The effects of physical setting and sex composition on the proxemic behavior of ambulatory and stationary dyads

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of physical setting and sex composition on the proxemic behavior of ambulatory and stationary dyads. Two studies were conducted. The first study examined the effects of interior setting size and sex composition on the interpersonal distancing behavior of ambulatory dyads. The second study investigated the effects of sociopetal/ sociofugal spatial arrangements and sex composition on the interpersonal distancing, orientation, and visual behaviors of dyads engaging in stationary social interactions.

In the first study, the shoulder to shoulder distances of 60 male, 60 female, and 60 mixed sex dyads were unobtrusively observed as the dyads ambulated within either a small (9.5 x 72 feet) or large (19 x 168 feet) hallway. While there were no significant differences in interpersonal distances due to dyadic sex composition, the size of the interior setting did significantly affect interpersonal distancing behavior. Significantly smaller shoulder to shoulder distances were observed in the small hallway (X = 7 inches) than in the large hallway (X = 14 inches). This finding was interesting because, clearly, the small interpersonal distances occurring in the small hallway were not a function of physical necessity. Thus, while this study demonstrated that the physical size of an interior environment can affect proxemic behavior, more research is needed to determine whether the rather small interpersonal distances observed in the small hallway were caused by an intimacy implied by the smaller setting, or whether they were caused by the individuals' reluctance to walk close to walls.

In the second study, the interpersonal distances, shoulder orientations, and visual behaviors of 40 male, 40 female, and 40 mixed sex dyads were unobtrusively observed, at 10 second intervals, as the dyads engaged in social interactions within a campus building foyer (sociofugal space) or within a campus lounge (sociopetal space). The effects of setting on proxemic behavior were pervasive. Interpersonal distances were significantly smaller, orientations were significantly more direct, and the percentages of time spent in facial regard and mutual facial regard were significantly greater in the sociofugal foyer than in the sociopetal lounge. These findings suggest that more immediate behaviors were necessary within a sociofugal space than within a sociopetal space in order to keep the dyads focused within an environment that was pulling them apart.

Dyadic sex composition also affected proxemic behavior. Females looked at their coactors significantly more than males, regardless. of the coactor's sex. Additionally, female dyads adopted significantly closer interpersonal distances than male dyads while male dyads assumed significantly more direct orientations 'than female dyads. So, at least with respect to distancing and orientation behaviors, male and female dyads were achieving comparable levels of proxemic immediacy, but using different modes to do so. There were also significant sex by setting interactions indicating that the direction of sex differences in distancing behavior and orientation behavior were not the same within the sociofugal and sociopetal spaces.

Three corollaries of the Immediacy System were also tested. The data from the study provided significant support for the corollary that closer interpersonal distances should be associated with less direct orientations. However, contrary to the predictions of the theory, greater amounts of looking behavior were associated with smaller interpersonal distances, and greater amounts of looking behavior were associated with more direct orientations. The fact that the data from this field study provided little support for the Immediacy System Theory (which has received considerable support from laboratory investigations) suggests that the dynamics of the proxemic behavior system may not be the same in the laboratory as they are in the field where all proxemic behaviors vary naturally.

Finally, the data from the second study revealed that proxemic behaviors significantly changed over the course of social interactions. Analyses of behaviors at the first, middle, and last coding periods of the interactions revealed that interpersonal distances increased and looking behavior decreased over the course of interactions, while orientations were more direct at the middle of interactions than at the beginning or end of interactions. Hence, these data suggest that past findings on proxemic behavior patterns at the onset of social interactions may not be applicable to proxemic phenomena occurring during the course of interactions.