Race and proximity: effects on invading personal space

Experiment conducted by Augustine A. Zavala, Mathew Cooke, and Anwar Nuribi.

The concept of personal spacing is used everyday in our various social interactions. This personal spacing study was conducted to measure the effects of race and proximity in regards to sitting spaces of the individuals across the campus of the University of Texas at Arlington. The two independent variables for the study were race and spacing; the dependent variable was observed as the level of invasiveness perceived from the participant. A scale with measurements from 0-4 was used to determine the scores for the levels of invasiveness. A sample of 24 Caucasian males and 24 Arab males were randomly selected to be the participants for the study from common student areas across the campus. Observations were made by two experimenters as the confederate sat by each participant. A 2x2 factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compute the results. Although differences were found between the means of the two groups, no statistical significance was found.

The concept of personal spacing is used everyday in our various social interactions. It can be described as an imaginary bubble that surrounds us, being larger or smaller depending on each individual and each situation. For example, a person may have a larger “bubble” when they are around strangers and a smaller “bubble” when they are around close friends. In many cases, a person would feel uncomfortable if they’re “bubble” is breached by another individual. “This violation of personal space and the discomfort that it causes works to keep you safe from potential threats such as those who might wish to harm you.” (Gunsch, 2008) Even if the person means no harm, a violation of personal space may be misconstrued as threatening, therefore, leading to an uncomfortable situation. Because of this, it is important to know what spacing situations make people uncomfortable and how to avoid them.

There have been numerous studies conducted on the topic of personal space. One such study examined the effects of status and sex on the invasion of personal space. It measured men and women sitting at a shopping mall and found that women, not men, had shorter latencies of departure when their space was invaded by low status intruders. (Young and Guile, 1987) According to this study, women tend to move away from the personal space invaders faster and more often than men, showing that there are obviously gender differences when it comes to personal space. For the purpose of further study, it is important to take this into consideration and account for the possible confounds of gender. Another study asked college students to estimate the degree of proximity between pairs of seated people. One conclusion drawn from this study suggested that proximity ratings were considered higher for people sitting side by side by side, as opposed to across from each other. (Ciolek and Furnham, 1980) Basically, this means the pairs sitting beside each other were rated as more intrusive, and in each others space, than any other scenario.

 

Race and ethnicity may also play a role in determining personal space barriers. A study by Robert Brown (1973) looked at spacing of Mexican Americans and other white Anglo Americans. They found differences in terms of ethnicity in which the Mexican Americans seemed to have smaller personal space barriers than the Anglo Americans. This contributes to the case that personal spacing distances can be different across cultures. In other words, those of the same ethnic backgrounds may be more comfortable next to each other leading to smaller personal space barriers. Race may be considered as a factor in determining a comfortable personal space, and racial prejudices may fall along these same lines. It is safe to say that since September 11, 2001 individuals of Arabic descent have experienced more discrimination than most other races in the United States. According to Bushman and Bonacci (2004), Arabs are less likely to receive help than individuals of European decent. This goes to show that race is involved in many aspects of life and may very well be involved in determining personal space.

 This personal spacing study was conducted to measure the effects of race and proximity in regards to sitting spaces of the individuals across the campus of the University of Texas at Arlington. It was done to see how male college students would respond to one another in close seating situations. The experiment conducted used two experimenters, one Caucasian and one Arab, who sat next to a participant in order to measure the level of invasiveness. Another experimenter would observe the interaction and record the results. The object was to measure the targets response to the situation and see if they felt their personal space had been violated.

There are two independent variables for the experiment. The first independent variable was actual spacing. This is determined by whether the experimenter sat very close to the participant (one to two feet), or a more respectable distance away (four to six feet). The second independent variable was race. This was determined by whether the experimenter was Arab or Caucasian. Each experimenter sat with participants of the same race and of different race, comparing and measuring their behavior. The dependent variable for the experiment was observed as the level of invasiveness of the participant. The participant was measured on a scale based on how they responded to the situation.

The hypothesis for the experiment was that the participants will show higher levels of intrusiveness the closer the experimenter sits to them. It was also hypothesized that the participants will show lower levels of intrusiveness if the space intruder (experimenter) is of the same race.

Participants

Participants were male students at the University of Texas at Arlington. A sample of 24 Caucasian males and 24 Arab males were randomly selected from common student areas across the campus. The participants were chosen at random by the two observing experimenters to alleviate any possible confounds coming from the confederate choosing his own targets.

Materials

An observation checklist was created to measure the level of response that the target had to sharing space with a stranger. The measurement of invasiveness ranged from 0 – 4, with a 0= no response or acknowledgement, 1= mild acknowledgment, 2= shift away/ aggressive cues/ glaring, 3= get up and leave and 4= angry response, being confronted by target.

Design

The design was a 2x2 factorial measuring responses to proximity (close and far), race (different vs. same) and the interaction between race and space. The two independent variables were race and space with the dependent variable being the observed level of response to sharing the same space.

Procedure

The experimenters would designate a target for the confederate to sit next to based on the space and race. The observations were made, and then the response measurements were added and averaged to compute the final score. The same race close group response was measured by gauging the level of response of the confederate sitting within two feet of the target. After five minutes the confederate would vacate the space and the observations scores were tallied. The same race far group had the confederate sit approximately four to six feet away from the target, record response if any, then repeat the same withdrawal from the area procedure. The procedures for different race followed the same protocol except the targets were of the opposite race than the confederate. The locations where the observations were conducted were the UniversityCenter food court and the common areas on the first and second floors. Also, the study areas between the 2^nd and 5^th floors of the Central Library, the common grounds located in front of the library, University Hall, and the EngineeringBuilding were areas used for observing in this experiment.

Results

To compute the results, a 2x2 factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with two Independent Variables and one Dependent Variable. Although differences were found between the means of the two groups, with the Caucasian experimenter receiving more hostility than the Arabic experimenter, it was not statistically significant. There were no main effects found for either variable; also there were no interaction effects between the groups. Overall, the results did not give us any reason to conclude that our hypothesis, closer proximity to an individual would yield more hostile results, was correct. Furthermore, the second hypothesis, that the Arabic experimenter would be met with more hostility when invading someone’s personal space than the Caucasian experimenter, was also disproved.

An inter-rater reliability was calculated for the experiment due to that fact that two experimenters were recording their observations separately. It was found that there was 97% reliability between the raters showing very little room for variance between the two observer’s scores. This adds to the validity of the experiment despite the fact that no significant results were found.

Discussion

Many variables may have accounted for why the results did not support our hypotheses. The first of such variables was sample size. A sample of 48 UTA students may have been too small to find any statistically significant results. A substantially larger sample size may have increased the chances of finding statistically significant results in the study.

There also may have been confounds that affected the experiment. A majority of the observations were conducted inside buildings, such as the Library and the UniversityCenter food court. Invading a person’s personal space while they are trying to study is almost certain to cause more hostile reactions. In fact, some of the most aggressive cues received were from people who were interrupted while studying complicated material related to Engineering, as some of our highest scores came while observing in the campus EngineeringBuilding.

Experimenter effects could have also played a role. Perhaps innocent, ambiguous cues from the participant were perceived as hostile from the part of the experimenter in order to confirm their hypothesis. Along these same lines, Diffusion of Treatment may have been a factor in determining the results of the experiment. The experimenters for the study made up a diverse ethnic group which tended to attract a lot of attention walking around campus, even when the experiment was not being conducted. If a bystander saw one of the experimenters wander away from the group, invade an individual’s personal space, and come back while the other two experimenters were recording results, he may have reported that these individuals were doing something odd. This could have skewed the experiment and led to unfavorable, insignificant, results.

One interesting outcome worth noting from the experiment is the Caucasian experimenter received more hostile cues than the Arabic experimenter, which goes against the prediction from our hypothesis. A reason for this is perhaps the participants thought that a person of Arabic descent is not born and raised in America, and therefore does not know the unspoken norms of not sitting close to people. Also, perhaps Caucasians in general have a wider personal space than those of an Arabic ethnic group.

Despite not finding statistically significant results, I believe this experiment sets a basis for future studies to be conducted. A larger sample size would allow for more reliability and possibly provide information that would have supported our hypotheses. Also, a more consistent experimenting environment may have produced a better outcome and should be considered for any future studies.

References

Brown, R.L. (1973). Social distance perception as a function of Mexican American and other ethnic identity. Sociology & Social Research , 57(3), 273-287.

Bushman, B.J. & Bonacci, A.M. (2004). You’ve got mail: Using email to examine the effect of prejudiced attitudes on discrimination against Arabs. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 40, 753-759.

Ciolek, T.M. & Furnham, A.F. (1980). Subjective interpersonal distance in a public setting: Effect of situation and ecology. Man-Environment Systems , 10(2), 107-116.

Gunsch, J. (2008). What is Personal Space? Retrieved October 18, 2008, from WiseGeek www.wisegeek.com/what-is-personal-space.htm.

Young, A.E. & Guile, M.N. (1987). Departure latency to invasion of personal space: Effects of status and sex. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 64(3), 700-702.

©2010 Augustine A. Zavala