All
 
|
 
 


Approaches and Methods for Studying Human Proxemic Behavior: An Analytical Review [Podkhody i metody v izuchenii proksemicheskogo povedeniia cheloveka: analiticheskii obzor]
 
PIIS086954150017940-4-1
DOI10.31857/S086954150017940-4
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Julia Fedenok 
Affiliation: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Valentina N. Burkova
Affiliation: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: 32-a Leninsky prospekt, Moscow, 119991, Russia
Journal nameEtnograficheskoe obozrenie
Edition№6
Pages167-190
Abstract

Human spatial behavior is the basis of social communication at the individual, group, and intergroup levels. Research in the field of human proxemics began as early as in the 1960s. In the 1970s, there was a scientific boom in the study of spatial behavior in humans. Methods for studying interpersonal distance were divided into three types: projective methods, laboratory methods, and field observations. By the present moment, there have been accumulated a large quantity of studies utilizing all three approaches. This analytical review examines the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of each, taking into consideration samples of different sex, age, and ethnicity. We argue that, for most reliable results, it is still necessary to evaluate the merits and limitations of each of the approaches in order to arrive at the most optimal scientific compromise.

Keywordsproxemic, spatial behavior, interpersonal distance, individual distance, interpersonal communication, nonverbal communication, human ethology
AcknowledgmentThis research was supported by the following institutions and grants: Russian Foundation for Basic Research, https://doi.org/10.13039/501100002261 [19-09-00461]
Publication date23.12.2021
Number of characters40479
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной
1 Пространственное поведение человека является базисом социального общения, а социальное общение, в свою очередь, происходит через пространственные взаимодействия (Altman, Chemers 1980; Hall 1963, 1974). Люди всегда стремятся к общению на комфортном для них расстоянии – не слишком далеко и не слишком близко к другому человеку (Hechta et al. 2019). Однако представления о таком комфортном расстоянии существенно различаются на индивидуальном уровне и зависят от множества факторов. Индивидуальная дистанция – это среднее минимальное расстояние, на которое человек подпускает к себе иного человека. Пространственная близость индивида напрямую связана с тем, как он относится к другим людям и насколько остро ощущает близость с ними. Это расстояние (своего рода абстракция) определяет пространство, которое окружает каждого человека (Hall 1966; Madanipour 2003; Sommer 1969), и позволяет регулировать взаимодействие с другими людьми (Hall 1959). Исследователи описывают его как трехмерную модель: раковину, пузырь или ауру (Hall 1966; Sommer 1969).
2 Основоположником исследования различий в пространственном поведении отдельных людей и влияния ситуации на него является американский антрополог Э.Т. Холл. Именно он ввел термин “проксемика” (лат. proximus – ближайший; англ. proximity – близость) и использовал его в описании пространственных взаимодействий, характерных для индивидуальной коммуникации в различных культурах или в рамках одной культуры, но в разных типах социальных ситуаций (Hall 1959, 1963, 1966). “Проксемика” означает “изучение личного и общественного пространства, восприятия его человеком и того, каким образом человек бессознательно структурирует свое микропространство, поддерживая дистанцию с другим человеком в процессе повседневных взаимодействий” (Hall 1963: 1003).
3 Исследования Э.Т. Холла показали, что в каждой культуре и субкультуре есть скрытые проксемические нормы, которых придерживаются коммуниканты (Hall 1966). Выявленные культурные различия в пространственном поведении людей позволили исследователю разделить культуры на два типа: контактные (представители которых общаются на более близкой дистанции и используют максимум прикосновений друг к другу) и неконтактные (представители которых предпочитают дальние дистанции с минимумом прикосновений друг к другу) (Hall 1966).
4 Изучая то, как в зависимости от ситуации взаимодействуют люди, Э.Т. Холл разделил личное пространство на четыре типа: 1) интимная дистанция (0–46 см) – очень близкие физические контакты между супругами, родителями и детьми и др.; 2) личная дистанция (46–122 см) – контакты между дальними родственниками, близкими друзьями, знакомыми; 3) социальная дистанция (122–210 см) – деловые контакты; 4) общественная (публичная) дистанция (более 210 см) – формальные публичные контакты между людьми, например, расстояние между актерами/лекторами и зрителями/слушателями (Hall 1959, 1966). Людям свойственно в социальных ситуациях регулировать близость с другими людьми и контролировать сенсорное воздействие. Так, при слишком короткой дистанции общения закономерно повышаются визуальная, аудиальная, тактильная и ольфакторная стимуляции, а это, в свою очередь, может приводить к негативным реакциям коммуникантов (Буркова, Бутовская 2008; Буркова и др. 2010; Altman 1975; Felipe, Sommer 1966; Mazur 1977; Sawada 2003; Sorokowska et al. 2017). При социальной скученности одной из стратегий уменьшения напряженности и снижения конфликтов является реакция избегания, способствующая нивелированию конфликтов (Бутовская 2004; Worchel, Teddlie 1976).

Number of purchasers: 2, views: 1308

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Abbas, M.Y. 2000. Proxemics in Waiting Areas of Health Centres: A Cross-Cultural Study. PhD. School of Architectural Studies, The University of Sheffield.
2. Aiello, J.R. 1987. Human Spatial Behavior. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology, edited by D. Stokels and I. Altman, 385–504. New York: Wiley.
3. Aliakbari, M., E. Faraji, and P. Pourshakibaee. 2011. Investigation of the Proxemic Behavior of Iranian Professors and University Students: Effects of Gender and Status. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1392–1402. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.021 
4. Altman, I. 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding. Wisconsin: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
5. Altman, I., and M. Chemers. 1980. Culture and Environment. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
6. Argyle, M., and J. Dean. 1965. Eye-Contact, Distance and Affiliation. Sociometry 28: 289–304.
7. Bailenson, J.N., J. Blascovich, A.C. Beall, and J.M. Loomis. 2001. Equilibrium Theory Revisited: Mutual Gaze and Personal Space in Virtual Environments. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10 (6): 583–598.
8. Bailenson, J.N., N. Yee, J. Blascovich, and R.E. Guadagno. 2008. Transformed Social Interaction in Mediated Interpersonal Communication. In Mediated Interpersonal Communication, edited by E. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis, and S. Barnes, 77–99. New York: Routledge.
9. Beaulieu, A.M.J. 2004. Intercultural Study of Personal Space: A Case Study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (4): 794–805.
10. Blanck, P.D., M. Zuckerman, and B.M. DePaulo. 1980. Sibling Resemblances in Nonverbal Skill and Style. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 4 (4): 219–226.
11. Blascovich, J., et al. 2002. Immersive Virtual Environment Technology as a Methodological Tool for Social Psychology. Psychological Inquiry 13 (2): 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1302_01 
12. Borisova, L.V., and M.L. Butovskaya. 2004. Prostranstvennoe povedenie v sovremennoi russkoi gorodskoi kul’ture: vozrastnye i gendernye aspekty [Spatial Behavior in Modern Russian Urban Culture: Age and Gender Aspects]. In Etologiia cheloveka i smezhnye distsipliny. Sovremennye metody issledovaniia [Human Ethology and Complementary Disciplines: Modern Study Methods], edited by M.L. Butovskaya, 13–20. Moscow: IEA RAN.
13. Brill, K. 2008. Human Spatial Behaviour: The Spacing of People, Objects and Animals in Six Cross-Cultural Samples. Journal of Cognition and Culture 8: 245–280.
14. Burkova, V.N. 2020. Khoroshego cheloveka dolzhno byt’ mnogo?: agressiia i ee sviaz’ s razmerami tela [You Can Never Have Enough of a Good Person?: Aggression and Its Correlation to Body Size]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 3: 177–190. https://doi.org/10.31857/S086954150010055-0 
15. Burkova, V.N. 2020. Vzaimosviaz’ samootsenok agressivnogo povedeniia moskovskikh shkol’nikov i obshchikh razmerov tela [The Relationship between Self-Assessments of Aggressive Behavior of Moscow Schoolchildren and Overall Body Size]. Questions of Psychology 66 (4): 70–80.
16. Burkova, V.N. 2020. Issledovanie vzaimosviazi razmerov tela i sotsial’nogo statusa detei i podrostkov v kollektive sverstnikov (na primere russkikh shkol’nikov) [Study of the Relationship between Body Size and Social Status of Children and Adolescents in a Group of Peers (On the Example of Russian Schoolchildren)]. Science for Education Today 10 (6): 74–99. https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2006.05 
17. Burkova, V., and M. Butovskaya. 2008. Personal’noe prostranstvo i agressivnoe povedenie u rossiiskikh podrostkov: etologicheskii analiz [Personal Space and Aggressive Behavior in Russian Adolescents: An Ethological Analysis]. Razvitie lichnosti 3: 119–135.
18. Burkova, V.N., J.N. Fedenok, and M.L. Butovskaya. 2010. Prostranstvennoe povedenie u detei i podrostkov (na primere russkikh i osetin) [Spatial Behavior in Children and Adolescents (The Cases of Russians and Ossetians)]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 3: 77–91.
19. Butovskaya, M.L. 2004. Yazyk tela: priroda i kul’tura (evoliutsionnye i kross-kul’turnye osnovy neverbal’noi kommunikatsii cheloveka) [Body Language: Nature and Culture (Evolutionary and Cross-Cultural Foundations of Human Non-Verbal Communication)]. Moscow: Nauka.
20. Butovskaya, M.L., and V.V. Levashova. 2004. Skorost’ dvizheniia i yazyk tela peshekhodov v usloviiakh sovremennogo goroda: etologicheskii analiz [Speed and Body Language of Pedestrians in a Modern City: Ethological Analysis]. Arkheologiia, etnografiia i antropologiia Evrazii 3 (19): 147–156.
21. Butovskaya, M.L., and Y.M. Plusnin. 1995. Printsipy organizatsii prostranstvennogo povedeniia u cheloveka i vysshikh primatov (sravnitel’nyi analiz) [Principles of Organizing Spatial Behavior in Humans and Great Apes (Comparative Analysis)]. In Sovremennaia antropologiia i genetika i problema ras u cheloveka [Modern Anthropology and Genetics and the Problem of Human Races and Men], edited by I.M. Zolotareva, 91–143. Moscow: IEA RAN.
22. Costa, M. 2010. Interpersonal Distances in Group Walking. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 34 (1): 15–26. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0077-y 
23. Cristani, M., et al. 2011. Towards Computational Proxemics: Inferring Social Relations from Interpersonal Distances. In IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing, edited by R. Bilof, 290–297. Boston: IEEE Press.
24. Delevoye-Turrell, Y., A. Bartolo, and Y. Coello. 2010. Motor Representation and the Perception of Space. In Perception, Action and Consciousness, edited by N. Gangopadhyay, 217–242. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Dewsbury, D. 1981. Povedenie zhivotnykh: sravnitel’nye aspekty [Animal Behavior: Comparative Aspects]. Moscow: Mir.
26. Dosey, M.A., and M. Meisels. 1969. Personal Space and Self-Protection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11 (2): 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027040 
27. Duke, M.P., and S. Nowicki. 1972. Diagramming the Shape of Personal Space: A New Measure and Social-Learning Model for Interpersonal Distance. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 6: 119–132.
28. Edmonson, B., and S.S. Han. 1983. Effects of Socialization Game on Proximity and Prosocial Behavior of Aggressive Mentally Retarded Institutionalized Women. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 87: 435–550.
29. Evans, G.W., and R.B. Howard. 1973. Personal Space. Psychological Bulletin 80: 334–344.
30. Felipe, N.J., and R. Sommer. 1966. Invasions of Personal Space. Social Problems 14 (2): 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1966.14.2.03a00080 
31. Fedenok, J.N. 2011. Prostranstvennoe povedenie detei i podrostkov v polietnichnykh regionakh [Spatial Behavior of Children and Adolescents in Multi-Ethnic Regions]. PhD diss. Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS.
32. Fedenok, J.N. 2012. Kommunikativnoe povedenie russkikh shkol’nikov [Communicative Behavior of Russian Schoolchildren]. Ėtnograficheskoe obozrenie 5: 119–138.
33. Fedenok, J.N., and M.L. Butovskaya. 2008. Prostranstvennoe povedenie detei i podrostkov v polietnichnykh kollektivakh [Spatial Behavior of Children and Adolescents in Polyethnic Groups] In Chelovek v proshlom i nastoiashchem: povedenie i morfologiia. Materialy IV letnei shkoly “Povedenie cheloveka v proshlom i nastoiashchem” [Human in the Past and Present: Behavior and Morphology: Materials of the IV Summer School “Human Behavior in the Past and Present”], edited by М.L. Butovskaya, 166–180. Moscow: IEA RAS.
34. Fedenok, J.N., V.N. Burkova, and M.L. Butovskaya. 2010. Individual’naia distantsiia i ee sviaz’ s nekotorymi morfologicheskimi pokazateliami u moskovskikh podrostkov [Individual Distance and Its Relationship with Some Morphological Parameters in Moscow Adolescents]. In Chelovek: ego biologicheskaia i sotsial’naia istoriia [Human: Biological and Social History], edited by N.A. Dubova, 2: 169–176. Moscow; Odintsovo: OGI.
35. Fedenok, J.N., V.N. Burkova, and M.L. Butovskaya. 2020. Distantsiia obshcheniia s invalidami: nekotorye faktory pri otbore meditsinskogo personala [Distance of Communication with People with Disabilities: Some Factors in the Selection of Medical Personnel]. In Meditsinskie identichnosti [Medical Identities], edited by A.N. Manulov, 69–89. Moscow: RNIMU.
36. Forston, R.F., and C.U. Larson. 1968. The Dynamics of Space: An Experimental Study in Proxemic Behavior Among Latin Americans and North Americans. Journal of Communication 18 (2): 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1968.tb00061.x 
37. Gifford, R. 1982. Projected Interpersonal Distance and Orientation Choices: Personality, Sex, and Social Situation. Social Psychology Quarterly 54 (3): 145–152.
38. Gifford, R., and J. Price. 1979. Personal Space in Nursery School Children. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement 11 (4): 318–326.
39. Hall, E.T. 1959. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday.
40. Hall, E.T. 1963. A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior. American Anthropologist 65 (5): 1003–1026.
41. Hall, E.T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday.
42. Hall, E.T. 1974. Handbook of Proxemics Research. Washington: Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.
43. Hall, J.A. 2001. Status, Gender, and Nonverbal Behavior in Candid and Posed Photographs: A Study of Conversations Between University Employees. Sex Roles 44: 677–692.
44. Hall, J.A., J.D. Carter, and T.G. Horgan. 2000. Gender Differences in Nonverbal Communication of Emotion. In Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives, edited by A.H. Fischer, 97–117. Paris: Cambridge University Press.
45. Hasler, B.S, and D.A. Friedman. 2012. Sociocultural Conventions in Avatar-Mediated Nonverbal Communication: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Virtual Proxemics. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 41 (3): 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2012.728764 
46. Hayduk, L.A. 1978. Personal Space: An Evaluative and Orienting Overview. Psychological Bulletin 85 (1): 117–134.
47. Hayduk, L.A. 1983. Personal Space: Where We Now Stand. Psychological Bulletin 94 (2): 293–335.
48. Hecht, H., R. Welsch, J. Viehofa, and M.R. Longo. 2019. The Shape of Personal Space. Acta Psychologica 193: 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.12.009 
49. Holmes, R.M. 1997. Children’s Use of Social Distance: The Effects of Race and Gender. Child Study Journal 27 (2): 129–144.
50. Høgh-Olesen, H. 2008. Human Spatial Behaviour: The Spacing of People, Objects and Animals in Six Cross-Cultural Samples. Journal of Cognition and Culture 8 (3–4): 245–280. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853708X358173 
51. Hoyt, C.L. 1999. Social Facilitation in Virtual Environments: A New Methodological Tool for Social Psychologists. MA thesis. University of California, Santa Barbara.
52. Iachini, T., Y. Coello, F. Frassinetti, and G. Ruggiero. 2014. Body Space in Social Interactions: A Comparison of Reaching and Comfort Distance in Immersive Virtual Reality. PLoS One 9 (11): e111511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111511 
53. Janda-Dębek, B. 2003. Far or Nearby: The Interaction Distance in Some Social Situations. Wrocław: Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
54. Kaitz, M., Y. Bar-Haim, M. Lehrer, and E. Grossman. 2004. Adult Attachment Style and Interpersonal Distance. Attachment & Human Development 6 (3): 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730412331281520 
55. Kennedy, D.P., J. Glascher, J.M. Tyszka, and R. Adolphs. 2009. Personal Space Regulation by the Human Amygdala. Nature Neuroscience 12: 1226–1227.
56. Kinoe, Y., and N. Mizuno. 2015. Situational Transformation of Personal Space. In Human Interface and the Management of Information: Information and Knowledge in Context, edited by S. Yamamoto, 15–24. Cham: Springer.
57. Kinzel, A.F. 1970. Body-Buffer Zone in Violent Prisoners. American Journal of Psychiatry 127: 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.127.1.59 
58. Kleck, R.E., et al. 1968. Effect of Stigmatizing Conditions on the Use of Personal Space. Psychological Reports 23: 111–118.
59. Knowles, E.S. 1975. Boundaries around Group Interaction Tile Effect of Group Size and Member Status on Boundary Permeability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 26: 527–551.
60. Kuethe, J.L. 1962. Social Schemas. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64: 31–38.
61. Kunz, B.R., et al. 2009. Revisiting the Effect of Quality of Graphics on Distance Judgments in Virtual Environments: A Comparison of Verbal Reports and Blind Walking. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71 (6): 1284–1293.
62. LeDoux, J.E. 2014. Coming to Terms with Fear. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111: 2871–2878.
63. Leontiev, A.A. 2008. Psikhologiia obshcheniia [Psychology of Communication]. Moscow: Smysl.
64. Li, S., and Y.-M. Li. 2007. How Far Is Far Enough? A Measure of Information Privacy in Terms of Interpersonal Distance. Environment and Behavior 39 (3): 317–331.
65. Little, K.B. 1965. Personal Space. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1: 237–247.
66. Loomis, J.M., J.J. Blascovich, and A.C. Beall. 1999. Immersive Virtual Environment Technology as a Basic Research Tool in Psychology. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 31: 557–564. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200735 
67. Love, K.D., and J.R. Aiello. 1980. Using Projective Techniques to Measure Interaction Distance: A Methodological Note. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6 (1): 102–104.
68. Lucas, G.M., J. Gratch, A. King, and L.-P. Morency. 2014. It’s Only a Computer: Virtual Humans Increase Willingness to Disclose. Computers in Human Behavior 37: 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.043 
69. Madanipour, A. 2003. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Psychology Press.
70. Maines, D.R. 1977. Tactile Relationships in the Subway as Affected by Racial, Sexual, and Crowded Seating Situations. Environmental Psychology & Nonverbal Behavior 2 (2): 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01145826 
71. Mazur, A. 1977. Interpersonal Spacing on Public Benches in Contact vs. Noncontact Cultures. Journal of Social Psychology 101: 53–58.
72. Menshikova, G.Y., O.A. Tikhomandritskaya, O.A. Saveleva, and T.V. Popova. 2018. Gender Differences in Interactions with Avatars of Diverse Ethnic Appearances. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art 11 (4): 211–222.
73. Nechamkin, Y., I. Salganik, I. Moday, and A.M. Ponizovsky. 2003. Interpersonal Distance in Schizophrenic Patients: Relationship to Negative Syndrome. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 49 (3): 166–174.
74. Newman, J.P., and C. Mccauley. 1977. Eye Contact with Strangers in City, Suburb, and Small Town. Environment and Behavior 9 (4): 547–558.
75. Niit, T., M. Heidmets, and J. Kruusvall. 1994. Environmental Psychology in Estonia. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 32 (3): 5–40.
76. Nowak, K.L., and C. Rauh. 2008. Choose Your “Buddy Icon” Carefully: The Influence of Avatar Androgyny, Anthropomorphism and Credibility in Online Interactions. Computers in Human Behavior 24 (4): 1473–1493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.005 
77. Ojala, H. 1980. Inimese isikuruum ja seda mõjutavad tegurid. Diplomitöö [Human Personal Space and Factors Influencing It]. Tartu: TRU loogika ja psuhholoogia kateeder.
78. Ozdemir, A. 2008. Shopping Malls: Measuring Interpersonal Distance under Changing Conditions and across Cultures. Field Methods 20 (3): 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08316605 
79. Patterson, O.I., S. Mullens, and J. Romano. 1971. Compensatory Reactions to Spatial Intrusion. Sociometry 7: 114–126.
80. Pazhoohi, F., et al. 2019. The Effect of Height and Shoulder-To-Hip Ratio on Interpersonal Space in Virtual Environment. Psychological Research 83: 1184–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0968-1 
81. Peker, M., R.W. Booth, and A. Eke. 2018. Relationships Among Self‐Construal, Gender, Social Dominance Orientation, and Interpersonal Distance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 48 (9): 494–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12529 
82. Pliusnin, Y.M. 1990. Prostranstvennoe povedenie cheloveka (metody proksemicheskikh issledovanii) [Human Spatial Behavior (Proxemic Research Methods)]. Novosibirsk: IFPR SO RAN.
83. Plyusnin, Y.M., O.A. Bogatyreva, and O.E. Bichenkova. 1993. Prostranstvennoe povedenie i sotsial’nyi status rebenka v gruppe [Spatial Behavior and Social Status of the Child in the Group]. Questions of Psychology 2: 106–116.
84. Price, G.H., and J.M. Dabbs. 1974. Sex, Setting, and Personal Space: Changes as Children Grow Older. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1 (1): 362–363.
85. Prokhorov, Y.E., and I.A. Sternin. 2007. Russkie: kommunikativnoe povedenie [Russians: Communicative Behavior]. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka.
86. Pulver, A., and S. Tammiste. 1983. Investigation of Personal Space with Behavioral and Simulated Measures. In Problems of Perception and Social Interaction, edited by T. Ülikool, 95–105. Tartu: Tartu State University.
87. Reeves, B., and C. Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
88. Remland, M.S., T.S. Jones, and H. Brinkman. 1991. Proxemic and Haptic Behavior in Three European Countries. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 15: 215–232.
89. Roger, D.B., and E.E. Schalekamp. 1976. Body-Buffer Zone and Violence: A Cross-Cultural Study. The Journal of Social Psychology 98 (2): 153–158.
90. Ruotolo, F., et al. 2013. Immersive Virtual Reality and Environmental Noise Assessment: An Innovative Audio-Visual Approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 41: 10–20.
91. Ruse, M. 1976. About the Effect of Age, Sex and Acquaintance on the Interaction Distance of Patients. In Perception and Tartu State University, 59–65. Tartu: Tartu State University.
92. Sawada, Y. 2003. Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Responses to an Intrusion on Personal Space. Japanese Psychological Research 45: 115–121.
93. Scherer, S.E. 1974. Proxemic Behavior of Primary School Children as a Function of Their Socioeconomic Class and Subculture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 800–805.
94. Schienle, A., A. Wabnegger, F. Schöngassner, and V. Leutgeb. 2015. Effects of Personal Space Intrusion in Affective Contexts: An Fmri Investigation with Women Suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 10 (10): 1424–1428. http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv034 
95. Slane, S., R. Petruska, and S. Cheyfitz. 1981. Personal Space Measurement: A Validational Comparison. The Psychological Record 31: 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394730 
96. Slater, M. 2009. Place Illusion and Plausibility Can Lead to Realistic Behaviour in Immersive Virtual Environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 3549–3557.
97. Slater, M., A. Sadagic, M. Usoh, and R. Schroeder. 2000. Small-Group Behavior in a Virtual and Real Environment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 9: 37–51.
98. Sommer, R. 1969. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Desing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
99. Sorokowska, A., et al. 2017. Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 48 (4): 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117698039 
100. Strayer, L., and W. Roberts. 1997. Children’s Personal Distance and Their Empathy: Indices of Interpersonal Closeness. International Journal of Behavior Development 20 (3): 385–403.
101. Sundstrom, E., and I. Altman. 1976. Interpersonal Relationships and Personal Space: Research Review and Theoretical Mode. Human Ecology 4 (1): 47–67.
102. Sztejnberg, A., and T. Jasiński. 2007. Proksemika w komunikacji społecznej [Proxemics in the Human Communication]. Plock: Publishing House.
103. Sztejnberg, A., and T. Jasiński. 2011. Quantity of the Physical Distance Declared by Students in Different Situations. Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports 12: 143–150.
104. Teneggi, C., E. Canzoneri, G. di Pellegrino, and A. Serino. 2013. Social Modulation of Peripersonal Space Boundaries. Current Biology 23: 406–411.
105. Uzzell, D., and N. Horne. 2006. The Influence of Biological Sex, Sexuality and Gender Role on Interpersonal Distance. British Journal of Social Psychology 45 (3): 579–597.
106. Welsch, R., C. von Castell, and H., Hecht. 2019. The Anisotropy of Personal Space. PLoS One 14 (6): e0217587. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.  pone.0217587
107. Welsch, R., C. von Castell, and H. Hecht. 2019. Interpersonal Distance Regulation and Approach-Avoidance Reactions Are Altered in Psychopathy. Clinical Psychological Science 8 (2): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/216770261986933 
108. Willis, F.N., R. Carlson, and D. Reeves. 1979. The Development of Personal Space in Primary School Children. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 3 (4): 195–204.
109. Worchel, S., and C. Teddlie. 1976. The Experience of Crowding: A Two-Factor Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34: 30–40.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up