Abstract
Two studies clarify how distance and orientation affect intimacy in seating arrangements. Previous research had examined only observer-defined intimacy, used questionnaires to represent seating arrangement, or confounded distance and orientation. Study 1, a re-analysis of classic data, indicated that traditional conclusions regarding the joint role of distance and orientation as determinants of intimacy were unwarranted. Study 2 systematically varied distance and orientation in a “live” interaction and examined actor-defined intimacy. Actors' judgments of the intimacy of the seating arrangements were strongly related to distance, but not to orientation. This was true regardless of actors' level of sociability. These findings are discussed in terms of Patterson's (1983) functional approach to nonverbal behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. Eye contact, distance and affiliation.Sociometry, 1965,28, 289–304.
Cook, M. Experiments on orientation and proxemics.Human Relations, 1970,23, 61–67.
Edinger, J. A., & Patterson, M. Nonverbal involvement and social control.Psychological Bulletin, 1983,93, 30–56.
Felipe, N. Interpersonal distance and small group interaction.Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 1966,1, 59–64.
Felipe, N. Connotations of seating arrangements.Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 1967,2, 37–44.
Giesen, M., & McClaren, H. Discussion, distance, and sex: Changes in impressions and attraction during small group interaction.Sociometry, 1976,39, 60–70.
Gifford, R. Projected interpersonal distance and orientation choices: Personality, sex and social situation.Social Psychology Quarterly, 1982,45, 145–152.
Gough, H. G.Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press. 1975.
Grice, G. R. Dependence of empirical laws upon the source of experimental variation.Psychological Bulletin, 1966,66, 488–498.
Patterson, M. A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange.Psychological Review, 1982,89, 231–249.
Patterson, M.Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag. 1983.
Scherer, S. E., & Schiff, M. R. Perceived intimacy, physical distance, and eye contact.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973,36, 835–841.
Scott, J. A. Comfort and seating distance in living rooms: The relationship of interactants and topic of conversation.Environment and Behavior, 1984,16, 35–54.
Sommer, R. Studies in personal space.Sociometry, 1959,22, 247–260.
Sommer, R. The distance for comfortable conversation: A further study.Sociometry, 1962,25, 111–116.
Sommer, R. Intimacy ratings in five countries. Intimacy ratings in five countries.International Journal of Psychology, 1968,3, 109–114.
Sommer, R.Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1969.
Weiss, M., & Keys, C.The influence of proxemic variables on dyadic interaction between peers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association; Chicago, 1975, August.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gifford, R., O'Connor, B. Nonverbal intimacy: Clarifying the role of seating distance and orientation. J Nonverbal Behav 10, 207–214 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987480
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987480