Read for MS Discussion - Canada included in crowding beh

Personal space: Where we now stand.

Hayduk, Leslie A.

Psychological Bulletin, Vol 94(2), Sep 1983, 293-335. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.293

A review of the "personal space" research reveals that an overwhelming accumulation of evidence weighs against the use of projective measurement strategies, while the interrelations between the various real-life measures remain poorly documented. A "nondichotomous carrier mechanism" reconceptualization is proposed to reorient investigation of the confused pattern of sex effects. Other findings show that once data based on projective measures are discarded, it becomes clear that personal space gradually increases in size between 3–21 yrs of age. The evidence regarding cultural and subcultural differences in personal space is considerably weaker than has frequently been assumed. The present review further reveals that formerly implicit links between personal space and crowding have congealed into specific and fruitful theoretical parallels. The use of attribution, expectancy, and equilibrium theories in interpreting the results of personal space research is discussed, and the causes and consequences of personal space preferences are considered in terms of personality, situational effects, and acquaintanceship. (12 p ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Engebretson, D., & Fullmer, D. (1970). Cross-cultural differences in territoriality: Interaction distances of native Japanese, Hawaii Japanese, and American Caucasians. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 261-269.

Existing normative studies have focused on backcountry encounter norms reported by North Americans. This study compares encounter norms and perceptions of crowding reported by visitors from five different countries of origin—Canada, United States, Japan, Germany, and England—to a frontcountry day‐use recreation area. Data were obtained from random samples of two types of visitors—those riding in “snocoach” tour vehicles (n = 463) and those on the toe of the glacier (n = 375)—at the Columbia Icefield in Jasper National Park, Alberta. Results indicated both similarities and differences among the visitors. In terms of differences, Anglo American respondents were least likely to specify a norm, while the Germans and Japanese were most likely. Among those who reported an encounter norm, however, the average tolerance limit did not vary by country of origin. Few differences were also apparent for perceived crowding levels among the five visitor groups. Irrespective of country of origin, when contacts exceeded the respondent's norm tolerance limit, crowding increased. Similarities and differences between frontcountry and backcountry settings were also evident. For example, consistent with previous research, fewer of our frontcountry respondents reported an encounter norm when compared to backcountry studies. When a norm was specified, the tolerance limits were substantially higher than those observed in backcountry research. The implications of these findings for additional research are discussed.

LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects of nonverbal communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2(1), 71-89.

A review of the literature on cultural aspects of nonverbal communication reveals the existence of both similarities and differences in the display of nonverbal behavior. It is argued that similarities are most manifest when analysis is at the level of the individual and the focus is on the objective, formal properties of the behavior; differences are more likely to become manifest when the analysis is at the level of the relationship between individuals and the focus is on the interpersonal import of the behavior. Material on gaze and eye contact, body motion and gesture, interpersonal distance and touch, facial expression, and paralanguage is surveyed and organized into three primary sections. The sections reflect the major functions nonverbal behavior is presumed to perform: (1) the sending of emotional states; (2) the conveying of interpersonal attitudes, particularly intimacy and status; and (3) the management of conversation. Implications are drawn concerning potential miscommunication in intercultural encounters.

Inferential ratings can be valuable in that they

capture complex patterns of behavior in an overall

interpretation (provided that interobserver reliability

is adequate). It is also possible to ask how descriptive

behaviors combine to create a global impression. For

example, speaking in a loud voice, touching the other

person, and engaging in relatively less gazing at the

partner while listening (compared to while speaking)

 

all contribute to the inference of dominance. When

investigators wish to establish the validity of inferences

about nonverbal cues, they must establish a criterion

for deciding what the cues mean. Because nonverbal

cues are often emitted outside of the encoder’s con-

scious awareness, one often cannot rely on the en-

coder’s self-report as a criterion; moreover, in many

research settings (e.g., in public), it is not possible to

ask encoders about the meanings of their behaviors. A

common alternative is the use of the consensus of

observers as the criterion; for example, if observers

agree that an expression looks sad, then ‘sadness’

becomes the operational definition of the expression’s

meaning. Another method is to identify the meaning

of expressions on the basis of situational context; for

example, the facial expression of a person who is

confronted with a dish of rotting meat would be

assumed to reflect ‘disgust.’

As stated earlier, nonverbal cues often do not have

clear meaning in isolation from other cues and

information about the circumstances.


A given nonverbal behavior may have similar

meanings in many places (e.g., smile means happiness,

scowl means threat), but the degree to which that

behavior is emitted may vary across cultures. The term

display rules is used to describe local norms for when,

and to what extent, and by whom, different nonverbal

behaviors are to be used (Ekman 1982). Often ob-

served is the difference between contact and non-

contact cultures, those that encourage physical and

sensory involvement and those that do not (E. T. Hall

1966). An example would be reduced frequency of

interpersonal touch and greater interpersonal dis-

tances in Northern European vs. Mediterranean,

Middle Eastern, or Latin American countries. Ges-

tural emblems, mentioned earlier, which often have

meanings associated with sex or insult, show marked

cultural differences in meaning, producing many

opportunities for embarrassment between communi-

cators from different cultures. Differences in emitted

behavior and in communication accuracy have

also been documented with respect to mental illness,

pain and physical illness, and age.