Proxemics
...tance, feel that Americans maintain a greater distance during conversations than is normal in Latin America. North Americans, on the other hand, feel that Latins are too ‘pushy’ because they converse at distances which are thought to be too close in the United States” (Watson, 16). The formality and setting of a relationship are also aspects that affect desired interpersonal distance. Employees will stand farther away from their boss than they do other employees, even if they have a personal relationship with their boss outside of the office (Freedman, 72). Hall also introduced a three level organizing model for the classification of proxemic behavior. The first of these levels, the infraculture, is concerned with the spatial behavior that is both cultural and biological (Watson, 34). The ability to perceive space through the senses is categorized in the precultural level. This level of classification has been divided into two parts: distance receptors, the eyes, ears and nose, and immediate receptors, the skin and muscles (Watson, 36). The third level of classification in Hall’s model is the microcultural level. This level deals with the effects of culture on the structuring of space (Watson, 39). Using Hall’s work as a basis, other researches have furthered his study of proxemics. “In his writings Hall has provided a useful and insightful framework in which to view proxemic behavior. He has isolated the elements which for the system of proxemic behavior and has provided a method for their notation. His work serves as a guide for empirical study and provides a background for the interpretation of these data” (Watson, 17). O. Michael Watson notes, “Actual distance is not the only dimension which works to give a feeling of closeness or distance” (16). Watson credits eye contact, touching, voice loudness, olfaction and detection of body heat as factors that also impact feelings of closeness or distance. In his book, Proxemic Behavior: A Cross Cultural Study, Watson focused on how men behaved in small amounts of space in face-to-face interactions with other men. The purpose of his research was: “to observe and quantify a large cross-cultural range of proxemic behavior; to test the pertinence of the operationally defined categories used in the observations; to gain insight into the learning and meaning of proxemic behavior; and, finally, to gain an understanding of how the system of proxemic behavior operates” (Watson, 114) Watson performed his study using a sample of 110 foreign students and 16 American students from the University of Colorado. Watson observed and recorded the proxemic behavior and interactions of pairs of foreign subjects from the same country in a controlled laboratory setting. The foreign students were also asked to complete a questionnaire concerning their demographic and experiential information and interviewed by Watson at the conclusion of his observations. From his observations Watson concluded that proxemic behavior differs between cultures. “Quantification of proxemic behavior suggested that the sample was divided into two groups, a ‘contact’ type and a ‘non-contact’ type, as has been suggested by Hall” (Watson, 115). The contact group consisted of subjects who faced one another directly, interacted in closer proximity to one another, touched one another, used direct eye contact, and spoke in louder voices. Watson classified Arabs, Latin Americans, and Southern Europeans as into the ‘contact’ group. The ‘non-contact’ group included Asians, Indians, Pakistanis, and Northern Europeans (Watson, 115). Watson suggests that: “This research has lent support to Hall’s notion that proxemic behavior is largely outside of a person’s awareness, and thus very little pertinent information of a person’s own proxemic system can be uncovered by direct questioning. Controlled observation appears to be a strategy with greater potential” (Watson, 115). Robert Kleck and his associates performed another experiment to test the effects of stigma on interaction distance. For Kleck’s research, the behavior of college students were observed in a series of different interactions with individuals they were told suffered from different handicaps. When the students were asked to interact with a person described as an epileptic it was observed that the students sat further from the epileptic than they did when observed in...