Personal space, an idea first introduced by German-born Swedish psychologist David Katz in 1937, is commonly described as the “emotionally charged bubble of space that envelops each person” or as the area surrounding a person that they perceive as their own psychologically. Most people value their personal space and feel uneasy, angry, or anxious when someone violates it. Nevertheless, studies suggest that the personal space bubble may not have a circular shape but instead be elliptical, permitting closer proximity from the side rather than from the front or back.
The four stages in a person’s personal space:
This is the Proxemics Theory, which was researched by Edward T Hall in 1959. Hall describes a person’s personal space as having four layers.
Intimate distance refers to actions such as embracing, touching, or whispering. The close phase of intimate distance is less than 6 inches (15 cm), while the far phase ranges from 6 to 18 inches (15 to 46 cm). The closest distance is typically reserved for individuals in an intimate relationship but can also be applicable when physical contact is allowed by social norms, such as during a wrestling match. Edward Hall differentiates between near situations involving body contact and far distances that involve being very close without touching, like whispering. However, this differentiation may not be completely accurate as the occurrence of contact depends on various factors including the social and physical context.
Personal distance for interactions among good friends or family members:
For close phase – 1.5 to 2.5 feet (46 to 76 cm)
For far phase – 2.5 to 4 feet (76 to 120 cm)
This zone is typically reserved for good friends or intimate partners in a social setting. The near aspect is usually used by couples or very close friends, while the far phase is commonly used by acquaintances or simple friends.
Social distancing guidelines suggest that interactions with acquaintances should adhere to different distances. The close phase entails a range of 4 to 7 feet (1.2 to 2.1 m), whereas the far phase spans from 7 to 12 feet (2.1 to 3.7 m). This differentiation plays a crucial role in determining appropriate interaction protocols for individuals who are not well-acquainted, as well as for conducting business transactions.
Introductions or informal business interactions are best suited for the close distance, while formal business processes align better with the far phase.
In public speaking, the concept of public distance is divided into two phases: the close phase (12 to 25 feet or 3.7 to 7.6 m) and the far phase (distances greater than 25 feet or 7.6 m). The near phase within public distance refers to the space between a speaker and an audience, while the far phase pertains to the space separating a prominent public figure from the general public.
When an individual enters our personal space, they are intruding into our bubble, which aids in comprehending this concept.
Invading Personal Space
When someone encroaches on another’s personal space, it can trigger feelings of anxiety, discomfort, unease, insecurity, and annoyance. This is because the presence of someone standing too close raises questions about their intentions. The term “invasion” is commonly used to describe such actions when the intruder has not earned their place in one of the four layers. The act of invading personal space activates various psychological and physical effects that alter people’s behavior, such as heightened self-awareness and restricted movements and gestures.
● Signs of discomfort or unease include reduced eye contact, looking away from the person, stepping back, assuming a defensive posture (like crossed arms, fewer smiles, frowning, and tense body language), and stopping the conversation completely.
● Several factors affect personal space.
● In terms of gender, when men interact with other men, they require more interpersonal distance. Men are naturally territorial and aggressive which leads them to maintain greater distance from other men. However, when interacting with women, men prefer being slightly closer. As a result, when women interact with each other, they need slightly less space compared to two men—this was observed by Gifford in 1987. Women also generally excel in social skills and perceiving social cues and emotional communication better than men do. Therefore, it is natural for women to feel more comfortable being physically closer to one another than men do. However, comfort levels may also depend on factors such as the specific situation at hand and dynamics within relationships or age groups.
The variation in invasion of personal space can be attributed to different factors, with culture being the most significant one. Hall (1959) emphasized the significance of cultural differences and observed that while all cultures use personal space for communication, the size of the space within categories varies across cultures. Hall also pointed out that inter-cultural differences arise from the interpretation of invasions of personal space as aggressive behavior. For instance, ‘distant’ cultures such as northern Europe, the US, and many other western cultures tend to maintain more personal space and engage in less physical contact compared to more ‘warm’ cultures. Asian cultures are characterized by their accommodating and accepting attitudes towards personal space, which can be attributed to crowded living conditions. On the other hand, cultures like those in southern Europe, the Middle East, and South America are considered to be inherently ‘warm,’ where touch and close proximity are welcomed and socially accepted.
Another factor influencing personal space is age. Some evidence suggests that personal space increases as individuals grow older (Hayduk, 1983). Children are generally comfortable with close physical proximity, but this changes as they become more aware of adult sexuality. Gender differences also tend to manifest during this period.
The size and demand of personal space are greatly influenced by status. Much like the alpha male in a pack, higher status individuals are entitled to more space (it’s no surprise that first class seats are larger and provide more space per person!). Status also dictates the size of territory needed. Similar to how ancient kings owned massive palaces not because they required 20 bedrooms and an Olympic swimming pool, but to showcase their power and influence. Nowadays, the mansions of the wealthy and famous serve as equivalent displays of their wealth and luxurious lifestyle.
Gifford (1982) suggests that personality differences can impact the preference for personal space, but it is crucial to consider the situational dependence of traits. Extraverted and gregarious individuals typically prefer smaller personal space, while cold and quarrelsome individuals tend to require a larger interpersonal distance.
The personal space needed by individuals can vary depending on whether they live in urban or rural areas. In regions with low population density, people generally have more space compared to densely populated areas. Those living in the countryside are used to wide and moderately populated spaces, while city dwellers are more familiar with crowded environments. As a result, city dwellers typically have a smaller personal space than rural residents due to their accustomed density.
One way to differentiate between individuals from rural and urban areas is by observing how far they extend their arm for a handshake. City dwellers usually maintain an 18-inch bubble, allowing their hands to meet in neutral territory. On the other hand, individuals raised in small-population towns have a personal space bubble that extends up to a meter. When shaking hands, rural residents tend to stand firmly with their feet planted and lean forward, whereas urban residents will step forward to greet you.
People from remote areas may require an even larger personal space of up to 6 meters. They prefer waving instead of handshakes.
Case Studies
Study 1 – Felipe & Sommer 1966
Aim- The objective of this study was to investigate the impacts of invading personal space.
Method- The research was conducted in a public library, specifically targeting individuals with similar cultural backgrounds who were sitting alone. These individuals were divided into two groups to assess the effects: 1) Participants in which the confederate approached, sat in the adjacent chair, and moved the chair closer to them. 2) Participants in which the confederate approached and sat in the chair next-but-one.
Results- When an individual came and occupied the chair adjacent to them while moving it closer, approximately 70% of the solitary participants left within half-an-hour. However, when an individual chose to sit in the next-but-one chair, only about 13% of the solitary participants left within half-an-hour.
Conclusion- The results showed that people perceived this invasion of personal space as disruptive. Additionally, researchers observed that those whose personal space was invaded responded by relocating their chair, creating ‘barriers’ such as books, and changing their body position in an attempt to distance themselves.
Evaluation of this study:
The study’s strength lies in its high ecological validity as it was conducted in a public place. However, its weakness is that it employed participants from a similar background, thereby limiting its applicability to only those individuals. Therefore, the study cannot be generalized.
Case Study 2- Sommer 1969
Aim- The objective of the study was to investigate the variations in personal space usage among different cultures.
Method- Researchers observed conversations between Arab and white English individuals.
Results- The findings indicated that Arab people felt comfortable conversing within a distance of less than 1 m, whereas white English individuals preferred a range of 1 m to 1.5 m.
Conclusion- Hence, these results suggest that personal space comfort levels differ across cultures.
Evaluation of this study:
Strength – This study examines the impact of culture on personal space, enhancing understanding of the diverse tolerance levels across cultures and promoting cultural awareness for travelers.
Weakness – However, since the study was conducted a while back, there have been significant societal changes and increased acceptance of new cultural norms. Consequently, the accuracy and relevance of the findings may have evolved over time. To address these concerns and provide updated insights, conducting a new experiment is advised.
Some examples of invading personal space include:
When a teacher is needed for help at school or in class, inviting them into a student’s personal space maintains a professional relationship. In instances where kids are caught fighting and stopped, some like to taunt the other party by reaching out their hand just short of making contact or even sticking their palm in front of their face, saying “I don’t touch you.” This maneuver is essentially an invitation for a fight without taking responsibility for instigating it because it’s practically impossible to ignore this kind of provocation. When meeting your favorite movie star, you willingly embrace their presence and may even allow them to touch you, despite being almost complete strangers. However, the reverse is not appropriate; getting too close to the star without explicit consent would be highly inappropriate. While working, it’s likely that you maintain a certain distance from your boss (the same boss mentioned previously). But on a fishing trip together, some social boundaries are relaxed, and you feel more comfortable being in closer proximity. Nevertheless, once you return to work, you will once again uphold the appropriate personal space between you and your boss.
