Advertisement

Interpersonal Distancing in Cooperation

Effect of Confederate’s Interpersonal Distance Preferences
  • Yosuke Kinoe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10927)

Abstract

Personal space is a dynamic spatial component of interpersonal relations. This paper presented an empirical study that investigated a dynamic process of adjusting interpersonal distance in a cooperative situation.

In the experiment, there were four factors: (a) cooperative task, (b) orientation, (c) gender combination, and (d) long-short relation of interpersonal distance preferences among an evaluator and a confederate. Twenty-eight participants (14 females) joined the study. The data collection was performed by employing a standard procedure of the stop-distance method. One hundred and twelve data were obtained under the different conditions. A multiple comparison test was performed for preferred interpersonal distances.

The results revealed that: (1) interpersonal distance was shortened in a cooperative task; (2) individuals standing face-to-face produced longer interpersonal distance than those standing side-by-side; (3) male pairs produced longer preferred interpersonal distance than female pairs when pairs stood face-to-face, however, this difference was not significant when pairs stood side-by-side. In particular, the present study suggested (4) the shortening of interpersonal distance in a cooperative situation was affected by long-short relation of interpersonal distance preferences among an evaluator and an apporacher. Implications to proxemics for the design of spatial behaviors of socially assistive robots including a nursing-care robot were also discussed.

Keywords

Interpersonal distance Personal space Cooperation 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We thank all the study participants and our lab. members 2016-17. We thank N. Mizuno, S. Tatsuka and E. Matsuzaka who devotedly supported for conducting experiments.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, L., Zuckerman, D.: The effect of lighting conditions on personal space requirements. J. Gen. Psychol. 118, 335–340 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argyle, M., Dean, J.: Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry 28(3), 289–304 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaulieu, C.M.J.: Intercultural study of personal space: a case study. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34(4), 794–805 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell, P.A., Kline, L.M., Barnard, W.A.: Friendship and freedom of movement as moderators of sex differences in interpersonal distancing. J. Soc. Psychol. 128(3), 305–310 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cochran, C.D., Hale, W.D., Hissam, C.P.: Personal space requirements in indoor versus outdoor locations. J. Psychol. 117, 121–123 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans, G.W., Lepore, S.J., Schroeder, A.: The role of interior design elements in human responses to crowding. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70(1), 41–46 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garzotto, F., Gelsomini, M., Kinoe, Y.: Puffy: a mobile inflatable interactive companion for children with neurodevelopmental disorder. In: Bernhaupt, R., Dalvi, G., Joshi, A., Balkrishan, D.K., O’Neill, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10514, pp. 467–492. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67684-5_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gifford, R.: Projected interpersonal distance and orientation choices: personality, sex, and social situation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 45(3), 145–152 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gifford, R.: Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice. Optimal Books, Colville (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goffman, E.: Relations in Public. Basic Books, NY (1971)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayduk, L.A.: Personal space: where we now stand. Psychol. Bull. 94(2), 293–335 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kinoe, Y., Mizuno, N.: Situational transformation of personal space. In: Yamamoto, S. (ed.) HCI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9173, pp. 15–24. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20618-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kinoe, Y.: Dynamic adjustment of interpersonal distance in cooperative task. In: Congress of International Ergonomics Association - IEA 2018. Springer (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mead, R., Matarić, M.J.: Perceptual models of human-robot proxemics. In: Hsieh, M.A., Khatib, O., Kumar, V. (eds.) Experimental Robotics. STAR, vol. 109, pp. 261–276. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23778-7_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Middlemist, R.D., Knowles, E.S., Matter, C.F.: Personal space invasion in the laboratory: suggestive evidence for arousal. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 33, 541–546 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Neal, E.C., Brunault, M.S., Carifio, M.S., Troutwine, R., Epstein, J.: Effect of insult upon personal space preferences. J. Nonverbal Behav. 5(1), 56–62 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savinar, J.: The effect of ceiling height on personal space. Man-Environ. Syst. 5, 321–324 (1975)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sommer, R.: Personal space in a digital age. In: Bechtel, R.B., Churchman, A. (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology, pp. 385–504. Wiley, NY (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sommer, R.: Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Bosko Books, UK (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Srivastava, P., Mandal, M.K.: Proximal spacing to facial affect expressions in schizophrenia. Compr. Psychiatry 31, 119–124 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strayer, J., Roberts, W.: Facial and verbal measures of children’s emotions and empathy. Int. J. Behav. Develop. 20, 385–403 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tannis, G.H., Dabbs, J.M.: Sex, setting and personal space: First grade through college. Sociometry 38, 385–394 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tedesco, J.F., Fromme, D.K.: Cooperation, competition, and personal space. Sociometry 37(1), 116–121 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wormith, J.S.: Personal space of incarcerated offenders. J. Clin. Psychol. 40, 815–827 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Intercultural CommunicationHosei UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations