Dynamic Characteristics of the Transformation of Interpersonal Distance in Cooperation

  • Yosuke KinoeEmail author
  • Nami Mizuno
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9755)


This paper describes an empirical study that investigated how interpersonal distance under a cooperative situation varied in accordance with the differences of task, device, orientation of the body, and posture. Twenty young adults participated. The results revealed statistically significant effects of task (p < .01), device (p < .01), and orientation of the body (p < .01) on the transformation of inter-personal distance. In particular, there were statistically significant differences between “no particular task” > “holding a device” > “cooperative tasks”; between “face-to-face” > “side-by-side”; and between “notebook-PC” > “blackboard” or “smartphone”. The results also suggested that not only a single cause but the complex of multiple factors of social interaction influenced the transformation of interpersonal distances. A new model of the measurement was also proposed.


Personal space Interpersonal distance Measurement Human services 



This work was supported in part by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (23300263). We thank all the study participants and our laboratory members 2014-2015.


  1. 1.
    Argyle, M., Dean, J.: Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry 28(3), 289–304 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloesch, E.K., Davoli, C.C., Abrams, R.A.: Age-related changes in attentional reference frame for peripersonal space. Psychol. Sci. 24(4), 557–561 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Evans, G.W., Lepore, S.J., Schroeder, A.: The role of interior design elements in human responses to crowding. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 41–46 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gifford, R.: Environmental Psychology, 5th edn. Optimal Books, Colville (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gifford, R.: Projected Interpersonal Distance and Orientation Choices: Personality, Sex, and Social Situation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 45(3), 145–152 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayduk, L.A.: Personal space: where we now stand. Psychol. Bull. 94(2), 293–335 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kinoe, Y., Mizuno, N.: Situational transformation of personal space. In: Yamamoto, S., de Oliveira, N.P. (eds.) HIMI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9173, pp. 15–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20618-9_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kinoe, Y., Hama, T.: A framework for understanding everyday situations through interactions. In: Proceedings of 16th World Congress of on Ergonomics, International Ergonomics Association. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirk, R.E.: Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kouchi, M., Mochimaru, M.: AIST Anthropometric database, H18PRO-503 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Louis, M.: Personal space boundary needs of elderly persons: an empirical study. J. Gerontological Nurs. 7(7), 395–400 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nord, C.: Individual care and personal space in assisted living in Sweden. Health Pract. 17, 50–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sommer, R.: Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Updated. Bosko Books (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sommer, R.: Personal space in a digital age. In: Bechtel, R.B., Churchman, A. (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology, pp. 385–504. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tedesco, J.F., Fromme, D.K.: Cooperation, competition, and personal space. Sociometry 37, 116–121 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winogrond, I.R.: A comparison of interpersonal distancing behavior in young and elderly adults. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 13(1), 53–60 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wormith, J.S.: Personal space of incarcerated offenders. Clin. Psychol. 40, 815–827 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Intercultural CommunicationHosei UniversityFujimi, Chiyoda CityJapan

Personalised recommendations