Shivana Naidoo
Professor Southworth
Male and Female Communications
Fall 2000
A crowded E train stops at Lexington Avenue on a hot August evening. A group of college students crack jokes in a study lounge. A couple sits down on the beach watching the sunrise on their 45th wedding anniversary. Although all of these situations seem unrelated, they all have one thing in common; Proxemics plays an important role in each of these situations. Proxemics is defined as the investigation of space and how human use it in their own interactions (Arliss, 2000). Just by simply looking at proxemics in these contexts, one could easily infer whether the subway passengers were particularly leery of a bum asleep in the corner of the train, which of the students were best friends, or even determine whether the old couple had just had an argument.
Research suggests that most people perceive themselves as being surrounded by a three-foot oblong bubble of personal space (Arliss, 2000). Based on our own observances, and previous research, men demand and claim more personal space than women. This theory raises many questions. Would men be more willing to give up that personal space to another man or a woman? Would the man give up more space to the person if s/he were of the same ethnic background? How do women react to the invasion of their personal space? Is there a correlation between the intimacy of the relationship between the people involved and the free space that they demand?
In an attempt to answer these questions, I designed an experiment where I could investigate spatial relations, gender, ethnicity and intimacy. In order to decrease the amount of variables, I used myself as both an observer and an active participant in the experiment. Based on my own experiences, I hypothesized that I would be able to get closer to black males than any other group. I also hypothesized Asian males would be the most reluctant to give up space. In support of previous research, I also hypothesized that all females, despite their ethnic background, would not mind the intrusion of their personal and intimate space.
Methods
In order to determine the relationships between proximity and gender, race and intimacy, I needed to find a sound way to determine the extent of the intimacy of the relationship between the people being observed and the measurement of distance between the people. Therefore, I used myself as both the experimenter and observer in order to assure that the relationships were clearly defined. Friends were defined as people whom I know well and trust in and have had numerous conversations with here are the University of Pennsylvania. I defined acquaintances as people who I had met once or twice, but had not really spoken to or knew well. Strangers were people whom I have never met with or spoken to previous to this experiment. The initial object was to engage the subject in a conversation and see how close I could get to them without making them uncomfortable enough to step away. However I needed to perform the experiment without the awareness of the subject. Therefore, distracted the subject by asking them questions about an alcohol advertisement. I asked a series of three questions. When I asked the first question, I was a foot away from the person. At the beginning of the second question I moved closer to the person so that I was only a couple of inches away from their body. At the beginning of the second question, my shoulder touched the shoulder of the subject. The results of my experiment were therefore states as one of three reactions. The reaction entitled touch and stay was if the subject had allowed me to touch their shoulder and did not move away. The reaction entitled touch and away occurred when the subject moved away from me to a more comfortable distance after I had brushed their shoulder and asked the third question. The reaction entitled constant distance, occurred when a subject did not even allow me to step closer to them. This reaction occurred after I had stepped closer to the person, but not touching the person at the beginning of the second question.
In an attempt to see whether there were any correlations between gender and ethnicity, I performed this experiment on forty University of Pennsylvania freshmen. I performed the experiment on four racial groups, blacks, whites, Asians and South Asians. The racial group entitles Asian, was defined as the students who were from Asian descent, such as from China, Korea, the Philippines etc. This did not include the Indian subcontinent. The ethnicity group entitled South Asian accounts for students who have their ancestry from the Indian subcontinent. All Asians and South Asians are first generation Americans. The experiment consisted of five males and five females from each ethnic group.
Results
Table 1.
Gender and Intimacy vs. Reaction
|
Gender |
Relationship |
Reaction |
|
Male |
Friend |
Touch and stay: 8 (89%) Touch and Away: 1 (11%) Constant distance:0 (0%) |
|
|
Acquaintance |
Touch and Stay:0 (0%) Touch and Away: 3 (100%) Constant Distance: 0 (0%) |
|
|
Stranger |
Touch and Stay: 3 (36%%) Touch and away: 1 (12.5%) Constant distance: 4 (50%) |
|
Female |
Friend |
Touch and Stay: 1 (14.3%) Touch and away: 5 (71.4%) Constant distance: 1 (14.3%) |
|
|
Acquaintance |
Touch and Stay: 4 (80%) Touch and Away: 0(0%) Constant distance: 1 (20%) |
|
|
Stranger |
Touch and Stay: 2 (25%) Touch and Away: 1 (12.5) Constant distance: 5 (62.5%) |
Table 2.
Gender vs. Reaction
|
Gender |
Touch and Stay |
Touch and Away |
Constant
Distance |
|
Males |
11 (55%) |
5(25%) |
4(20%) |
|
Females |
7(35%) |
5(25%) |
8(40%) |
Table 3.
Intimacy vs. Reaction
|
Intimacy |
Touch and Stay |
Touch and Away |
Constant Distance |
|
Friends |
9(56.25%) |
6(37.5%) |
1(6.25%) |
|
Acquaintances |
4(50%) |
3(37.5%) |
1(12.5%) |
|
Strangers |
5(31.25%) |
2(12.5%) |
9(56.25%) |
Table 4.
Ethnicity vs.
Reaction
|
Ethnicity |
Touch and Stay |
Touch and Away |
Constant Distance |
Asian |
3(30%) |
4(40%) |
3(30%) |
|
Black |
4(40%) |
3(30%) |
3(30%) |
|
South Asian |
7(70%) |
2(20%) |
1(10%) |
|
White |
4(40%) |
4(40%) |
2(20%) |
Table 5.
Gender and Ethnicity vs. Reaction
Ethnicity/Gender |
Touch and Stay |
Touch and Away |
Constant Distance |
Asian/ Male |
2(40%) |
1(20%) |
2(40%) |
|
Asian/Female |
1(20%) |
3(60%) |
1(20%) |
|
Black/Male |
3(60%) |
2(40%) |
0(0%) |
|
Black/Female |
1(20%) |
1(20%) |
3(60%) |
|
South Asian/Male |
5(100%) |
0(0%) |
0(0%) |
|
South
Asian/Female |
2(40%) |
2(40%) |
1(20%) |
|
White/Male |
1(20%) |
3(60%) |
1(20%) |
|
White/Female |
3(60%) |
1(20%) |
1(20%) |
The results suggest general trends in the relationships of gender, ethnicity, intimacy and proxemics. The results suggest that males are the most willing to share their personal space with a female friend. Females are the least likely to share personal space with a female stranger. Both males and females are more willing to share their personal space with a friend than their personal space with a stranger. South Asians were most willing to share their personal space than any other ethnicity. South Asian males permitted the most personal space intrusion to a female.
During the course of the experiment, both the personal and intimate space of the subjects were intruded. As defined by Hall, intimate distance is 6-18 inches in the far phase and 6-0 inches in the close phase. Hall also defines Personal distance as 1-˝ feet to 2 ˝ feet for the close phase and 2 ˝ feet to 4 feet for the far phase. Although it was difficult to measure the transition between the close and far phases of intimate and personal space, it can be approximated that by the time that the third question was asked the barrier that defined intimate distance was crossed. Most proxemic research suggests that female-female dyads stand closer than male-female dyads and male-male dyads (Arliss, 2000). Research also shows that men are more likely to respond more negatively to invasion of space than women (Knapp, 153). This suggests that females are more likely to allow the intrusion of their intimate space. The results from my experiment, however, do not support this research. On the whole it was easier for me to get closer to males than to females (see Table 2). 55% of the males in my experiment allowed me to get close and stay nearby brushing shoulders with them as opposed to 35% of the females in my experiment. In my experiment more females kept a constant distance from me (40%) than the males (20%). Even one of my friends kept a constant distance from me.
These are many reasons for the differences in my results. Most people perceive that a three-foot oblong bubble of personal space surrounds them. This bubble widens in depth and encompasses more space in the front and sides of a person. People are less defensive of the space in back or in front of them. They are therefore more willing to let others surround or approach them from the sides and behind them than in the front (Arliss, 2000). Leathers’ research suggests that males are more defensive of the space in front of them, whereas women are more defensive of the space that is on their sides. Females respond negatively to side-by-side interactions while men more upset by intrusions head on (Leathers, 97). In order to show the subjects the advertisement, I always approached them from their left side. The results of my experiment support Leathers’ hypothesis that women respond negatively to side intrusions. In addition, the advertisement that I used featured a woman, and was geared to attract the attention of males. Perhaps women were disinterested in the advertisement, and were thus less willing to get closer to both the ad and myself.
Another reason why males may have been more willing to let me approach them is because of my personal appearance. It is suggested by various texts that the person who invades space is more likely to be accepted and permitted to intrude if they are well dressed (Burgoon, 82). In addition, I also noted that although more males allowed me to approach them than females, most males were taller than I was. Most females, on the other hand were very close to my height. The distances between my face and other female’s faces were significantly smaller than the distance between my face and those of other males. Another way to measure the proxemics between people is nose-to-nose distance. The smaller the nose-to-nose distance the greater the intrusion into intimate space and greater the possibility of discomfort. Since this difference on the whole was smaller with my interaction with females than with males, it is likely that this distance may have been the reason for so many females having the touch and away reaction. As previously mentioned, the ad was constructed to attract the attention of males. This may have further urged the males to get closer to the ad and to myself.
There is still no clear evidence concerning racial relationships and proxemics. Leather’s research suggests that black women were more likely to give into and give up their private space than women of other cultures (Leathers, 107). This experiment, however, did not support this research. Black females stayed the farthest away from and were the most protective of their space. It is difficult to predict why black females for the most part were more distant than any other ethnic of females. The most viable explanation is the fact that the majority of the black females I interviewed were strangers. Despite this, most of the white females that I interviewed were also strangers, however, 60% of them were willing to touch and stay, as opposed to the 20% of black females that touch and stayed. Actually, two of the females that did touch and stay approached me and grabbed my shoulders in order to get a better view of the advertisement. Although this may be characteristic of white culture, it may also be the result of the ad as well. The ad featured a white woman. Unlike the image of the proper, reserved, and pale white woman of the early 19th century, white females today are more willing to reach out and share their space with others (Hall, 84). Of the Asian females that I interviewed, only 20% of them touch and stayed. Although there is no evidence for the reason why so few Asian women were willing to share their personal space with me, it is possible that their reaction may be representative of their proxemic cultural norms.
After South Asian males, black males permitted more invasion of their personal and intimate space. There are no studies that give any reasons why black males were more willing to give up their personal space than the White or Asian ethnicities. However, based on my own observations of college males, most of the black males that I came in contact with were more willing to touch other people, whether male or female. It can therefore be inferred that black males would be less defensive about their personal space, and more willing to let others intrude upon it. An equal amount of Asian males allowed me to get close to them and kept a constant distance from me. It is hard to draw conclusions based on these results. However, the term Asian is incredibly broad, and includes people from many different countries, each with their own unique cultures. These differences are perhaps reflected in the variety of the results. 30% of the white males in the experiment had the reaction touch and away. All of the males who had that reaction actually touched my shoulder and then laughed or spoke as they moved away from me, in an attempt to hide their discomfort at my proximity. Numerous sources have stated that white males tend set larger distances for themselves, and therefore larger bubbles for themselves than females (Hal, 105; Knapp, 145). Despite this research, the majority of white males permitted me into their personal, if not intimate, space.
All of the Indian females and Indian males allowed me to get closer to them than any other ethnic group. The most likely factor that led to both genders allowing me to approach them is the fact that I myself am of Indian descent. Perhaps they felt more comfortable with me asking them questions, or were more willing to share their space and time with me as the result of our common heritage. Based on the communal gatherings of people in urban areas, people of the same ethnicity tend to bond together as a result of their common heritage. Even in at an institution such as the University of Pennsylvania, inklings of the need to connect with people of the same ethnicity still exist.
There were many variables in this experiment that made it difficult to conduct. As mentioned previously, the first variable was height. All of the white males were all above 5’ 11, so the distance between our faces were significantly greater than that of other males. The heights of the males in the Asian group ranged from 5’6-5’8. The height of the Black males varied significantly, 5’5-5-8. The Indian males were approximately all 5’9. The majority of the females were around 5’2 and therefore around my height. The variation of height within the males alone makes it difficult to draw conclusions. The taller the male, the less threatening I appeared as a result of the decrease in the invasion of space. The advertisement itself was a variable because it was geared toward males, and consisted of a white woman. This may have a predisposition the results of this experiment towards encouraging males to allow me into their personal and intimate space. In addition there was a very small sample size for each ethnicity and gender. Although the study consisted of many different ethnicities, the scope of the representation of those ethnicities were limited. Studies have also shown that physical appearance plays a role in the ability of a person to successfully penetrate the personal and intimate distances of a person. The course of this experiment took numerous days and I wore numerous outfits. My own personal appearance on various days may have affected the results of the experiment.
As the first scenarios presented suggest, proxemics play an important role in many different situations. Proxemic behaviors are extremely important in the communication functions of impression management. Seemingly simple manipulations of space can have a tremendous impact upon these this aspect of communication.
Impressions are dependent upon the portrayal of two things; likeability and dominance (Leathers, 103). Both of these aspects are affected by proxemics. Usually, the closer a person moves towards you, the greater the chance that you will grow to like that person. Proximity also suggests interest. A person leaning in toward you while they are speaking, and while they are decreasing the amount of space between you and them, show their interest in you, and therefore increases the chances of your interest in them. Dominance can also be affected by proxemics. The people who stand taller than others, push themselves closer to, or in front of others makes themselves appear more dominant. Standing over someone also has the affect of appearing dominant (Mayo, 73). That may be another reason why the males that were included in my experiment were more willing to share their space with me. Since they were taller than me, even when I did come close to them, they were still standing over me and therefore appeared more dominant.
Although they are difficult to define, society and the humans that interact within that society have created a set of proxemic norms. These norms vary in many different cultures. Violation of these proxemic norms lead to the disruptive effects on the people involved. Although most violators of proxemics tend to be deemed as such before they even breech the personal distance of the victim, violators of the proxemic norms are often branded with an overall negative impression and implied to be destructors of interpersonal trust (Leathers, 106). In the context of college, the boy who leans too close to soon is called a “player,” and is often rejected by many females for his swift moves. In addition, students who appear too dominant in certain aspects are deemed “arrogant,” and usually attain a bad reputation for their attitude. Both of these examples, however, are related to proxemics. If the “player” had not crossed the intimate distance of the female so soon, and if the “arrogant” student, had not stood hovering over other students who did not know as much as she, they may have prevented themselves from acquiring those brands.
Nonverbal communication is key to understanding and unlocking the true messages that people send. However, since people nonverbally communicate subconsciously, it is hard to measure and recognize one’s own nonverbal communication and try to reform it in order to send the correct messages to other humans. The messages that my peers were sending to me as a result of their movements, was whether or not they were comfortable with me, a female South Asian, approaching them and invading their personal space. In relation to the violators of proxemic norms, it would be interesting to investigate whether college students at Penn have a predisposition image of a proxemic violator. In the future, it would be interesting to repeat this experiment with a male asking the questions instead of a female. It would also be interesting to change the ethnicity of the person asking the questions, to see whether students are more willing to give up more personal space to one ethnicity over another.
Young children do not understand the concept space and its social norms. They create their boundaries as they get older, closing off more and more of themselves to the world. Studies have shown that as adults grow older, their need for space increases (Mayo et al, 81). As adults further mature they are more likely, to cut off more of themselves from the world and its ideas. Perhaps the reason why I could not find a true racial correlation is because of the open minds of the typical Penn student. I only hope that as our bubble increases, so too does our capabilities to understand and perceive the messages that we are both receiving and sending to others.
Appendix 1.
|
Gender |
Ethnicity |
Age |
Status |
Inches of Proximity |
|
Male |
White |
18 |
Stranger |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Male |
White |
18 |
Acquaintance |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Male |
White |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Male |
White |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Male |
White |
18 |
Stranger |
Constant Distance CD |
|
Female |
White |
18 |
Stranger |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Female |
White |
18 |
Stranger |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Female |
White |
18 |
Stranger |
Constant Distance CD |
|
Female |
White |
18 |
Acquaintance |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Female |
White |
19 |
Friend |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Male |
Black |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Male |
Black |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Male |
Black |
18 |
Acquaintance |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Male |
Black |
18 |
Stranger |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Male |
Black |
18 |
Stranger |
Touch
and Stay TS |
|
Female |
Black |
18 |
Friend |
Touch
and Stay TS |
|
Female |
Black |
18 |
Acquaintance |
Constant Distance |
|
Female |
Black |
18 |
Stranger |
Constant Distance |
|
Female |
Black |
18 |
Stranger |
Constant Distance |
|
Female |
Black |
18 |
Stranger |
Touch and Away Ta |
|
Male |
Asian |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Stay Ts |
|
Male |
Asian |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Stay Ts |
|
Male |
Asian |
18 |
Acquaintance |
Touch and Away Ta |
|
Male |
Asian |
19 |
Stranger |
Constant Distance CD |
|
Male |
Asian |
19 |
Stranger |
Constant Distance CD |
|
Female |
Asian |
18 |
Acquaintance |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Female |
Asian |
19 |
Friend |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Female |
Asian |
19 |
Friend |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Female |
Asian |
18 |
Stranger |
Constant Distance CD |
|
Female |
Asian |
18 |
Stranger |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Male |
South Asian |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Male |
South Asian |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Male |
South Asian |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Male |
South Asian |
18 |
Stranger |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Male |
South Asian |
18 |
Stranger |
Touch and Stay TS |
|
Female |
South Asian |
18 |
Friend |
Constant Distance CD |
|
Female |
South Asian |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Female |
South Asian |
18 |
Friend |
Touch and Away TA |
|
Female |
South Asian |
18 |
Acquaintance |
Touch
and Stay TS |
|
Female |
South Asian |
18 |
Acquaintance |
Touch and Stay TS |
Arliss. Gender and Communications. Class handout. September 2000.
Leathers, DG. Successful Nonverbal Communication. Needham Heights: Viacom Company. 1997.
Mayo, C. Henley, N.H. Gender and Nonverbal Communication. Springer-Verlag; Library of Congress. 1981.
Knapp, ML. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc. 1972.
Hall, J.A. Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and Expressive Style. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. 1984.