Abstract
People like to maintain some degree of personal space between themselves and others. This study investigated interpersonal distance negotiations when physical comfort was challenged. Participants were 32 Caucasian males who individually entered a room where a male confederate was seated at a table. In the experimental condition, the confederate's seat and that closest to the confederate were comfortable chairs while the remaining two seats were uncomfortable stools. Participants had to choose between decreased personal space by sitting in a comfortable chair, or increased personal space by sitting on a stool. The control condition consisted of laboratory stools exclusively. Results indicated that participants were willing to compromise personal space in favor of physical comfort. Personal space may be affected by factors that improve physical comfort.
Introduction
Most people in modern societies prioritize secondary needs such as physical comfort once essential needs such as food, water, and shelter have been met (O'Hara & Taylor, 2000). One facet of comfort managed by an individual is the measure of personal space they keep between themselves and other people. Theories explaining why humans maintain these distances refer to the influences of stress (Evans & Howard, 1973), the management of privacy (Scott, 1993), and the strategies of competition (Saegert, 1978). Historically, research has demonstrated patterns of personal space associated with varying environmental situations. Generally, it has been shown that people increase personal space to withdraw or detach themselves from potential threats or stress. Conversely, people decrease their distance given situations of high interest or interaction (Greene, 1976).
Personal space negotiation was the main focus of research conducted by Sommer (1959; 1965; 1969), whereby participants were given printed charts depicting a table surrounded with chairs. The charts were pre-marked to represent occupied or unoccupied seats. Students marked their seat of choice for various hypothetical tasks. The preferred seat for a scenario where participants imagined themselves sharing a study table was the seat offering the most personal space between themselves and another occupied seat. Most often, this was diagonal to an occupied seat (Sommer 1959; 1965; 1969).
Sommers' finding that people opt for more personal space was later supported in another study (Gal, Benedict, & Supinski, 1986). Participants viewed an actual grouping of library study tables, some of which were occupied by confederates. They then rated the available seats as possible choices for themselves. The most favored positions were those offering the most personal space from the confederate.
Past research has not explored the role that physical comfort plays in personal space decisions. Consequently, this study investigated personal space preferences considering the factor of physical comfort. Do people compromise personal space in efforts to improve their physical comfort? The aforementioned research used diagrams and a staged environment to observe interpersonal distance, while the present study used a live setting with the expectation of more authentic responses from participants. It was predicted that despite the comfort of the chairs, participants would choose to maintain their personal space by sitting in chairs furthest away from the confederate. The present study then, explored whether students would opt for comfortable seating close to a confederate, or uncomfortable seating further away.
Methods
Participants
To control for possible gender effects, all male volunteers were selected for this study. Participants were 32 male college undergraduates enrolled in introductory psychology and general education courses. All volunteered in exchange for extra credit. Sixteen participants were randomly assigned to each condition.
Materials
The experiment was conducted in a room 18.60 x 16.00 ft (5.49 x 4.88 m) with a rectangular conference table measuring 3.00 x 8.00 ft (0.91 x 2.44 m) centered in the room. The room had one door with a small window. Two seat types were used in the study: comfortable chairs (cushioned seats, high backs, and padded arm rests) and metal laboratory stools without backs or padding. Seats were positioned in pairs on either side of the table. The control condition used four stools. Comfortable seat types were substituted for both the confederate and adjacent chairs for the experimental condition. Original positioning of seats was maintained by adhering black tape to the floor beneath the back legs of each chair (see Figure 1).
Four word search puzzles, used as a filler task, were placed at each of the four positions on the table. A questionnaire was designed to discern whether the participants noticed a difference in seating type when entering the room. Also included in the questionnaire was an open-ended question asking for the participant's reason for choosing their chair.
Procedure
Participants reported to a classroom near the experimental room. A female experimenter informed participants that the experiment was intended to discover how people respond to tasks in different situations. Participants were also informed that the experiment could take up to 30 minutes, with the expectation that participants would consider length of time in their seating choice. After signing informed consent statements, participants were escorted to the experimental room where a male confederate occupied one of the chairs. The confederate rotated his position clockwise around the table with each trial. Before opening the door for the participant, the experimenter instructed him to take a seat and fill out the word search puzzles on the table. The confederate focused on the word search task, avoiding eye contact or conversation with the participant unless responding briefly to a greeting. After 3 minutes, the experimenter entered the room. While instructing both the confederate and the participant to stop working on the puzzles, the experimenter passed behind the confederate and handed him a manipulation check questionnaire. Without pause, the experimenter continued around the table and handed the participant a questionnaire, then stooped down behind him to adhere brown pieces of tape to the floor behind the back legs of the participant's chair. While exiting the room, the experimenter instructed the confederate and participant to finish the questionnaire, and exit the room when ready. After the participant completed the questionnaire, the experimenter debriefed, thanked and dismissed the participant. The experimenter then recorded participant seat choice and its final distance from the confederate chair as measured by the distance between the brown and black tape.
Results
Two participants, one in each condition, knew the male confederate and their data were dropped from the study.
The manipulation check indicated that of the 15 participants in the experimental condition, 47% reported noticing a difference in seat types before they chose a position for themselves. In the control condition, 13% of participants reported noticing a difference in seat types even though none existed.
It was hypothesized that males would maintain the furthest possible personal space distance regardless of seat choice. Results in the experimental condition opposed expectations, with males choosing seats closer to the confederate (M = 28.50, SD = 10.76) in comparison with those in the control condition (M = 36.50, SD = 1.99), t(28) = 2.83, p < .05. Given a choice, males preferred physical comfort over personal space. In the control condition, 0% sat adjacent to the confederate, while 27% sat across and 73% sat at a diagonal, demonstrating the importance of personal space when seats were of the same type. Further analysis of the manipulation check questionnaire indicated that of the 25 participants who chose seats furthest from the confederate, 84% mentioned personal space as the rationale for their selection.
Discussion
Results from the control condition reaffirmed Sommer's (1959, 1965, 1969) findings that people seek to maximize their personal space by choosing seats furthest from others. The experimental condition of the present study, however, demonstrated altered patterns of seat choice. Analyses of seat selections revealed that males were more likely to sit next to the confederate if it was the only comfortable seat available, than if all seats were the same. It appears that for some males, physical comfort may be more important than personal space as in the shared seating arrangement used in this study.
It was noted that participants who sat adjacent to the confederate did so when the comfortable seat was in position C or D, the seats closest to the door (see Figure 1). Perhaps there was an interaction between physical comfort and proximity of an escape route that influenced participant's decisions to compromise their personal space.
Future studies might investigate seat choice patterns with all female participants, including a female confederate. Additional studies involving both genders may further contribute to understanding the relationships between physical comfort and personal space.
Just under half of the participants in the experimental condition reported that they noticed a difference in seat type when they first walked into the room. It is possible that the stools were less noticeable when the confederate was seated in position C or D for the experimental condition. It is also possible that when the participants saw the uncomfortable stools, they were motivated to seek a more comfortable position, whereas those who saw the comfortable seat were not motivated to look further. This may explain why some participants reported that they did not see the stools immediately.
This study highlights the physical comfort concerns that some people have when choosing a seat around a table shared with others. In situations where males anticipate sitting for an extended period of time, a "comfort factor" may influence their decision. For environmental psychologists designing public areas this factor may be an important consideration. Educators and businesses may maximize participation and productivity with comfortable seating, while the clinical environment may be made more conducive to therapist-client interactions.
References
Evans, E.W., & Howard, R.B. (1973). Personal space. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 334-344.
Gal, C.A., Benedict, J.O., & Supinski, D.M. (1986). Territoriality and the use of library study tables. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 63, 567-574.
Greene, L.R. (1976). Body image boundaries and small group seating arrangements. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 44, 244-249.
O'Hara, M. & Taylor, E. (2000). Humanistic psychology. In Encyclopedia of Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 186-190). Oxford: American Psychological Association.
Saegert, S. (1978). High-density environments: Their personal and social consequences. In A. Baum & Y. M. Epstein (Eds.), Human response to crowding (pp. 257-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scott, A. L. (1993). A beginning theory of personal space boundaries. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 29(2), 12-21.
Sommer, R. (1959). Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 22, 247-260.
Sommer, R. (1965). Further studies in small group ecology. Sociometry, 28, 337-348.
Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Author's Note
We are grateful for the assistance of Dr. Sherri B. Lantinga in critiquing the study. Both authors contributed equally to the experiment.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven J. Runner at 1325 Orville St. SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49507. Electronic mail may be sent to stvrnnr@yahoo.com.
Back to the Journal's Main Page, to the Archive's Main Page.