects' families had

significantly lower annual incomes than white subjects'. 10. See Berger and others (1977) for a similar attack on socializa-

tion theory. 11. The theory that has inspired the most research in internal

state proxemics is the affiliative conflict theory of Argyle and Dean

(1965), which attributes proxemic and other nonverbal patterns to "affiliative motives" of the interactants.

References

ARGYLE, M.

1967 The Psychology of Interpersonal Behavior. London:

Penguin. ARGYLE, M., AND DEAN, J.

1965 "Eye Contact, Distance and Affiliation." Sociometry 28(3):289-304.

BAILEY, K. G., HARTNETT, J. J., AND GIBSON, F. W., JR.

1972 "Implied Threat and the Territorial Factor in Personal

Space." Psychological Reports 39(1):263-270. BALES, R. F., AND OTHERS

1951 "Channels of Communication in Small Groups." Ameri- can Sociological Rez,iew 16:416-468.

BARASH, D. P.

1973 "Human Ethology: Personal Space Reiterated." Envi-

ronment and Behavior 5(1):67-72. 1977 Sociobiology and Behavior. New York: Elsevier.

BASS, B. M., AND KLUBECK, S.

1952 "Effects of Seating Arrangement on Leaderless Group Discussions." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol- ogy 47(3):724-727.

BATCHELOR, J. P., AND GOETHALS, G. R.

1972 "Spatial Arrangements in Freely Formed Groups." Soci-

ometry 35(2):270-279.

144


BAUER, E. A.

1973 "Personal Space: A Study of Blacks and Whites." Soci-

ometry 36(3):402-408. BAXTER, J. C.

1970 "Interpersonal Spacings in Natural Settings." Sociometry 33(4):444-456.

BAXTER, J. C., AND ROZELLE, R. M.

1975 "Nonverbal Expression as a Function of Crowding Dur- ing a Simulated Police-Citizen Encounter." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32:40-54.

BERGER, J., AND OTHERS

1977 Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expecta- tion States Approach. New York: Elsevier.

BIRDWHISTELL, R. L.

1970 Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communi- cation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

BLUMBERG, R. L.

1978 Stratification: Socioeconomic and Sexual Inequality. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co.

CHAIKIN, A. L., SIGLER, E., AND DERLEGA, V. J.

1974 "Nonverbal Mediators of Teacher Expectancy Effects." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30(1): 144-149.

CHAPPLE, E. D.

1976 "Ethology Without Biology." American Anthropologist 78(3):590-593.

CHEYNE, J. A., AND EFRAN, M. G.

1972 "The Effect of Spatial and Interpersonal Variables on the Invasion of Group Controlled Territories." Sociometry 35(3):477-489.

COOKE, B. G.

1972 "Nonverbal Communication Among Afro-Americans: An Initial Classification." In T. Kochman (Ed.), Rappin' and Stylin' Out: Communication in Black America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

COUTTS, L. M., AND SCHNEIDER, F. W.

1976 "Affiliation and Conflict Theory: An Investigation of the Intimacy-Equilibrium and Compensation Hypothesis."

145

Sociological Theory

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24:1135- 1142.

CROSBIE, P. V.

1979 "The Effects of Sex and Size on Status Ranking." Social

Psychology Quarterly 42(4):340-354. DABBS, J. M., JR., AND STOKES, N. A., III

1975 "Beauty Is Power: The Use of Space on the Sidewalk."

Sociometry 38(4):551-557. DARWIN, C.

1965 The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DEAN, L. M., WILLIS, F. N., AND HEWITT, J.

1975 "Initial Interaction Distance Among Individuals Equal and Unequal in Military Rank." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(2):294-299.

DELONG, A. J.

1970 "Dominance-Territorial Relations in a Small Group." Environment and Behavior 2(2): 170-191.

1971 "Dominance-Territorial Criteria and Small Group Struc- ture." Comparative Group Studies 2(3):235-266.

1973 "Territorial Stability and Hierarchical Formation." Small

Group Behavior 4(1):55-63. DOSEY, M. A., AND MEISELS, M.

1969 "Personal Space and Self-Protection." Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology 11(2):93-97. DUNCAN, S., JR., AND FISKE, D. W.

1977 Face-to-Face Interaction: Research, Methods, and Theory. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

EASTMAN, C. M., AND HARPER, J.

1971 "A Study of Proxemic Behavior: Toward a Predictive Model." Environment and Behavior 3(4):418-437.

EDNEY, J. J. 1974 "Human Territoriality." Psychological Bulletin 81(12):

959-975. EFRAN, M. G., AND CHEYNE, J. A.

1973 "Shared Space: The Cooperative Control of Spatial Areas

by Two Interacting Individuals." Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 5(3):201-210.

146


1974 "Affective Concomitants of the Invasion of Shared Space: Behavioral, Psychological, and Verbal Indicators." Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology 29(2):219-226.

EIBL-EIBESFELDT, I.

1970 Ethology: The Biology of Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

EVANS, G. W., AND HOWARD, R. B.

1973 "Personal Space." Psychological Bulletin 80(4):334-344. FELIPE, N.

1966 "Interpersonal Distance and Small Group Interaction." Cornell Journal of Social Relations 1(1):59-64.

FELIPE, N., AND SOMMER, R.

1966 "Invasions of Personal Space." Social Problems 14(2):206- 214.

FOX, M. S.

1974 Concepts in Ethology: Animal and Human Behavior.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. FRIEZE, I. H., AND RAMSEY, S. J.

1976 "Nonverbal Maintenance of Traditional Sex Roles."

Journal of Social Issues 32(3):133-141. GIESEN, M., AND MCCLAREN, H. A.

1976 "Discussion, Distance and Sex: Changes in Impressions and Attractions During Small Group Interaction." Soci-

ometry 39(1):60-70. GILLESPIE, D.L.

1978 "The Effects of Status Differentiation on Nonverbal Behavior at Settled Distances." Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-

sity of California at Berkeley. GOETSCH, G. G., AND MCFARLAND, D. D.

1980 "Models of the Distribution of Acts in Small Discussion

Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 43(2):173-183. GOFFMAN, E.

1967 Interaction Ritual. Garden City: Anchor Books. HALL, E. T.

1959 The Silent Language. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett. 1963 "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior." Amer-

ican Anthropologist 65(5):1003-1026. 1969 The Hidden Dimension. Garden City: Anchor Books.

147

Sociological Theory

1974 Handbook for Proxemic Research. Washington, D.C.:

Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.

HARPER, R. G., WIENS, A. N., AND MATARAZZO, J. D.

1978 Nonverbal Communication: The State of the Art. New York: Wiley.

HARRIS, B., LUGINBUHL, J.E.R., AND FISHBEIN, J. E.

1978 "Density and Personal Space in a Field Setting." Social

Psychology 41(4):350-353.

HARRIS, M.

1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Crowell.

HAYDUK, L. A.

1978 "Personal Space: An Evaluative and Orienting Over-

view." Psychological Bulletin 85(1):117-134.

HEARN, G.

1957 "Leadership and the Spatial Factor in Small Groups." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 54(2):269- 272.

HENDRICK, C., GIESEN, M., AND COY, S.

1974 "The Social Ecology of Free Seating Arrangements in a

Small Group Interaction Context." Sociometry 37(2):262- 274.

HENLEY, N. M.

1973a "Status and Sex: Some Touching Observations." Bulletin

of the Psychonometric Society 2(2):91-93. 1973b "Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication." Berkeley

Journal of Sociology 18:1-26.

1977 Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communica-

tion. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

HESHKA, S., AND NELSON, Y.

1972 "Interpersonal Speaking Distance as a Function of Age, Sex, and Relationship." Sociometry 35(4):491-498.

HOROWITZ, M. J.

1965 "Human Spatial Behavior." American Journal of Psycho- therapy 19(1):20-28.

HOROWITZ, M. J., DUFF, D. F., AND STRATTON, L. O.

1964 "Body-Buffer Zone: Exploration of Personal Space." Archives of General Psychiatry 11(6):651-656.

148


HORTON, J.

1972 "Time and Cool People." In T. Kochman (Ed.), Rappin' and Stylin' Out: Communication in Black America. Urbana: Unviersity of Illinois Press.

HOWARD, E.

1948 Territory in Bird Life. London: Collins. KANTER, R. M.

1975 "Women and the Structure of Organizations: Explora- tions in Theory and Behavior." In M. Millman and R. M. Kanter (Eds.), Another Voice. Garden City: Anchor/

Doubleday. 1977 Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic

Books. KENDON, A.

1973 "The Role of Visible Behavior in the Organization of Social Interaction." In M. von Cranach and I. Vine (Eds.), Social Communication and Movement: Studies of Interac- tion and Expression in Man and Chimpanzee. New York: Academic Press.

1975 "Introduction." In A. Kendon, R. M. Harris, and M. R.

Key (Eds.), The Organization of Behavior in Face to Face Interaction. The Hague: Mouton.

KIRK, R. E.

1968 Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks-Cole.

KLEINKE, C. L., AND POHLEN, P. D.

1971 "Affective and Emotional Responses as a Function of Other Person's Gaze and Cooperativeness in a Two- Person Game." Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology 17(3):308-313.

KNOWLES, E. S.

1973 "Boundaries Around Group Interaction: The Effect of Group Size and Member Status on Boundary Permeabil- ity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 26(3):327-331.

KOCHMAN, T.

1972 "Preface." In T. Kochman (Ed.), Rappin' and Stylin' Out: Communication in Black America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

149

Sociological Theory

KRAIL, K. A., AND LEVENTHAL, G.

1976 "The Sex Variable in the Intrusion of Personal Space." Sociometry 39(2):170-173.

LEAVITT, R. J.

1951 "Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on

Group Performance." Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology 46(1):38-50. LEE, M. T., AND OFSHE, R.

1981 "The Impact of Behavioral Style and Status Characteris- tics on Social Influence: A Test of Two Competing Theo- ries." Social Psychology Quarterly 44(2):73-82.

LEFFLER, A., GILLESPIE, D. L., AND CONATY, J. C.

1981 "Status Change and Nonverbal Change." Unpublished manuscript.

1982 "The Effects of Status Differentiation on Nonverbal Behavior." Social Psychology Quarterly 45(3):153-161.

LINDSKOLD, S., AND OTHERS

1976 "Territorial Boundaries of Interacting Groups and Pas- sive Audiences." Sociometry 39(1):71-76.

LOTT, D. F., AND SOMMER, R.

1967 "Seating Arrangements and Status." Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology 7(1):90-95. LYMAN, S. M., AND SCOTT, M. B.

1967 "Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension." Social Problems 15(2):236-249.

MCBRIDE, G., KING, M. G., AND JAMES, J. W.

1965 "Social Proximity Effects on GSR in Adult Humans."

Journal of Psychology 61:153-157. MAHONEY, E. R.

1974 "Compensatory Reactions to Spatial Immediacy." Soci-

ometry 37(3):423-431. MAYHEW, B. H.

1980 "Structuralism Versus Individualism. Part 1: Shadowbox-

ing in the Dark." Social Forces 59(2):335-375. MAZUR, A.

1977 "On Wilson's Sociobiology." American Journal of Soci-

ology 82(3):697-700. MEHRABIAN, A.

1968 "Relationship of Attitude and Seated Posture, Orienta-

150


tion, and Distance." Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 10(1):26-30. MEHRABIAN, A., AND DIAMOND, S.

1971 "Seating Arrangement and Conversation." Sociometry 34(2):281-289.

MEISELS, M., AND CANTER, F. M.

1970 "Personal Space and Personality Characteristics: A Non- confirmation." Psychological Reports 27(1):287-290.

MILLS, C. W.

1963 "Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive." In I. L. Horowitz (Ed.), Power, Politics and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills. New York: Ballantine.

PATTERSON, M. L.

1977 "Interpersonal Distance, Affect, and Equilibrium The-

ory." Journal of Social Psychology 101(2):205-214. PATTERSON, M. L., MULLINS, S., AND ROMANI, J.

1971 "Compensatory Reactions to Spatial Intrusion." Sociome-

try 34(1):114-121. PEDERSEN, D. M., AND SHEARS, L.

1974 "Effects of an Interpersonal Game and of Confinement on Personal Space." Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology 30(6):838-845.

PELLEGRINI, R. J., AND EMPEY, J.

1970 "Interpersonal Spatial Orientation in Dyads." Journal of Pychology 76(1):67-76.

POLK, B. B.

1979 "Male Power and the Women's Movement." In J. Free- man (Ed.), Women: A Feminist Perspective. Palo Alto:

Mayfield. RAMSEY, A.

1969 "Time, Space, and Hierarchy in Zoosemiotics." In T. A. Sebeok and A. Ramsey (Eds.), Approaches to Animal Communication. The Hague: Mouton.

ROSENFELD, H. M.

1966 "Instrumental Affiliative Functions of Facial and Gestur- al Expressions." Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology 4(1):65-72.

RYAN, W.

1971 Blaming the Victim. New York: Random House.

151

Sociological Theory

SCHEFLEN, A. E., WITH ASHCRAFT, N.

1976 Human Territories: How We Behave in Space-Time. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

SENNETT, R., AND COBB, J.

1972 The Hidden Injuries of Class. New York: Random House. SEWELL, A. F., AND HEISLER, J. T.

1973 "Personality Correlates of Proximity Preferences." Jour- nal of Psychology 85(1):151-156.

SILVERSTEIN, C. H., AND STANG, D. J.

1976 "Seating Position and Interaction in Triads: A Field

Study." Sociometry 39(2):166-170. SMITH, H. W.

1981 "Territorial Spacing on a Beach Revisited: A Cross- National Exploration." Social Psychology Quarterly 44(2):132-137.

SOMMER, R.

1959 "Studies in Personal Space." Sociometry 22(3):247-260. 1961 "Leadership and Group Geography." Sociometry 24(1):99-

110. 1969 Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Engle-

wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1971 "Spatial Parameters in Naturalistic Social Research." In

A. H. Esser (Ed.), Behavior and Environment: The Use of Space by Animals and Men. New York: Plenum Press.

STEINZOR, B.

1950 "The Spatial Factor in Face to Face Discussion Groups." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 45(3):552- 555.

STRATTON, L. O., TEKIPPE, D. J., AND FLICK, G. L.

1973 "Personal Space and Self-Concept." Sociometry 36(3):424- 429.

STRODTBECK, F. L., SIMON, R. J., AND HAWKINS, C.

1958 "Social Status in Jury Deliberations." In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

SUNDSTROM, E.

1975 "Experimental Study of Crowding: Effects of Room Size, Intrusion, and Goal Blocking on Nonverbal Behavior,

152


Self-Disclosure, and Self-Reported Stress." Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology 32(4):645-654.

SUNDSTROM, E., AND ALTMAN, I.

1974 "Field Study of Territorial Behavior and Dominance."

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30(1):115- 124.

TESCH, F. E., HUSTON, T. L., AND INDEBAUM, E. A.

1973 "Attitude Similarity, Attraction, and Physical Proximity in a Dynamic Space." Journal of Applied Social Psychol- ogy 3(1):63-72.

THOMPSON, D. J., AND BAXTER, J. C.

1973 "Interpersonal Spacing in Two-Person Cross-Cultural Interactions." Man-Environment Systems 3(2):115-117.

VAN DEN ASSEM, J.

1974 "Territory in the Three-Spined Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus L." In A. W. Stockes (Ed.), Territory. Strouds-

burg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.

WATSON, O. M.

1970 Proxemic Behavior: A Cross-Cultural Study. The Hague: Mouton.

WATSON, 0. M., AND GRAVES, T. D.

1966 "Quantitative Research in Proxemic Behavior." American

Anthropologist 68(4):971-985.

WEITZ, S.

1972 "Attitude, Voice, and Behavior: A Repressed Affect Model of Interracial Interaction." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24(1):14-21.

WICKER, A. W.

1969 "Attitudes vs. Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects." Journal

of Social Issues 25:41-78.

WEINER, M., AND OTHERS

1972 "Nonverbal Behavior and Nonverbal Communication."

Psychological Review 79(3):185-214.

WILLARD, D., AND STRODTBECK, F. L.

1972 "Latency of Verbal Response and Participation in Small

Groups." Sociometry 35:161-174.

153

154 Sociological Theory

WILLIS, F. N., JR.

1966 "Initial Speaking Distance as a Function of the Speaker's Relationship." Psychonomic Science 5(6):221-222.

WILSON, E. O.

1974 Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

1978 On Human Nature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press.

WORD, C. D., ZANNA, M. T., AND COOPER, J.

1974 "The Nonverbal Mediation of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies in Interracial Interaction." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10:103-120.

theories of nonverbal behavior: a critical review of proxemics research

Documents

van den assem

situational resource paradigm

internal states paradigm

offer nonverbal theorizing

situational resource model

relative rankings change

internal states model

internal states research