User:Ebrock818/sandbox

Proxemics is a subcategory of the study of nonverbal communication along with haptics (touch), kinesics (body movement), vocalics (paralanguage), and chronemics (structure of time). Proxemics can be defined as "the interrelated observations and theories of man’s use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture”. Edward T. Hall, the cultural anthropologist who coined the term in 1963, emphasized the impact of proxemic behavior (the use of space) on interpersonal communication. Hall believed that the value in studying proxemics comes from its applicability in evaluating not only the way man interacts with others in his daily life, but also "the organization of space in his houses and buildings, and ultimately the layout of his towns .

In animals, Swiss zoologist Heini Hediger had distinguished between flight distance (run boundary), critical distance (attack boundary), personal distance (distance separating members of non-contact species, as a pair of swans), and social distance (intraspecies communication distance). Hall reasoned that, with very few exceptions, flight distance and critical distance have been eliminated in human reactions, and thus interviewed hundreds of people to determine modified criteria for human interactions.

In his work on proxemics, Edward T. Hall separated his theory into two overarching categories: personal space and territory. Personal space describes the immediate space surrounding a person, while territory refers to the area which a person may "lay claim to" and defend against others. His theory on territoriality has been applied to animal behaviors as well; defending territory is said to be a means of "propagation of the species by regulating density" .

Personal Space

Body spacing and posture, according to Hall, are unintentional reactions to sensory fluctuations or shifts, such as subtle changes in the sound and pitch of a person's voice. Social distance between people is reliably correlated with physical distance, as are intimate and personal distance, according to the delineations below. Hall did not mean for these measurements to be strict guidelines that translate precisely to human behavior, but rather a system for gauging the effect of distance on communication and how the effect varies between cultures and other environmental factors.

• Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering
  • Close phase – less than 6 inches (15 cm)
  • Far phase – 6 to 18 inches (15 to 46 cm)
• Personal distance for interactions among good friends or family members
  • Close phase – 1.5 to 2.5 feet (46 to 76 cm)
  • Far phase – 2.5 to 4 feet (76 to 122 cm)
• Social distance for interactions among acquaintances
  • Close phase – 4 to 7 feet (1.2 to 2.1 m)
  • Far phase – 7 to 12 feet (2.1 to 3.7 m)
• Public distance used for public speaking
  • Close phase – 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 m)
  • Far phase – 25 feet (7.6 m) or more.

In addition to physical distance, the level of intimacy between conversants can be determined by "socio-petal socio-fugal axis", or the "angle formed by the axis of the conversants' shoulders". Hall has also studied combinations of postures between dyads (two people) including lying prone, sitting, or standing. These variations in positioning are impacted by a variety of nonverbal communicative factors, listed below.

kinesthetic factors

This category deals with how closely the participants are to touching, from being completely outside of body-contact distance to being in physical contact, which parts of the body are in contact, and body part positioning.

touching code

This behavioural category concerns how participants are touching one another, such as caressing, holding, feeling, prolonged holding, spot touching, pressing against, accidental brushing, or not touching at all.

visual code

This category denotes the amount of eye contact between participants. Four sub-categories are defined, ranging from eye-to-eye contact to no eye contact at all.

thermal code

This category denotes the amount of body heat that each participant perceives from another. Four sub-categories are defined: conducted heat detected, radiant heat detected, heat probably detected, and no detection of heat.

olfactory code

This category deals in the kind and degree of odour detected by each participant from the other.

voice loudness

This category deals in the vocal effort used in speech. Seven sub-categories are defined: silent, very soft, soft, normal, normal+, loud, and very loud.

Cultural Factors

Hall notes that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space. The Lewis Model of Cultural Types indicates the variations in personal interactive qualities, indicating three poles: "linear-active" cultures, which are characterized as cool and decisive (Germany, Norway, USA), "reactive" cultures, characterized as accommodating and non-confrontational (Vietnam, China, Japan), and "multi-active" cultures, characterized as warm and impulsive (Brazil, Mexico, Italy). Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand-offish") or too small (intrusive).

Territory

There are four forms of human territory in proxemic theory. They are:

public territory

a place where one may freely enter

interactional territory

a place where people congregate informally

home territory

a place where people claim their individual territory

body territory: the space immediately surrounding us These different levels of territory, in addition to factors involving personal space, suggest ways for us to communicate and produce expectations of appropriate behavior.

Proxemics in Communication Research

Much research in the field of Communication Studies has shown that physical proximity enhances peoples' ability to work together. Face-to-face interaction is often used as a tool to maintain the culture, authority, and norms of an organization or workplace. (Levin and March, Nelson and Winter). An extensive body of research has been written about how proximity is affected by the use of new communication technologies. The importance of physical proximity in co-workers is often emphasized.

Perceived Proxemics

In developing new communication technologies, the theory of proxemics is often considered. While physical proximity cannot be achieved when people are connected virtually, perceived proximity can be attempted, and several studies have shown that it is a crucial indicator in the effectiveness of virtual communication technologies . Various individual and social factors influence how close we feel to another person, regardless of distance. The mere-exposure effect originally referred to the tendency of a person to positively favor those who they have been physically exposed to most often. (Zajonc 1968) However, recent research has extended this effect to virtual communication. This work suggests that the more someone communicates virtually with another person, the more he is able to envision that person's appearance and workspace, therefore fostering a sense of personal connection(O'Leary) Increased communication has also been seen to foster common ground, or the feeling of identification with another, which leads to positive attributions about that person. Some studies emphasize the importance of shared physical territory in achieving common ground (Hinds and Kiesler-distrib work), while others find that common ground can be achieved virtually, by communicating often (O'Leary).

See also

• Body language
• Environmental psychology
• Intercultural competence
• Kinesics
• Personal boundaries
• Maai

• Skinship
• Spatial empathy
• Territoriality
• T-V distinction
• Zoosemiotics

Further reading

• T. Matthew Ciolek (September 1983). "The Proxemics Lexicon: a first approximation". Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 8 (1): 55–75. doi:10.1007/BF00986330.
• Edward T. Hall (1963). "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behaviour". American Anthropologist. 65 (5): 1003–1026. doi:10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020.
• Robert Sommer (May 1967). "Sociofugal Space". The American Journal of Sociology. 72 (6): 654–660. doi:10.1086/224402.
• Bryan Lawson (2001). "Sociofugal and sociopetal space". The Language of Space. Architectural Press. pp. 140–144. ISBN 0-7506-5246-2.

External links

• Proxemics Research at the Wayback Machine (archive index)
• STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM (November 16, 2006). "In Certain Circles, Two Is a Crowd". New York Times. Retrieved 27 July 2011.
• Wąs, J. A.; Gudowski, B. O.; Matuszyk, P. J. (2006). "Social Distances Model of Pedestrian Dynamics". Cellular Automata. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 4173. p. 492. doi:10.1007/11861201_57. ISBN 978-3-540-40929-8.

Category:Environmental psychology Category:Nonverbal communication Category:Social psychology

new section