theory nonverbal (1)

8/12/2019 Theory Nonverbal (1)

1/36

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley-BlackwellandJohn Wiley & Sonsare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

to Sociological Theory.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/202049?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/202049?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/36

This chapter reviews developments and difficulties in thenonverbal behavior literature. Despite the atheoretical biasof the discipline, four implicit models may befoundthere-the ethological, the enculturation, the internalstates, and the situational resource models. After reviewingresearch based on these models, we conclude that the situa-tional resource paradigm has much to offer nonverbaltheorizing.

THEORIES OF NONVERBALBEHAVIOR: A CRITICAL REVIEWOF PROXEMICS RESEARCH

Dair L. GillespieUNIVERSITY OF UTAH

Ann LefflerUTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Two central shortcomings are generally acknowledged concern-ing the literature on nonverbal behavior: the field lacks systematictheory, 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, andprovides a rich variety of observations and ad hoc studies. But as inmany new fields, the choice of variables is often eclectic-based more

120


3/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behavioron research custom or novelty than on theoretical considerations.Moreover, statistical significance rather than contribution to overallvariance is used to determine meaningfulness, and it is assumed that allstatistically significant results are compatible and equally important.As a result one encounters mere shopping lists of nonverbal dependentvariables (approach distance, eye contact, and so forth) or independentvariables (affiliation, emotional arousal, cultural norms, gender, andso forth). Little effort is devoted to ascertain the relative contributionsof specific independent variables to variance in specific dependent vari-ables. In consequence, pastiches of possibly inconsistent findings aresubstituted for theory and conceptual developments tend to be post hocand ad hoc interpretations of individual studies rather than a guide tohypotheses for the field itself.Nonetheless, it will be argued here that from the nonverballiterature may be inferred a framework within which nonverbal theorycan be specified and advanced. The implicit causal models underlyingthe literature rest upon the conflicting postulates of four classic para-digms about human behavior: the ethological/sociobiological para-digm, the enculturation/socialization paradigm, the internal statesparadigm, and the situational resource paradigm.1 Since these para-digms generate conflicting and testable predictions concerning thegenesis of nonverbal behavior and the type and degree of nonverbalvariance within and between individuals, their relative merits may beempirically assessed once they are theoretically contrasted within thefour-paradigm framework. What follows, therefore, is a theoreticaltreatment of each. We shall find that the situational resource paradigmhas an important contribution to offer nonverbal theorizing.The ethological paradigm asserts that nonverbal behavior is atleast partly innate or genetically determined, with certain general pat-terns inflexible within species. The enculturation paradigm claims thatnonverbal behavior reflects contingent, somewhat arbitrary, but indi-vidually stable norms inculcated in all members of a society throughsocialization. The internal states paradigm contends that nonverbalbehavior, whether innate or learned, fluctuates as a function of ego'sindividual attributes or internal psychological states. Finally, the situa-tional resource paradigm asserts that nonverbal behavior is learned butvaries within cultures and across internal states, depending on thestatuses of all those concerned and on the constraints of the situation.

121


4/36

Sociological TheoryThus differential access to social resources produces asymmetric pat-terns of nonverbal activity whereas relatively equal access producessymmetric behavior. And individuals are predicted to change behav-ioral patterns when their relative rankings change.Given the enormous number of nonverbal studies, for reviewpurposes the literature will be narrowed to what Hall (1963) callsproxemics-the spatial dimensions of nonverbal behavior. Proxemicvariables have received more research attention and lend themselves toprecise measurement more easily than other nonverbal variables; thusthey can serve to illustrate the utility of a rigorous theoretical frame-work for nonverbal research in general. In discussing proxemic mod-els, differences rather than similarities will be highlighted. It is inprinciple possible to synthesize all four paradigms, but given the cur-rently atheoretical eclecticism of the literature, such an attempt wouldbe premature. First it is necessary to determine how the theories differand then to disentangle independent variables so that their relativecontributions to proxemic variance may be determined.2In the following review, three types of evidence for the superior-ity of the situational resource model will be offered: theoretical andempirical weaknesses in research produced by other models; evidencefrom such research indirectly suggesting the importance of relativestatus; and, finally, the greater power of the situational resource para-digm to predict and explain the critical feature of nonverbal variationnot only between individuals but also within the same individual.

The Ethological ModelEthological theory, based on Darwinian biology, posits that allobservable 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 geneticbasis rests on natural selection, certain genotypes being favored overothers according to the relative reproductive success or failure of theirassociated phenotypes (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970;Wilson, 1978).Spatial behavior is a central topic in ethological work. Alongwith aggression and dominance, it has been a classic focus of ethologi-cal study at least since the publication in 1920 of Howard's Territoryand Bird Life, and it routinely appears as a chapter head in ethology

122


5/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behaviortexts. Indeed so central is the topic to ethology that Ramsey (1969)proposes that territorial patterns are the clearest species-demarcatingcharacteristics known to ethology and should therefore be used as thebasis for taxonomic classification. The significance of spatial behaviorin ethology is also indicated by the fact that, along with the facialexpression of emotion, it comprises one of the two areas of humanbehavior concerning which ethological analysis claims to be mostdeveloped (Wilson, 1974).Its emphasis on innate mechanisms distinguishes ethology fromall other proxemic models. Although it acknowledges a link betweenstatus and spatial behavior, for instance, its genetic determinism com-mits it to the postulate that even this proxemic variance reflects geneticdifferences. Here, however, it will be argued that ethological researchfails 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 proxemicvariance between individuals can be explained only by reference toundocumented genetic differences between individuals.There are two major traditions in ethological studies of humanproxemics, both based on concepts from animal research. The firstemphasizes territorial invasions as indicators of spatial ownership; thesecond, the covariance of rank and spatial ownership.The goal of the first tradition, territorial research, is to showthat humans display flight distance or territory ownership or both.Flight distance is a hypothesized area around an individual, intrusioninto which causes that individual to flee. Its size is assumed to begenetically variant between species. As for territory ownership, anorganism must defend a certain area against conspecific intruders to beconsidered territorial. Defense can be observed either directly in thebehavior of the defending organism or indirectly by investigatingwhether other subjects avoid entering the territoryin question. Organ-isms may exhibit both flight and fight patterns, depending on thesurvival utility of the area under challenge, reproductive and nutri-tional contingencies, and other genetically related factors. Both pat-terns are taken to demonstrate genetic mandates. Thus the dependentvariables in the territoriality tradition tend to be fight/flight behaviorwhereas the independent variable tends to be the presence or absence(or sometimes the intensity) of conspecific invasion. Occasionally the

123


6/36

Sociological Theorypresence of territory ownership is investigated indirectly; here owner-ship is operationalized as the degree to which subjects avoid intrudingon 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 casesinvolves measuring how closely subjects approach individuals hy-pothesized to possess large territories versus approaches to individualshypothesized 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 withstress (Barash, 1973; Baxter and Rozelle, 1975; Eastman and Harper,1971; Efran and Cheyne, 1974; Felipe and Sommer, 1966). To showspecies uniformity, however, it is crucial that subjects behave alike,since it is this invariance which suggests that innate species-widedefense mechanisms, and therefore innate patterns of space ownership,may be at work. But in fact most subjects neither come to fisticuffs norinstantly 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 tointrusion is interpreted as indicating their occurrence, rendering theargument unfalsifiable. The following types of behavior have beendescribed as defense responses to invasions: departures, turning awayor moving one's chair away from the intruder, erecting barriers ofbooks or clothing, vocalizations, facing away, pulling in the shoulders,placing one's elbows at one's side, drawing in the head, blocking one'sface with one's hands, eye movement, head and torso shifts, hands atcrotch behavior, stance shifts, disorganization of vocalization patterns,nervous smiling, and looking over one's shoulder (Barash, 1973;Felipeand Sommer, 1966; Baxter and Rozelle, 1975; Harris, Luginbuhl, andFishbein, 1978). Consequently, short of welcoming or not perceivingthe interruption, subjects in such studies could hardly display failureto defend, despite response variability.Wilson (1978), on the other hand, handles the problem of indi-vidual behavioral variations by attributing them to individual geneticvariations; but the role of genetic determination remains undocu-mented.4 It is far more parsimonious to attribute flight, stay, and thewhole arrayof defense responses to socialization-for example, norms

124


7/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behaviorconcerning the social definitions of invasions and appropriateresponses to it (Lindskold and others, 1976)-or to situational factors-such as perceived relative social statuses of intruder and victim-thanto a genetic mandate for which no evidence is offered. Indeed, bothBarash (1973) and Felipe and Sommer (1966) acknowledge the possibil-ity of such situational effects in their data.5 Thus the genetic basis ofterritoriality patterns remains unsubstantiated.The second tradition in human ethological proxemics attemptsto link dominance rather than defense with territory. The researchquestion then becomes the connection between the size or location of asubject's territory and his or her rank in a group. This procedureexceeds the limits of the classic ethological definition of territory,which requires only that the area be defended. Nevertheless, the proce-dure is faithful to one standard ethological analysis of the function ofterritory: it maintains dominance hierarchies. Studies in this traditioninclude DeLong (1970, 1971, 1973), Lott and Sommer (1967), andBailey, Hartnett, and Gibson (1972).6 For instance, Bailey and col-leagues suggest that subjects approach females more closely thanmales, the higher rank of males according them more territory. Ingeneral, it is reported that the higher-ranking the subject, the more andbetter space she or he enjoys.As with the fight/flight tradition, so with the link between sta-tus rank and space: a situational resource analysis may be used in placeof untestable genetic assumptions. For instance, if females commandless territory than males, as the findings of Bailey and coworkers sug-gest, this conclusion can as easily be explained by means of socially asby genetically ascribed rank (Henley, 1977). Furthermore, unlikeethology, a situational analysis can avoid untestable explanationswhich require that data be gathered on the genetic composition of allsubjects-clearly an impossible undertaking. The situational resourcemodel 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 offersno evidence to support its central contentions that defense and domi-nance proxemic patterns are innately determined in a nontrivial way,including among infrahuman species. (Evidence of individual varia-tion, even in the highly hierarchical and territorial male sticklebackfish, has been presented by Van Den Assem, 1974.) Nothing in the

125


8/36


9/36

Theories of Nonverbal BehaviorComparisons Between Cultures and Between Subcultures. With

respect to the first thrust of the model-research into culturaldifferences-results are contradictory and difficult to interpret. Hall(1959) argues that proxemic patterns, like nonverbal patterns in gen-eral, comprise silent languages that differ by culture and subculturejust 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 Americanculture could be termed moderately noncontact compared with theEnglish (noncontact) and the French (contact) on a continuum of pre-ferred interaction distances and personal space requirements. Otherresearchers, attempting to systematize his heavily anecdotal evidence,subjected Hall's findings to laboratory testing (Watson, 1970; Watsonand Graves, 1966). Watson reported that natives of contact regionstouched more than natives of any noncontact region, and his tablesshowed that the overall contact/noncontact dichotomy also distin-guished subjects with respect to seating distance (1970, p. 85). Othercross-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 onwhether one examines shape of territory, size, central tendencies ofencroachment, or encroachment variances. Mazur (1977) comparedseating arrangements (for example, on opposite ends of benches) andseating distance at public benches in contact versus noncontact cul-tures. He concluded that cultures did not differ on seating arrange-ments but did differ on seating distance-the supposedly noncontactAmericans sat closest. Outdoor observations of London dyads byHeshka and Nelson (1972) resulted in more conflicting evidence: Eng-lish dyads exhibited mean interaction distances ranging from 11.0 to19.9 inches, depending in large part on degree of acquaintance. Thisrange 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, whoHall reported to prefer interaction distances of 8 feet.

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

127


10/36

Sociological TheoryAmerican whites (1969, p. 170). It can also be inferred from his workthat Mexican-Americans represent a contact subculture and should,therefore, interact more proximally than whites. Baxter (1970) reportedthat 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 anexperimental task blacks approached a black same-sex experimentermore 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-racepairs about to converse, found that blacks stood farther apart thanwhites, although the difference only reached the 0.10 level ofsignificance.Besides the clearly inadequate specification of the enculturationmodel for these complex and inconsistent results, it is unclear whatcultural and subcultural effects would remain were these operational-ized more precisely and other effects partialed out. One problem is thatrigorous definitions of culture have been avoided; as a result, purport-edly cultural distinctions are on occasion culturally meaningless. AsWatson himself indicates, his regional groups and the contact/noncon-tact culture proxy actually include predominantly arbitraryclumps ofgeographically, economically-and culturally-disparate countries.7Nor, as Mazur (1977) points out, have situational effects been clearlydisentangled from cultural and subcultural effects, and it is not clearwhat purely cultural effects would remain were the two sets of factorsseparated. Hall's aloof English versus somewhat gregarious Americanscan be reconciled with Heshka's and Nelson's closely interacting Eng-lish dyads, for example, by arguing that the pooled research shows amain effect for degree of acquaintance, possibly modified by the out-door English versus (evidently) indoor American locations; what itdoes not show, however, is a main effect for culture. In like fashion, thepooled subcultural research could be taken to infer a situation xsubculture interaction whereby black/white proxemic differences varyby research setting, interaction type, and so forth; what it does notsuggest is a main effect for race.A final difficulty in specifying the enculturation model is itstendency to confound culture and status and to assume simply thatobserved effects are cultural. To demonstrate proxemic differences

128


11/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behaviorbetween cultures, for instance, Hall consistently offers such evidence asthat in prosperous English homes fathers are allocated several rooms(1969, p. 140 ff.); the contact-loving Japanese bed down together undera single quilt by the hearth in winter (p. 150);and Arabs, lacking anyappreciation of personal space at all, not only feel and pinch womenin public conveyances but even go so far as to give their servants tinysleeping quarters and then spy on them there (p. 157). But such encul-turation assumptions are not immediately plausible; a stratum analy-sis, that high status affords more space and more control of space thanlow status across cultures, fits the data at least as well.8 Likewise thesubcultural research does not disentangle stratum from ethnicity,although it is known that socioeconomic status and ethnicity arehighly correlated;9 thus status rather than subculture may determineethnic proxemic differences.Culture Clashes and Proxemic Invariance. Besides cross-culturaland subcultural differences, evidence of culture clash is also used tosupport the enculturation model. The model assumes culture so pow-erfully affects proxemic patterns that mainly they do not vary. Thusmembers of one culture are assumed to behave identically with compa-triots as with members of other cultures. The latter, also inflexibly andunconsciously 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-terand Hall offer evidence for this argument, however, and the evidencedoes not actually demonstrate proxemic invariance by culture. Usingthe subcultural differences reported by Baxter (1970), Thompson andBaxter (1973) successfully predicted most advance/retreat patterns incross-ethnic dyads of Mexican-Americans, Anglos, and blacks. But byrestricting its scope to mutual movers, their study may have inadver-tently selected an unrepresentative subject pool characterized by pre-cisely the unusual inflexibility it meant to test. It certainly does notanswer the key question of whether cross-ethnic encounters producemutual moves.

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

129


12/36

Sociological Theorycussing white power and racist ideology (the fact that whites controlthe jobs he discusses, for example), Hall instead says that black inter-viewees fail because they rely on nonverbal signals which in blackculture indicate motivation, but which in the white culture of theinterviewers indicate indifference. However, this interpretation as-sumes that black job applicants behave similarly in the presence of awhite interviewer-higher ranking by race, occupational status, andthe interview situation itself-as they would among black peers. Onthe contrary, the work of Cooke (1972), Horton (1972), and Kochman(1972) indicates that black nonverbal patterns flexibly reflect racialstratification, 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 anumber of nonverbal measures, including spatial distance. Thus it isby no means clear what racial conflicts can be attributed to purportedenculturation and proxemic inflexibility effects rather than to stratifi-cation 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 inenculturation research, the model is problematic because it necessarilyassumes that situational resources have minimal impact in order toargue that normative cultural influences are maximal. Consequently itassumes that controlling for unequal social or economic resources isunnecessary, for all differences are attributable to socialized and indi-vidually consistent behavioral styles, not to relative resource inequalityin the situation. Yet enculturation research,which assumes uniformitywithin cultures in order to show diversity between them, may as easilybe interpreted as suggesting the reverse. Within a culture, membersmay exhibit different proxemic patterns depending on their relativeranks in a situation whereas similarly positioned members of a differ-ent 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 sta-tus and resources accompanying these characteristics, and the relativestanding of other interactants in the situation, are as important as thesubject's group memberships per se.10

130


13/36

Theories of Nonverbal BehaviorThe Internal States Model

The internal states model suggests that proxemic patterns arethe properties of individuals, not of group membership or social rela-tions. Thus proxemic behavior varies by underlying moods, affectorientations, or personality characteristics. In the internal states mod-els that emphasize the proxemic impact of volatile inner states (such asmoods) over stable ones (such as personality structures), proxemicchange within individuals is expected when internal states shift.It is a central contention of this section that the internal statesmodel lacks empirical support. The model also tends to confoundinternal states with social relationship factors, inadvertently manipu-lating the latter while attempting to explain results in terms of theformer. Among the social factors accidentally aroused may be a statusdiscrepancy between subjects and experimental staff. Research bearingon this problem supports the argument that relative status affects prox-emic behavior.

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

As can be seen in the fourth column of Table 1, although allstudies phrase independent variables in terms of internal states, only aminority actually operationalize any independent variables in this way.(They are coded all, some, or none or are annotated in thefourth column.) Within this minority, the most common outcome is afailure to reject the null hypothesis. Although, of course, technicallyno definitive conclusion can be reached from this failure, together thesestudies suggest that internal states have little effect on proxemicbehavior.

Attempts have been made to link distancing with the internalstates factors of personality, schizophrenia, self-concept, anxiety, bodyimage, introversion, and objective and subjective deviance. Results aremainly negative. For instance, tracing proxemics to personality, Sewell

131


14/36

Sociological Theoryand Heisler (1973) attempt to correlate the twenty-two subscales of theJackson's Personality Research Form A with approach distance. Theonly significant results are negative correlations between distance andexhibition and between distance and impulsivity. Furthermore, sincesubscores are presumably correlated, the overall experimental alpha isunknown; but had they been independent, a finding of two significantcorrelations out of twenty-two is scarcely more than chance wouldpredict if each were tested at the 0.05 level.Another example concerns schizophrenia, investigated by bothHorowitz, Duff, and Stratton (1964) and Sommer (1959). The Horowitzteam reports that among females, schizophrenics approached male andfemale hospital staff less closely than nonschizophrenics did, thoughamong males approaching males no such differences appeared.Sommer (1959) too obtained complex results: individual schizophren-ics sat closer to a confederate than did other subjects, but pairs ofschizophrenics sat further apart than pairs of other subjects. Takentogether, these results suggest no straightforwardmain 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 onlywhen approach and being-approached scores were combined. Resultsfrom a Dosey and Meisels (1969) study, where anxiety was measured ona Rorschach scale, confirm the lack of connection between anxiety anddistancing for both genders as well as between distancing and theRorschach 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 werenot found to atfect distance. Indeed, the only internal factor straight-forwardly affecting proxemics is self-concept. Stratton, Tekippe, andFlick (1973) chose from among their initial subjects a group of nine-teen males and fourteen females who scored unusually high, low, orconsistently average on physical self, personal self, and social self sub-scales of a self-concept test. Within this group, high scorersapproacheda male experimenter more closely than low scorers did.In sum, then, of all internal state factors argued to affect prox-emic distancing-personality, schizophrenia, self-concept, anxiety,body image, introversion, and objective and subjective deviance-only

132


15/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behaviorself-concept has been shown to have clear and consistent effects. Andeven this conclusion is somewhat tentative in light of the possibilitythat self-concept may be associated with hierarchical ranking on per-formance factors (Lee and Ofshe, 1981).Internal States, Social Relations, and Status Differentiation. Fre-quently internal states research,although claiming to manipulate psy-chological factors, actually involves quasi-social ones, including statusdifferentiation. The confusion between internal and external factorsoccurs, first, when internal state variables are measuredfollowing a realor imagined interaction that is posited to have affected internal statescores (see Mehrabian, 1968;Mehrabian and Diamond, 1971; Patterson,1977). The consequence is that scores may reflect some aspect of the in-teraction instead of (or in addition to) the underlying internal dimen-sion supposedly being tapped. There is another way in which externalvariables inadvertently become entangled with internal ones: to arouseinner states, it is often some aspects of relationships between peoplethat are actually manipulated. The inner states are then assumed to beactivated 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 andPohlen, 1971). Kleinke and Pohlen, for instance, aroused positive atti-tude by introducing some subjects to a cooperative, gaze-averting con-federate; but these subjects' attitudes toward him did not differ fromthose of other subjects with whom the confederate interacteddifferently.As the fifth column of Table 1 indicates, many of the relationsmanipulated involve possible status components. These may be of twotypes. The first, coded separately in column three, concerns staff/sub-ject interactions and is described below. The second involves moredirect implications inferable by subjects about an experimental task.Dosey and Meisels (1969) used a stress factor in addition to the inter-nal factors discussed previously; but to arouse it, they ran subjects ingroups, telling stressed subjects first that they would be evaluated onphysical appearance and second that they would learn their appearancescores. As a result, they directly manipulated two aspects of a status-differentiating quasi-courtroom relationship in which possibly stressedsubjects were actually assigned a low-status defendant role. The (con-flicting) results are attributed to stressrather than to the status differen-tiation simply by fiat.

133


16/36

Table 1. Internal States Studies of Proxemic Behavior.Was Distance Were Internal States

Measured During Factors Operation-Interaction alized via Relationalwith Experiment Manipulation?Study Hypotheses Staff Member? (All, Some, None)aBailey, Hartnett,and Gibson (1972)Chaikin, Sigler,and Derlega (1974)

Coutts andSchneider (1976)Dosey andMeisels (1969)

Horowitz (1965)Horowitz, Duff,and Stratton (1964)Kleinke andPohlen (1971)

Anxiety affectsdistancingAttitude (expectancy)affects leaning

Acquaintance, kind oftask,gaze pattern ofpartneraffect distancingStress,body image,anxiety affect distancing

Tension and disorgani-zation affect distancingSchizophreniaaffects distancingPartner'sgaze patternand game strategy affectdistancing

Yes

Yes

Some

All

No All

Yes for one measure

YesYesYes

Some

AllNoneAll


17/36

Mahoney (1974)Mehrabian (1968)Mehrabian andDiamond (1971)Meisels andCanlter 1970)Patterson (1977)

Pedersen andShears (1974)Rosenfeld (1966)Sewell andHeisler (1973)Sommer (1959)

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

Approach affectslearningAttitude affectsdistancingAffiliative tendency andsensitivity to rejectionaffect distancingIntroversion, objective andsubjective deviance,stress affect distancingAffiliation, sensitivityto rejection, social de-sirability, feelings ofease and pleasantnessall affect distancingAcquaintance andkind of interactionaffect distancingAffiliation affectsdistancingPersonalityaffects distancingSchizophrenia affectsdistancingSelf-conceptaffects distancingAttitude similarity,evaluation expectancy,liking affect distancing

Yes AllNo (Task involved imagi-nary interaction)No No, but may have re-

flected a priorinteractionYes Some

Yes Some; the rest mayhave reflected a priorinteraction

No All

Yes AllYes

Yes for one measure

Yes

Yes

None

None

NoneAll

a'By maniipulating the interaction or information about the interaction.b'Tihiscolumn1 indicates onIly whether r rsults were significant, not whether alternati ve cxplanations of results ar


18/36

136 Sociological TheoryEven where quasi-social relational manipulations, includingstatus differentiations, are involved, the results of internal statesresearch 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 statesresearch manipulates social factors unsystematically and imprecisely.To arouse the trait of instrumentality, for instance, Pedersen andShears (1974) used a three-level treatment factor wherein level 1subjectsplayed a four-person competitive game, level 2 subjects sat confined bytwos in a tiny isolation box, and level 3 control subjects merely waitedalone. The mainly flat proxemic results cannot be attributed to thesocial factors manipulated, since these constitute a theoretically mean-ingless combination of competition, confinement, and group size. Inthe second place, as Bailey, Hartnett, and Gibson (1972) acknowledge,the lack of strong findings in internal states quasi-social research mayreflect a uniform status discrepancy that causes subjects to behave dif-ferently in the presence of staff than they do among status equals. Ifthis is true, then experiments involving subject/staff interactionsactually expose supposedly different treatment groups to the same sta-tus manipulation. And if it is also true that this status discrepancyaffects proxemics more powerfully than the factors supposedly manip-ulated in internal states research, one would predict precisely the pat-tern of negligible results actually found in the overwhelming majorityof studies that required subjects to interact with staff. Evidence, some ofit from research using nonpsychological models, supports these possi-bilities. Unless a direct approach task is used, subjects seem to stayfurther away from staff than from each other, even when staff areconfederates 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 statesparadigm 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 internalstates may reflect situational and interactional factors and should thusbe considered dependent rather than independent variables in nonver-bal analysis. As C. Wright Mills's vocabularies of motive concept (1963)illustrates, what the self and others attribute to an actor as motives rest


19/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behaviormore on socially accepted rationales for behavior than on its empiricalcauses. 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 ina hospital suggests: Doctors touch other ranks as a means of convey-ing friendly support and comfort, but other ranks tend to feel that it ispresumptuous for them to reciprocate a doctor's touch, much lessinitiate such a contact with a doctor (1967, p. 74). Here status (doctorversus other ranks), not internal states (feelings of friendliness, pre-sumptuousness, and the like), determine the behavioral outcome: doc-tors touch more. The same may be true for other types of proxemicbehavior.

The Situational Resource Model

The situational resource model asserts that proxemic behaviorvaries as a function of structural factors-factors that derive theirmeaning only by references to social relations between and withingroups. These factors concern the nature of the group in which indi-viduals find themselves, membership in other groups, and position ineach. Being situational, proxemic behavior is not determined by fixedcharacteristics of ego alone; it is the relative status composition of thepair or group that predicts space-claiming behavior. Thus proxemicpatterns are expected to change when social arrangements shift, forindividual repertoires are postulated to include multiple patternssuited to multiple situational mandates. High rank produces morerights to space, a greater right to invade with impunity low-statussubjects' space, and greater ability to protect rights to space than lowrank affords.

References to the merits of the situational resource modelabound: for example, Kendon (1973), Lyman and Scott (1967), Scheflenwith Ashcraft (1976), Sommer (1969, 1971). Indeed, the paradigmreceives positive notice in passing from theoreticians using all othermodels (see Wilson, 1978; Hall, 1969; Argyle, 1967). But aside fromcorrelating status and nonverbal behavior, empirical research is lack-ing. Several recent studies however, have found that situationalresource factors, including status-related factors, affect proxemicbehavior. We contend that this research, combined with evidence from

137


20/36

Sociological Theoryalternative models discussed previously, supports the specific theorythat relative status is a major organizer of proxemic behavior.An Overview. Beginning with the group itself, it has been foundthat groups are allocated group territory or interactional space and,moreover, that both members and nonmembers respect its inviolabilityand adjust their proxemic patterns accordingly (Cheyne and Efran,1972; Efran and Cheyne, 1973; Knowles, 1973). What produces groupspace is not the mere copresence of several people in the same area butrather the existence and intensity of interactions among them and thenumber of people involved (Cheyne and Efran, 1972; Knowles, 1973;Lindskold and others, 1976). Within group space, situational factorscontinue 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 linkedto proxemic patterns within groups is status differentiation.

Dating back to Steinzor (1950), a number of studies havereported correlations between leadership and interaction rates andbetween 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 possibledisconfirmations (Bass and Klubeck, 1952; Sundstrom and Altman,1974), this literature suggests that rank, participation rates, and prox-emic behavior are strongly linked. Thus, for instance, Leavitt (1951)and Strodtbeck, Simon, and Hawkins (1958) found a connectionbetween an individual's seating position and his or her chances ofbeing rated group leader.Relative Status and Space Use. Attempting to clarify these corre-lations, several recent studies concluded that status does shape spaceuse. Regardless of the status dimension involved, status inferiors showdifferent proxemic patterns than status superiors. Seen to affect prox-emic behavior similarly are socioeconomic cues, occupational rank,age and gender differential, age or college-standing cues, and genderand 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 closelywhen she was sloppily attired than neat. Although the authors say that

138


21/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behaviorbeauty shaped these differences, they admit the actual distinction washow prosperous the confederate looked. The impact of socioeconomicstatus on proxemics has been confirmed by Henley (1973a), whoreports that in dyads of mixed prosperity the more advantagedmembers touched their partners significantly more often than theirpartners 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 thanpeople approaching a peer. Furthermore, the higher the superordinateranked above him, the further back the subordinate stayed. Finally, thedistance a superordinate stayed from subordinates he approached var-ied a great deal, leading the authors to suggest: The superior has theoption of a formal (more distant) or more intimate (less distant) inter-action, while a subordinate is usually required to initiate a formalinteraction (p. 298). Both Henley (1973b) and Goffman (1967) offercorroboration for this observation; Goffman reports that even whendoctors touched lower-ranking hospital personnel, the latter did nothave the freedom to reciprocate. Thus occupational subordinates andsuperordinates exhibit different proxemic patterns: the former are re-stricted to a formal, distant style; the latter enjoy the prerogative of amore intimate style as well.Proxemics has also been traced to age and gender differentials byHenley and to age or college-standing cues by Knowles. Henley (1973a)reports that in dyads discrepant by age or gender, the higher-statusmembers (males, the older) touched their partners significantly morethan their partners touched them. Knowles (1973) found that groups ofyounger confederates in casual clothing, low-status by virtue of cuesconcerning age or undergraduate standing, were invaded more oftenthan groups of older confederates in relatively formal attire. Knowlesalso suspected that of the 25 percent of passersbywho did invade, manywere faculty and administrators. Thus not only are high-status peopletouched and invaded less often than low-status people, but they tend totouch and invade others more often.

Final support for the proxemic effects of status-differentiatingfactors is researchby Leffler, Gillespie, and Conaty (1981, 1982), testingnot only status but also the impact of status change. Subjects, run indyads of various gender compositions, were initially assigned the role

139


22/36

Sociological Theoryof teacher (high status) or student (low status) on an experimental task;then roles were reversed and a similar task was assigned. Results indi-cate that in the initial interaction high-status subjects (teachers andmales) 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 touchedmore than they did when assigned low status. It has been remarked thatindividual flexibility linked to status is a critical claim distinguishingthe situational resource model from other models; it appears that theclaim is justified.Thus a variety of status dimensions affect proxemic behaviorsimilarly. Seen as recipients of others' behavior, status inferiors areapproached more closely and touched more often than status superiors,regardless of which single-status dimension is used. Seen as activatorsrather than recipients of proxemic arrangements, inferiors approachmore distantly and touch less often than superiors do. In discrepant-status pairs, as might be expected, inferior members encroach uponsuperiors less often than superiors encroach upon them. And proxemicchange follows status change. The sole exception to this pattern offindings is Weitz (1972), who reports that neither the race nor the classof a fictitious partner-to-be affected the distances subjects chose inpreparing for the interaction. Distance was measured projectively,however, not behaviorally, and indirectly at that-coders merely ratedhow friendly choices seemed. The common trends of the remainingstudies suggest that it is relative status per se, rather than the specificdimension used, that organizes space use.Additional support for the situational resource theory of prox-emic behavior comes from recent reviews of nonverbal and proxemicresearch using gender as an independent variable (Friezeand Ramsey,1976;Gillespie, 1978;Henley, 1973b, 1977).These reviews all concludethat although the enormous number of gender studies have previouslybeen judged to show no consistent gender effects, they become inter-pretable once gender is considered a status-differentiated factor ratherthan the result of enculturation into the female role or the result of afeminine genetic or psychological state. Thus reinterpreted, genderstudies usually report that females display what in fact appears to be apattern of low-status behavior (neither initiating touch nor invading),

140


23/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behaviorespecially in the presence of males; similarly, males display high-statuspatterns (invading, touching), especially in the presence of females.Thus correlational, causal, and gender research all support thetheory that status is a powerful organizer of proxemic behavior. Too, ithas been contended throughout that researchbased on other paradigmsalso supports this theory. To review this argument: ethological find-ings suggesting a status component to proxemic behavior are mostparsimoniously explained in terms of structural relations rather thanin terms of genetic etiology; the latter explanation, besides resting oninvalid assumptions about proxemic invariance, is also untestable.Similarly for enculturation/socialization research: Besides a question-able definition of culture and a tendency to produce conflicting results,this research confounds culture and subculture with stratum and failsto support its crucial claim of individual proxemic invariance. In con-sequence, it offers as much support for the situational resource postu-lates of status effects and individual change as for its own culturallydeterministic tenets. Finally, although the internal states model lacksempirical substantiation, this very outcome may reflect a status discre-pancy between staff and subjects across treatment groups.

Implications for Further Research. Thus both direct researchand research based on other models support the specific situationalresource theory that relative status organizes proxemic patterning.Since in the past this theory has received insufficient researchattention,it raises as many questions as it answers. The theory does not clarifyhow different status dimensions interact to affect proxemic behavior,for instance, nor whether specific (situation-related) or diffuse (generalstatus characteristics) ranks have the most impact. It is also unknownwhether status differentiates proxemic patterns only where one subjectranks high and the other low or whether it also differentiates equallylow and equally high pairs of subjects from each other. Too, given thedistinctive emphasis on the group, it is essential to expand the researchbeyond its mainly dyadic confines.Nonetheless, in exploring these issues the structure of interac-tions and the distribution of economic and social resources shouldremain 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 tobe learned in the sense that humans acquire a variety of behavioral

141


24/36

Sociological Theorymodes appropriate to superordinate, subordinate, and equal rankings.What determines the particular pattern displayed, and thus proxemicvariance, are the structural characteristics of the situation, not theparticular features of individuals in it. Reflecting the larger distribu-tion of resources represented there, individuals display proxemic cuesappropriate to their relative ranks. Differential access to social andeconomic resources in the macro-order produces asymmetric patternsof nonverbal activity among the participants in the micro-order.Further, individuals change behavioral displays when their relativerankings change, both within situations and between situations.

The implications of this argument for the study of interaction insmall groups are great. First, of course, more attention must be focusedon nonverbal behavior as well as verbal and cognitive behavior, sincenonverbal behavior seems to exhibit profound structural effects.Second, small-group hierarchies have sometimes been conceptualizedas meritocracies wherein people are ranked in terms of the stable behav-ioral competencies with which they enter (see Bales and others, 1951;Goetch and McFarland, 1980; Willard and Strodtbeck, 1972). Thisreview, on the other hand, suggests the reverse may be true. As inmacro-orderings, in micro events too the behavioral patterns that indi-viduals display may reflect rather than cause the distribution of re-sources in social structures.

Notes

1. This model has been referred to as the power model or poweranalysis (Henley, 1977; Polk, 1979) or the resource control model(Crosbie, 1979).

2. Studies in which subjects were children, and studies usingprojective rather than behavioral measurements of proxemics, havebeen excluded from this analysis. Nor will research concerning theproxemic effects of gender be emphasized. The decision to eliminatestudies on children was motivated by the difficulty of generalizing toadults from such research, since each model can be taken to imply thatthe behavior of children and adults differs. Projective studies have beeneliminated because the evidence suggests that projective measures do notcorrelate well with actual behavior (Hayduk, 1978; Weitz, 1972; Wicker,1969). That this shortcoming characterizes proxemic behavior specifi-

142


25/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behaviorcally 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 = 0.65between projective and behavioral closeness, but this is hardly largeenough 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 behav-ior generally (Friezeand Ramsey, 1976;Gillespie, 1978;Henley, 1973b,1977),and these evaluations will be addressedhere. For the convenienceof readers who wish to examine the enormous gender literaturedirectly, however, the sex of objects has been specified throughout thisreview.

Since we assign theoretical models to articles rather than toauthors, the same author occasionally appears under more than oneheading. This unfortunate outcome illustrates the need to specify the-ory so that theoretical rationales may be selected more rigorously.3. For general discussions of human variations within individ-uals, see Chapple (1976), Harris (1968), and Berger and others (1977).For evidence on human proxemic variations within individuals, seeLeffler, Gillespie, and Conaty (1981).4. Examples of nonethological research positing similar reac-tions to intrusion as ethology predicts include Krail and Leventhal(1976), McBride, King, and James (1965), Patterson, Mullins, andRomani (1971), and Sundstrom (1975). Nonethological links betweenrank and proxemics are discussed throughout this review.5. Mahoney (1974) argues that no systematic observations ofsubjects in nonintrusion conditions had been made, except for sim-ple flight responses. Her study indicates that purportedly defensive orcompensatory reactions to intrusion also occur without intrusion inlibraries.

6. The study conducted by Bailey and colleagues exemplifiesthe problem of eclecticism: While an ethological rationale is offered forthis 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 thatthey do not employ a common error term against which regional con-tributions are assessed; instead they separately compare the six regionstwo at a time, resulting in a high and unspecifiable probability of TypeI errors (Kirk, 1968, p. 78).

143


26/36

Sociological Theory8. Frieze and Ramsey (1976) report an Altman and Nelson find-

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

9. For instance, Bauer reports that black subjects' families hadsignificantly 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 internalstate proxemics is the affiliative conflict theory of Argyle and Dean

(1965), which attributes proxemic and other nonverbal patterns toaffiliative 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. Sociometry28(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 GroupDiscussions. 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


27/36

Theories of Nonverbal BehaviorBAUER, 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 ofPersonality and Social Psychology 32:40-54.

BERGER, J., AND OTHERS1977 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 theInvasion of Group Controlled Territories. Sociometry

35(3):477-489.COOKE, B. G.

1972 Nonverbal Communication Among Afro-Americans: AnInitial Classification. In T. Kochman (Ed.), Rappin' andStylin' 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 theIntimacy-Equilibrium and Compensation Hypothesis.

145


28/36

Sociological TheoryJournal 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., III1975 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 Equaland Unequal in Military Rank. Journal of Personalityand 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. SmallGroup 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 PredictiveModel. 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 ofBehavioral Science 5(3):201-210.

146


29/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behavior1974 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 Impressionsand Attractions During Small Group Interaction. Soci-ometry 39(1):60-70.

GILLESPIE, D.L.1978 The Effects of Status Differentiation on NonverbalBehavior 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 DiscussionGroups. 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


30/36

Sociological Theory1974 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. NewYork: Wiley.HARRIS, B., LUGINBUHL, J.E.R., AND FISHBEIN, J. E.

1978 Density and Personal Space in a Field Setting. SocialPsychology 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


31/36

Theories of Nonverbal BehaviorHORTON, 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: BasicBooks.KENDON, A.

1973 The Role of Visible Behavior in the Organization ofSocial 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 FaceInteraction. The Hague: Mouton.

KIRK, R. E.1968 Experimental Design: Procedures for the BehavioralSciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks-Cole.KLEINKE, C. L., AND POHLEN, P. D.

1971 Affective and Emotional Responses as a Function ofOther 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 ofGroup Size and Member Status on Boundary Permeabil-ity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology26(3):327-331.KOCHMAN, T.1972 Preface. In T. Kochman (Ed.), Rappin' and Stylin' Out:Communication in Black America. Urbana: University ofIllinois Press.

149


32/36

Sociological TheoryKRAIL, 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 onGroup Performance. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology 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 NonverbalBehavior. Social Psychology Quarterly 45(3):153-161.

LINDSKOLD, S., AND OTHERS1976 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


33/36

Theories of Nonverbal Behaviortion, and Distance. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 10(1):26-30.MEHRABIAN, A., AND DIAMOND, S.1971 Seating Arrangement and Conversation. Sociometry34(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 CollectedEssays 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 onPersonal 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 ofPychology 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 AnimalCommunication. 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


34/36

Sociological TheorySCHEFLEN, 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 Leadershipand 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. InA. H. Esser (Ed.), Behavior and Environment: The Use ofSpace 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 andWinston.SUNDSTROM, E.1975 Experimental Study of Crowding: Effects of Room Size,Intrusion, and Goal Blocking on Nonverbal Behavior,

152


35/36

Theories of Nonverbal BehaviorSelf-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 Proximityin 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-CulturalInteractions. Man-Environment Systems 3(2):115-117.VAN DEN ASSEM, J.

1974 Territory in the Three-Spined Stickleback Gasterosteusaculeatus 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 Modelof Interracial Interaction. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 24(1):14-21.WICKER, A. W.

1969 Attitudes vs. Actions: The Relationship of Verbal andOvert Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects. Journalof Social Issues 25:41-78.

WEINER, M., AND OTHERS1972 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


36/36

154 Sociological TheoryWILLIS, F. N., JR.1966 Initial Speaking Distance as a Function of the Speaker'sRelationship. 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 Propheciesin Interracial Interaction. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology 10:103-120.

theory nonverbal (1)

Documents