• • Interactional territory: a place where people congregate informally • Home territory: a place where people continuously have control over their individual territory • Body
    territory: the space immediately surrounding us These different levels of territory, in addition to factors involving personal space, suggest ways for us to communicate and produce expectations of appropriate behavior.

  • [20][21][22][23] These studies suggest that various individual and situational factors influence how close we feel to another person, regardless of distance.

  • [20] Increased communication has also been seen to foster common ground, or the feeling of identification with another, which leads to positive attributions about that person.

  • [28] There are two aspects to the consideration of proxemics in this context, the first being character proxemics, which addresses such questions as: How much space is there
    between the characters?, What is suggested by characters who are close to (or, conversely, far away from) each other?, Do distances change as the film progresses?

  • People tend to perceive nonverbal gestures on an implicit level, and degree of personal space appears to be an accurate way to measure people’s perception of social presence
    and realism in virtual environments.

  • Personal space is affected by a person’s position in society, with more affluent individuals expecting a larger personal space.

  • [5] Permitting a person to enter personal space and entering somebody else’s personal space are indicators of perception of those people’s relationship.

  • The result of the experiment also indicated that women are more affected by the gaze behaviors of the agent and adjust their personal space more accordingly than do men.

  • While physical proximity cannot be achieved when people are connected virtually, perceived proximity can be attempted, and several studies have shown that it is a crucial
    indicator in the effectiveness of virtual communication technologies.

  • Behavior is another method: a person attempting to talk to someone can often cause situations where one person steps forward to enter what they perceive as a conversational
    distance, and the person they are talking to can step back to restore their personal space.

  • [30] Analysis of camera proxemics typically relates Hall’s system of proxemic patterns to the camera angle used to create a specific shot, with the long shot or extreme long
    shot becoming the public proxemic, a full shot (sometimes called a figure shot, complete view, or medium long shot) becoming the social proxemic, the medium shot becoming the personal proxemic, and the close up or extreme close up becoming
    the intimate proxemic.

  • [1] Proxemics is one among several subcategories in the study of nonverbal communication, including haptics (touch), kinesics (body movement), vocalics (paralanguage), and
    chronemics (structure of time).

  • Males typically use more personal space than females, and personal space has a positive relation to age (people use more as they get older).

  • These distances were typically larger than in normal interactions, and proxemics may help to explain the social effects of the change.

  • Some studies emphasize the importance of shared physical territory in achieving common ground,[25] while others find that common ground can be achieved virtually, by communicating

  • In other words, social media magnifies the face-to-face social space into a virtual space where a cyberbully can say anything about the victims without the pressure of facing

  • Organization of space in territories While personal space describes the immediate space surrounding a person, territory refers to the area which a person may “lay claim to”
    and defend against others.

  • [31] • A long shot—the public proxemic • A full shot—the social proxemic • A medium shot—the personal proxemic • A close-up—the intimate proxemic Film analyst Louis Giannetti
    has maintained that, in general, the greater the distance between the camera and the subject (in other words, the public proxemic), the more emotionally neutral the audience remains, whereas the closer the camera is to a character, the greater
    the audience’s emotional attachment to that character.

  • According to Hall, the study of proxemics is valuable in evaluating not only the way people interact with others in daily life, but also “the organization of space in [their]
    houses and buildings, and ultimately the layout of [their] towns”.

  • Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is
    too large (“stand-offish”) or too small (intrusive).

  • Looking up at or down on another person can be taken literally in many cases, with the higher person asserting greater status.

  • • Kinesthetic factors: This category deals with how closely the participants are to touching, from being completely outside of body-contact distance to being in physical contact,
    which parts of the body are in contact, and body part positioning.

  • Most people have a fully developed (adult) sense of personal space by age twelve.

  • “[11] Kinematics[edit] Some quantitative theories propose that the zone sizes are generated by the potential kinematics of the two agents, and their abilities to cause or
    avoid contact with one another.

  • [16] European cultural history has seen a change in personal space since Roman times, along with the boundaries of public and private space.

  • In this case, however, vertical distance is often understood to convey the degree of dominance or sub-ordinance in a relationship.

  • Even in a crowded place, preserving personal space is important, and intimate and sexual contact, such as frotteurism and groping, is unacceptable physical contact.

  • [5] Hall notes that different culture types maintain different standards of personal space.

  • Interpersonal distance[edit] Hall described the interpersonal distances of humans (the relative distances between people) in four distinct zones: A chart depicting Edward
    T. Hall’s interpersonal distances of man, showing radius in feet and meters • Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering o Close phase – less than one inch (0.01 to 0.02m) o Far phase – 6 to 18 inches (0.15 to 0.46 m) • Personal
    distance for interactions among good friends or family o Close phase – 1.5 to 2.5 feet (0.46 to 0.76 m) o Far phase – 2.5 to 4 feet (0.76 to 1.22 m) • Social distance for interactions among acquaintances o Close phase – 4 to 7 feet (1.2 to
    2.1 m) o Far phase – 7 to 12 feet (2.1 to 3.7 m) • Public distance used for public speaking o Close phase – 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 m) o Far phase – 25 feet (7.6 m) or more.

  • Many people find such physical proximity to be psychologically disturbing and uncomfortable,[5] though it is accepted as a fact of modern life.

  • For example, those who do not have experience dealing with disabled persons tend to create more distance during encounters because they are uncomfortable.

  • The space within social distance and out of personal distance is called social space, and the space within public distance is called public space.

  • Similarly, personal space may be a more reliable measure of social presence than a typical ratings survey in immersive virtual environments.

  • On the contrary, the results suggest that, in virtual environments, people were influenced by the 3D model and respected personal space of the humanoid representation.

  • [18] Applications The theory of proxemics is often considered in relation to the impact of technology on human relationships.

  • Others may judge that the disabled person needs to have an increase of touch, volume, or proximity.

  • This work suggests that the more someone communicates virtually with another person, the more he is able to envision that person’s appearance and workspace, therefore fostering
    a sense of personal connection.

  • Face-to-face interaction is often used as a tool to maintain the culture, authority, and norms of an organization or workplace.

  • Further, our findings are consistent with those in monkeys with bilateral amygdala lesions, who stay within closer proximity to other monkeys or people, an effect we suggest
    arises from the absence of strong emotional responses to personal space violation.

  • [3] In his foundational work on proxemics, The Hidden Dimension, Hall emphasized the impact of proxemic behavior (the use of space) on interpersonal communication.

  • This type of territory is rarely in the constant control of just one person.

  • Used in this way, an understanding of vertical distance can become a tool for improved teacher-student communication.

  • “Some changes in how we interact with others may be temporary while others could be long-lasting,” she says.

  • The main cultural difference in proxemics is that residents of the United States like to keep more open space between themselves and their conversation partners (roughly 4
    feet (1.2 m) compared to 2 to 3 feet (0.6–0.9 m) in Europe).

  • [24] However, recent research has extended this effect to virtual communication.

  • A number of relationships may allow for personal space to be modified, including familial ties, romantic partners, friendships and close acquaintances, where there is a greater
    degree of trust and personal knowledge.

  • [26][27] An extensive body of research has been written about how proximity is affected by the use of new communication technologies.

  • Hall did not mean for these measurements to be strict guidelines that translate precisely to human behavior, but rather a system for gauging the effect of distance on communication
    and how the effect varies between cultures and other environmental factors.

  • [20] Much research in the fields of communication, psychology, and sociology, especially under the category of organizational behavior, has shown that physical proximity enhances
    peoples’ ability to work together.


Works Cited

[‘1. “Proxemics”. Retrieved November 14, 2015.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Moore, Nina (2010). Nonverbal Communication:Studies and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. ^ Hall, Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Anchor
Books. ISBN 978-0-385-08476-5.
4. ^ Hall, Edward T. (October 1963). “A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior”. American Anthropologist. 65 (5): 1003–1026. doi:10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hall, Edward T. (1966).
The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-385-08476-5.
6. ^ Engleberg, Isa N. (2006). Working in Groups: Communication Principles and Strategies. My Communication Kit Series. pp. 140–141.
7. ^ Richmond, Virginia (2008). Nonverbal Behavior
in Interpersonal Relations. Boston: Pearson/A and B. p. 130. ISBN 9780205042302.
8. ^ Jump up to:a b “Proxemics”. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
9. ^ Elias, L.J.; Saucier, M.S. (2005). Neuropsychology: Clinical and Experimental Foundations.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. ISBN 978-0-205-34361-4.
10. ^ Previc, F.H. (1998). “The neuropsychology of 3D space”. Psychol. Bull. 124 (2): 123–164. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.123. PMID 9747184.
11. ^ Jump up to:a b c Kennedy DP, Gläscher
J, Tyszka JM, Adolphs R (2009). “Personal space regulation by the human amygdala”. Nat. Neurosci. 12 (10): 1226–1227. doi:10.1038/nn.2381. PMC 2753689. PMID 19718035.
12. ^ Camara, F and Fox, C. (2021). “Space invaders: Pedestrian proxemic utility
functions and trust zones for autonomous vehicle interactions”. International Journal of Social Robotics. 13 (8): 1929–1949. doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00717-x. S2CID 230640683.
13. ^ Lyman, S.M.; Scott, M.B. (1967). “Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological
Dimension”. Social Problems. 15 (2): 236–249. doi:10.2307/799516. JSTOR 799516.
14. ^ Sommer, Robert (May 1967). “Sociofugal Space”. American Journal of Sociology. 72 (6): 654–660. doi:10.1086/224402. S2CID 222428003.
15. ^ Sorokowska, Agnieszka;
Sorokowski, Piotr; Hilpert, Peter (22 March 2017). “Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison” (PDF). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 48 (4): 577–592. doi:10.1177/0022022117698039. ISSN 0022-0221. S2CID 53054744.
16. ^ “Edward
Hall, the hidden dimension online abstract”. Archived from the original on 2006-11-24. Retrieved 2006-12-14.
17. ^ Histoire de la vie privée (2001), editors Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby; le Grand livre du mois. ISBN 978-2020364171. Published
in English as A History of Private Life by the Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0674399747.
18. ^ Jump up to:a b Alessandra, Tony (2000-02-01). Charisma: Seven Keys to Developing the Magnetism that Leads to Success. New York: Business Plus. pp. 165–192.
ISBN 9780446675987.
19. ^ Aiello, John R., Aiello, Tyra De Carlo (July 1974). “The Development of Personal Space: Proxemic Behavior of Children 6 through 16”. Human Ecology. 2 (3): 177–189. doi:10.1007/bf01531420. JSTOR 4602298. S2CID 144162974.
20. ^
Jump up to:a b c O’Leary, Michael Boyer; Wilson, Jeanne M; Metiu, Anca; Jett, Quintus R (2008). “Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close”. Organization Studies. 29 (7): 979–1002. doi:10.1177/0170840607083105.
S2CID 7715386.
21. ^ Monge, Peter R; Kirste, Kenneth K (1980). “Measuring Proximity in Human Organization”. Social Psychology Quarterly. 43 (1): 110–115. doi:10.2307/3033753. JSTOR 3033753.
22. ^ Monge, Peter R; Rothman, Lynda White; Eisenberg,
Eric M; Miller, Katherine I; Kirste, Kenneth K (1985). “The Dynamics of Organizational Proximity”. Management Science. 31 (9): 1129–1141. doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1129.
23. ^ Olson, Gary M; Olson, Judith S (2000). “Distance Matters”. Human–Computer
Interaction. 15 (2–3): 139–178. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1523_4. S2CID 18990624.
24. ^ Zajonc, R.B. (1968). “Attitudinal Effect of Mere Exposure”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 9 (2, Pt.2): 2–17. CiteSeerX doi:10.1037/h0025848.
25. ^
Hinds, Pamela; Kiesler, Sara (2002). Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. ^ Levitt, B; J.G. March (1988). “Organizational Learning”. Annual Review of Sociology. 14: 319–340. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.14.1.319.
27. ^ Nelson, R. R. (1982).
An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
28. ^ “Cinematography – Proxemics”. Film and Media Studies in ESF. South Island School. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
29. ^ “Mise en scene” (PDF). Film Studies. University of
North Carolina at Charlotte. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
30. ^ “Shot and Camera Proxemics”. The Fifteen Points of Mise-en-scene. College of DuPage. Archived from the original on 28 April 2012. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
31. ^ “Cinematography Part
II: MISE-EN-SCENE: Orchestrating the Frame”. California State University San Marcos. Archived from the original on 13 April 2013. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
32. ^ Giannetti, Louis (1990). Understanding Movies, 5th edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall. pp. 64. ISBN 978-0-13-945585-8.
33. ^ Roud, Richard (28 December 1977). “The Baggy-Trousered Philanthropist”. The Guardian: 3.
34. ^ Kelly, Francis D. (1972). “Communicational Significance of Therapist Proxemic Cues”. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 39 (2): 345. doi:10.1037/h0033423. PMID 5075888.
35. ^ Ellis, Michael E. (1992-04-30), Perceived Proxemic Distance and Instructional Videoconferencing: Impact on Student Performance and Attitude, ERIC ED354558
36. ^
Olsen, Carol J. (1989). Proxemic Behavior of the Nonhandicapped Toward the Visually Impaired. University of Nebraska at Omaha. ProQuest 1696286801.
37. ^ Cohen, D. (February 23, 2012). “Brands, maintain a Facebook page, but don’t bother me”.
38. ^
“The Future Of Adolescent Female Cyber-Bullying: Electronic Media’s Effect On Aggressive Female Communication”. Jena Ponsford. Texas State University. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
39. ^ Landau, Elizabeth (February 27, 2013). “When bullying goes high-tech”.
CNN. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
40. ^ Bailenson, J. N.; Blascovich, J.; Beall, A. C.; Loomis, J. M. (2001). “Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments” (PDF). Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.
10 (6): 583–598. doi:10.1162/105474601753272844. S2CID 15484007.
41. ^ Yee, Nick; et al. (2007). “Unbearable Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social Norms in Online Virtual Environments”. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 10 (1):
115–121. CiteSeerX doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9984. PMID 17305457. S2CID 6647242.
42. ^ Rios-Martinez, J., Spalanzani, A. & Laugier, C. (2015). “From Proxemics Theory to Socially-Aware Navigation: A Survey”. International Journal of Social
Robotics. 7 (2): 137–153. doi:10.1007/s12369-014-0251-1. S2CID 255573990.
43. ^ Pakpoom Patompak, Sungmoon Jeong, Itthisek Nilkhamhang & Nak Young Chong (2020). “Learning Proxemics for Personalized Human–Robot Social Interaction”. International
Journal of Social Robotics. 12: 267–280. doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00560-9. S2CID 255584502.
44. ^ Camara, F and Fox, C. (2021). “Space invaders: Pedestrian proxemic utility functions and trust zones for autonomous vehicle interactions”. International
Journal of Social Robotics. 13 (8): 1929–1949. doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00717-x. S2CID 230640683.
45. ^ Mehta, Vikas (2020). “The new proxemics: COVID-19, social distancing, and sociable space”. Journal of Urban Design. 26 (6): 669–674. doi:10.1080/13574809.2020.1785283.
S2CID 225096639.
46. ^ “Pandemic Proxemics: Is Six Feet Enough?”. Psychology Today. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
Photo credit:’]