Psychology
Personal Space
Personal space refers to the physical and emotional space surrounding an individual that they consider their own. It varies across cultures and individuals, influencing social interactions and comfort levels. Personal space boundaries can be influenced by factors such as gender, age, and relationship dynamics.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
8 Key excerpts on "Personal Space"
eBook - PDF- Jeffrey H Goldstein(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Academic Press(Publisher)
Personal Space may be thought of as an invisible bubble surrounding a person that encloses space thought of as private. This invisible bubble changes shape and size depending upon the immediate circumstances. If you are walking down a crowded city street during lunch hour, your Personal Space contracts and may consist of only a few inches on either side of you. If you are sitting in a school lounge studying, your Personal Space may consist of a few feet. • 384 SOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Personal Space is one of the specific areas of interest in the general area of proxemics. Proxemics is the scientific study of human spatial behaviors, including Personal Space, nonverbal communication, crowding, and population density (Hall, 1959). Personal Space not only expands or contracts with the circum-stances, but also differs from one culture to another (e.g., Hall, 1966; S.E. Jones & Aiello, 1973). There is some (albeit controversial) evidence that certain types of individuals, such as violent prisoners, have larger Personal Spaces than others (Kinzel, 1971; Lothstein, 1971, in D. E. Linder, 1974). Personal Space, unlike the concept of territoriality, moves with a person. It expands and contracts accord-ing to circumstance, but is always a space that has the person at its core. Territory is an area of space that a person considers his and that is used fairly regularly over a period of time (Edney, 1974). A person can leave his territory, to return to it later, but he cannot leave his Personal Space, for it is part of him. Intrusion of Personal Space leads to discomfort and individuals attempt to reduce this discomfort by defending or reestablishing their Personal Space. Intrusion into Personal Space does not seem to be a very common occurrence in our culture. Most of us learn quite early to respect the spatial privacy of others (e.g., Eberts & Lepper, 1975; Guardo, 1969; Scherer, 1974).
eBook - ePub- Ali Madanipour(Author)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
et al., 1996; Veitch and Arkkelin, 1995).Personal Space is a subjective space around individuals, as it is not visible or real. It is at the same time objective, in the sense that the individual and the others around him/her seem to agree in observing it, although they may disagree on the methods of this observation and the size of this Personal Space. The individual protects it and the others avoid invading it. Getting very close to a complete stranger often has the result that the stranger will move back to keep the distance. It is a piece of private space that individuals carry with them around wherever they go. That is why it is called ‘portable territory’ (Sommer, 1969:27). It is this space in which individuals perform their social acts, where they feel safer and in control of their bodies. Social interaction in the public sphere therefore takes place from across Personal Spaces. Intersubjective relationships depend on the safety and security that the observation of subjective spaces bring about for those involved.Behaviour in bus stops and underground stations shows how the establishment of Personal Space is a complex relationship between the patterns set by the first individuals to arrive, their number and the number of subsequent arrivals, and the size of the space. The distance that the first few keep on the platform may be as large as 3 to 4 metres. As new passengers arrive, they may follow this pattern until the linear space of the platform appears to be full. From this moment on, the distances observed grow smaller and new adjustments are made. The extreme conditions of adjustment emerge when large crowds wait for buses or trains, effectively reducing the Personal Space to a minimum, which may be even smaller once inside the vehicle. This shows how in a short period of time the size of Personal Space is established and adjusted. In a busy bus or underground train, when people have to be very close to each other, the barriers may have to come down, as everyone is aware of the inevitability of crowding. But as soon as a person can have some control on the surrounding environment, the Personal Space will be observed. In this sense, Personal Space is a sign of control, a sign of power over one’s environment, which is part of a general sense of psychological wellbeing.
eBook - PDFDesert Island, Burrow, Grave
Wartime Hiding Places of Jews in Occupied Poland
- Marta Cobel-Tokarska, Katarzyna Blachnio-Sitkiewicz(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
286 L. Silverstein, Tak właśnie było… [That’s…], p. 177. 287 M. Katz, Na ścieżkach… [On Paths of Hope], p. 145. 144 Personal Space and environmental stress Personal Space is a notion consistently present in environmental psychology. There are two types of Personal Space: – Robert Sommer’s definition (based on clinical observations) stresses the de- fensive function. A Personal Space is an unchangeable “air bubble” with fixed dimensions that nobody can cross; – in Heini Hediger’s definition (animal observations: a distance of combat or escape appear depending on the proximity to another animal), and later in Hall’s – there is a linear space, variable interpersonal distance. Personal Space is perceived by touch, smell, and hearing. A human being is also able to perceive space by sensory proprioception. Interpersonal distance varies for every life function. Categories of density and crowding are closely connected with the notion of Personal Space. Those categories were used for example by Daniel Stokols and Allan W. Wicker (the latter is an author of a concept of over- manning, which is useful in social sciences and which means a spatial situation where there is more people than there are available social roles). Density is an objective accumulation of people on a given space and crowd- ing is its subjective reception. It causes a sense of stress – the available space is smaller than desired. A predisposing factor conditioning the feeling of crowding is a set of internalized cultural norms (the sense of interpersonal distance looks different e.g. for a northern European and for an Arab) 288 . Another factor is the previous experience of density – for somebody who grew up in one room with a few siblings, it is easier to withstand the tightness of a hiding place than it is for a pre-war resident of their own room. The third factor is the motivation. When people have to save their own lives, the instinct for self-preservation is stronger than a feeling of discomfort.
eBook - ePubThe Individual and Privacy
Volume I
- Joseph A. Cannataci(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Asylums (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1961), p. 231.39 Ibid. , p. 246. For more on norms regulating territorial conduct in face-to-face encounters, see Nancy Felipe and Robert Sommer, “Invasions of Personal Space,” Social Problems , XIV (May, 1966), 206–14; and Robert Sommer, “Sociofugal Space,” American Journal of Sociology , LXXII (May, 1967), 654–60.40 Simmel, “Brücke and Tür,” op. cit. (see n. 2 above), p.3.41 Goffman, Asylums , op. cit. (see n. 38 above), pp. 248–54.42 Everett C. Hughes, Men and Their Work (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1958), p. 51.43 Whyte, op. cit. (see n. 32 above), p. 390.44 Goffman, Asylums , op. cit. (see n. 38 above), pp. 319–20.
Passage contains an image
[8]Interpersonal Relationships and Personal Space: Research Review and Theoretical Model 1
Eric Sundstrom2 ,4and Irwin Altman3This article reviews research concerning interpersonal distance as a function of interpersonal relationships, attraction, and reactions to spatial invasion. To integrate research findings, we propose a simple model, based on the idea that people seek an optimal distance from others that becomes smaller with friends and larger for individuals who do not expect to interact. The model describes comfort-discomfort as a function of interaction distance in three situations: interacting friends, interacting strangers, and strangers who do not expect interaction. These three Personal Space profiles are discussed in terms of qualifying variables, such as seated vs. standing interaction, sex composition of the dyad, intimacy of conversation topics, and situational variables.Key words: Personal Space, interaction distance, spatial invasions.INTRODUCTION
Personal Space
eBook - ePub- G. Collier, Gary James Collier(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
6 Personal SpaceMeaningful facial and body movements can occur with or without other people, but spacial behavior can occur only within an interpersonal context. Our attitudes and emotions are often shown by the way we handle ourselves in relation to other people. We can move close or far away, making interaction easy or difficult. We can turn and orient our bodies so that others are included or excluded from an encounter. Spatial relationships are shown by different seating arrangements and variations in height that convey relative degrees of power and status. Although most of the research on Personal Space (particularly in the area of liking and affiliation) has focused on distance, the handling of Personal Space in the present chapter is used in the broader context and includes body orientation, seating patterns, and height.Like touch and eye contact, which also require the presence of others, the handling of Personal Space expresses not discrete emotions but interpersonal attitudes, such as dominance and attraction, and these channels are to a certain extent interchangeable. A person can express attraction toward another person by touching, maintaining eye contact, or manipulating spatial relationships. Dominance or submission can also be shown through nonreciprocity in touch, gaze holding or aversion, or differences in height or seating arrangements. There is also a common tendency to compensate for increased immediacy within one channel by decreasing immediacy in others, and while this tendency is discussed more fully in Chapter 10 , it should be noted that spatial behavior is often difficult to interpret without taking these other channels into account.Individual and Cross-Cultural Differences in Spatial Behavior
Although many aspects of touching, eye behavior, and facial and body cues associated with emotions appear to be universal and innate, a strong case has been made for the cultural relativity of spatial relationships. The use of Personal Space is often seen as a learned phenomenon (par excellence) because of the numerous cross-cultural differences. Edward Hall (1966), for example, described the perception and use of space in six countries, pointing out numerous variations among American, English, French, German, Arabian, and Japanese cultures. Watson and Graves (1966) compared pairs of American and Arabian college students in the United States and found that Arabian students stood closer to each other with a more direct body orientation, touched more frequently, and maintained more eye contact. Forston and Larson (1968) noted differences among Latin and North American subjects, and Shuter (1976) made a finer distinction by pointing out differences within three Latin American countries. These differences seem to depend not only on cultural norms but on the language being spoken as well. Sussman and Rosenfeld (1982), for example, found that Japanese and Venezuelan students would approximate American conversation distance (by moving closer or away, respectively) when speaking English.
eBook - PDFSetting the Watch
Privacy and the Ethics of CCTV Surveillance
- Beatrice von Silva-Tarouca Larsen(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- Hart Publishing(Publisher)
There are factual limitations to the amount of physical personal territory available in public, affecting particularly the claims that have a strong spatial aspect, like the claim to Personal Space around a person and ‘ use space’ for one’s instrumental needs. Physical encroachments, often quite intimate ones, occur invariably when space is scarce (eg in the Under-ground at rush hour). What makes them neutral from a privacy perspec-tive, and distinguishes them from wilful intrusion, is that getting close to the other person is due to external circumstances; because it is not a chosen intrusion, it connotes no disrespect, even though the closeness may be unpleasant and embarrassing. 67 Spatial restrictions do not annul the control over other territories of the self, such as the objects one carries around, or the informational and conversational preserve, although in given circumstances concessions may have to be made with respect to each of them too. Certain behavioural restraints of anonymity conventions, however—namely, that you do not stare or express your opinion about people—come into their own in situations of enforced closeness, and their observance is particularly commended. B. Normative boundaries The question of the normative boundaries of our exclusive personal spheres arises whenever our activities bring us into contact with other people. When do matters that relate to ourselves—our physical and mental identity—cease to be only our own concern, and when does ‘ our business’ becomes also the business of other people such that we may no longer exclude them? Boundaries may be dictated by certain legitimate expecta-tions of the other users of the space which might entitle them to check and judge those they encounter as to whether they have fulfilled them.
eBook - PDF- Marcel Danesi(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- University of Toronto Press(Publisher)
At intimate distance, the senses are activated and the presence of the other is unmistakable. The close phase (0–6 in.) is emotionally charged and is typically reserved for lovemaking, comforting, and protecting; the far phase (6–18 in.) is the zone in which family members and close friends interact under normal condi-tions. Personal distance is the minimum comfort zone between individuals who do not know each other or who have a formal relationship to each other. In the close phase (1.5–2.5 ft.), one can grasp the other by extending the arms, allowing for hand-shaking. The far phase (2.5–4 ft.) is anywhere from one arm’s length to the dis-tance required for both individuals to touch hands for greeting purposes. This zone is considered non-involving and non-threat-ening by most people. The close phase (4–7 ft.) is typical of impersonal transactions and casual gatherings. Formal language and behaviour are characteristic of the far phase (7–12 ft.). Public distance is the dis-tance at which one can take either evasive or defensive action if physically threatened. Hall noticed that people tend to keep at this distance from important public figures or from anyone participating at a public function. Discourse at this distance tends to be highly structured and formalized (for example, lectures, speeches). The study of proxemic behaviour has made it obvious that physical spaces and the features within them are perceived as meaningful. Very little work has been con-ducted in the area of ‘media zones,’ defined as the virtual zones felt by people accord-ing to the type of medium involved (radio seems to be more intimate because of its audio-oral nature, while television is felt as being more removed). As online culture 540 Proxemics spreads, this is starting to be a main topic for research. Marcel Danesi Bibliography Ardrey, Robert. The Territorial Imperative . New York: Atheneum, 1966. Eco, Umberto. Einführung in die Semiotik .
eBook - PDF- Vanessa May, Petra Nordqvist, Vanessa May, Petra Nordqvist(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Bloomsbury Academic(Publisher)
144 Introduction Many might assume that personal life is something that refers only to our relationships with family and friends, and that personal life takes place in our homes. However, this chapter argues that our personal lives are conducted also in public spaces and that the interactions we have with strangers and acquaintances while out in public are an important part of our personal lives. The chapter explores the history of the distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’, and how this history is still visible today in the way certain groups, such as women and ethnic minorities, can feel excluded from some public spaces. Throughout, the aim of this chapter is to highlight the ways in which the ‘personal’ and the ‘public’ overlap and intermingle, and the consequences of this for personal life. What is public space? Space tends to be divided into ‘public’ and ‘private’ (see also Heath, Chapter 10 in this volume). This distinction is often taken for granted, and it is assumed that people ‘just know’ what separates the two. Public space is generally understood to be open and accessible to all – think, for example, of streets, parks, and shops. In contrast, access to private space, such as the home, tends to be restricted to specific people such as friends and family. In practice, however, this distinction is not so clear-cut. For example, public space is not equally accessible to all groups in society (as discussed below), while the private space of home can be infiltrated by the public sphere – for example, in the form of state intervention in family life through family policy. The public/private distinction is also based on the assumption that, whereas many public spaces such as shops and bars are commercialised, private spaces are not. This assumption is, however, also problematic because few aspects of our personal lives remain untouched by consumer culture (see Southerton, Chapter 8 in this volume). PERSONAL LIFE IN PUBLIC SPACES VANESSA MAY 11
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
