THE EFFECTS OF SEX AND ANXIETY V ,7
IN THE INVASION OF PERSONAL SPACE ‘1

Dissertation m the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ALIDA DIANE QUICK
197-5

tvrmsmW‘v" ‘ “

IIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIII/IIIIIIII/III”, 3‘3 . u gg J’

  
 
 

I i" t 1' State
0661 “I" “353 3“

This is to eértify that the

- thesis entitled

THE EFFECTS OF SEX AND ANXIETY
IN THE INVASION OF
PERSONAL SPACE

presented by

Alida Diane Quick

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Psychology _

    

7%. /

hiafinrprofeuun:

Date 2‘21‘75

0-7639

    
     
   
 

HUAG & SlIIIS' I

300K BINDERY INC.
LIBRARY emosns
SPIIIC'OIT IICIIHI ‘

 

 

 

 

QQTU 1 1 ZQQI
4.: I

 

I“ "b
0\ ABSTRACT
’I// THE EFFECTS OF SEX AND ANXIETY
C} IN THE INVASION OF
'\ PERSONAL SPACE

Q By

Alida Diane Quick

The present study was part of a series of studies
which sought to investigate sex differences in personal
space invasion by correcting certain methodological flaws
noted in previous research. The initial studies in this
series replicated an unexpected finding--female invaders
evoked more invadee threat than did male invaders (Quick
and Crano, 1973).

The present investigation primarily was designed to
test the proposition that the replicated finding was caused
by higher anxiety levels in female invaders than in males.
The study also attempted to determine the relationships among
several measures of invadee threat, and to explore the effects
of personality differences in invaders and invadees.

Generally, the manipulations failed to produce the
expected effects. Although, as predicted, female invaders
were more anxious than males--contrary to prediction--more

anxious invaders did not evoke more invadee threat than less

Alida Diane Quick

anxious invaders. Moreover, the original finding was not
replicated since female invaders did not evoke more invadee
threat in the absence of systematic variations in invader
anxiety. In addition, the results failed to show a strong
relationship among the dependent measures of invadee threat.
The personality measures also were generally unrelated to
invadee threat or invader anxiety.

In light of the fact that the initial studies were
conducted in the field while the present investigation was
conducted in a lab, it was susPected that various situational
factors may have obscured the expected effects. It was
recommended that the hypotheses be retested via field experi-
ments. Further, since the dependent measures were not highly
related it was suggested that a multivariate approach is
mandatory, and that future research should include more

stringent investigations of the various measurement procedures.

Dissertation Committee:

William D. Crano, Chairman
Lawrence A. Messé, Acting Chairman
Jeanne E. Gullahorn

Eugene H. Jacobson

Gary E. Stollak

THE EFFECTS OF SEX AND ANXIETY
IN THE INVASION OF

PERSONAL SPACE

BY

Alida Diane Quick

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1975

To Michael

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Bill Crano, my committee chairman,
advisor, and friend, who has provided constant encouragement
and intellectual stimulation during my entire graduate career.
I am also grateful to Dr. Larry Messé, who so generously took
over the responsibilities of committee chairman in Dr. Crano's
absence. Thanks are also due to Drs. Eugene Jacobson, Jeanne
Gullahorn, and Gary Stollak for their participation as com-
mittee members. I also wish to thank Freida Brown, Kenneth
Bush, Charlene Callahan, Adolph Cwik, and Michael Byrd who in
various ways made essential contributions to the study.
Finally, I offer my deepest gratitude to my parents, who have

supported and encouraged me from the very beginning.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES O 0 I O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 Vi

Chapter
I 0 IN TBQD,UCTION . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1
Personal Space and Sex . . . . . . . . . . 4
Recent Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Rationale and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 14

II 0 METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 17

’i—

\ ‘,__

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Design and Operations . . . . . . . . . . l7
Dependent Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Experimental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

III. R-ESULTS‘ O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 25

Invader Sex and Invader Anxiety . . . . . 25
Invader Anxiety and Invader Threat . . . . 26
Relationships Among Threat Measures . . . 28
Personality Correlates . . . . . . . . . . 29

IV. DISCUS$;ON O O O O O O O O C O O O I O O O O 32
Effects of Invader Sex and Invader
Anxiety on Invadee Threat . . . . . . . . 32
Correlational Findings . . . . . . . . . . 36

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 39

 

.._.,

Appendix A: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

A-State Scales . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix B: Observer Rating Form and

Scoring Procedures . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix C: Adjective Checklist . . . . . . . . . 46

iv

Appendix D:
Appendix E:

REFERENCES

Page

Internal-External Scale . . . . . . . 53
Mean Invadee Threat as a

Function of Invader Sex, Invadee

Sex, and Invader Anxiety . . . . . . 56

58

Table
1.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of Multivariate Analysis
of Variance of Invader Anxiety . . . .

Mean Invader Anxiety as a Function
of Invader Sex . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Invadee Anxiety as a Function
of Invadee Sex . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Multivariate Analysis of
Variance of Invadee Threat
(Self-Rated Invader Anxiety) . . . . ,

Summary of Multivariate Analysis of
Variance of Invadee Threat
(Observer-Rated Invader Anxiety) . . .

Correlations Between Threat Measures .

0

Personality Correlates of Invader Anxiety.

Personality Correlates of Invadee Threat .

Indicative and Contraindicative Adjectives

for ACL Scales of Affiliation (Aff),
Autonomy (Aut), and Aggression (Agg) .

Mean Invadee Threat As A Function of

Invader Sex, Invadee Sex, and Invader
AnXiety O O O 0 fl 0 O O O I 0 0 O D 0

vi

Page

25

26

26

27

28

29

30

30

50

56

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In recent years academicians from diverse fields
have become intensely interested in the role of space in
interpersonal interaction. A crucial problem has involved
the determination of factors which mediate the degree of
discomfort aroused by extreme interpersonal proximity.

Much of the resulting research has deveIOped around
the concept of personal space (PS). While PS has been
variously defined, it is most often used to describe a move-
able territory immediately surrounding a person's body in
which interaction is usually prohibited (Sommer, 1969).

When intrusion into this zone occurs the victim experiences
considerable distress which is directly observable in the
display of defensive and avoidance behaviors (Felipe &
Sommer, 1966; McBride, King, & James, 1965; Sommer, 1969).

As one would expect, the boundaries of P8 are not
stationary. Rather P8 is influenced by a number of factors.
More specifically, an increasing body of research (cf., Evans
& Howard, 1973; Lett, Clark, & Altman, 1969; Patterson, 1968)

suggests that PS expands and contracts in compliance with

culture, personality, situational factors, and certain demo-
graphic variables.

PS research has generally followed one of two basic
approaches. One approach seeks to quantify interpersonal
distance as a function of selected stimulus characteristics;
the other measures behavioral, physiological, or cognitive
reactions as a function of interpersonal distance. More
simply stated, one approach examines PS as an independent
variable, while the other examines PS as a dependent variable.

The former approach employs both nonexperimental
observational techniques and experimental procedures. Expe-
riments usually entail presenting subjects with various human
stimulus configurations, and measuring the distance a subject
assumes in relation to the stimulus or the distance a subject
allows the stimulus to assume. A criterion of discomfort may
be included. The Subject Movement Index, for example, re-
quires that a subject approach a stimulus person to some
critical distance. The critical distance is most often a
desired distance or a distance beyond which the subject would
experience discomfort.

Nonlive experimental techniques have also been used.
The Pederson (1972) measure, for example, presents a figure,
representing the subject, with radiating lines emanating from
it. The subject is required to indicate the point on each

line which corresponds to the distance beyond which he or she

would feel uncomfortable if approached by another stimulus
figure. Proponents for nonlive measures (e.g., Duke &
Nowicki, 1972) have argued that this type of method allows
greater psychometric accuracy than live measures. The sacri-
fice in terms of external validity creates considerable
suspicion however.

The independent variable approach requires experi-
mental control of interaction distance. Typically, a stimulus
person approaches a subject at various distances. The sub-
ject's behavioral or physiological reaction to the stimulus
is measured. Usually at least one of the distances is in
extreme proximity to the subject, and is an assumed invasion
of his or her PS.

The invasion1 approach has been underexploited.

There are, for example, few invasion studies which involve a
distance manipulation in combination with the manipulation of
other relevant variables. This is unfortunate because the
invasion technique is particularly adaptable to unobtrusive
field experimentation. Invasion research has been avoided
for several reasons. The most important reason is probably
the difficulty involved in measuring responses. Further,

the choice of a particular reSponse is more or less arbitrary.

 

1The term invasion is widely used in proxemic research
to describe those interactions in which close physical distance
is normatively inappropriate. It must be acknowledged that
close proximity is often appropriate and in fact occurs in
everyday interactions without arousing discomfort.

There is consequently a great deal of variability across

studies.

Personal Space and Sex

 

One of the most widely recognized mediators of PS
is sex. The most consistent findings are that females have
a smaller PS than males, and female pairs have a smaller PS
than male pairs (Horowitz, Duff, & Stratton, 1964; Leibman,
1970; Mehrabian & Diamond, 1971; Pelligrini & Empey, 1970;
Willis, 1966). That is, females are more tolerant of extreme
proximity with other females than males with other males.

At a more general level, inconsistent results have been
obtained. Several studies (McBride, King, & James, 1965;
Campbell, Kruskal, & Wallace, 1966) have found that same sex
pairs have a smaller PS than opposite'sex pairs. Other studies
have found that heterogeneous pairs have a smaller PS (Hartnett,
Bailey, & Gibson, 1970; Kuethe & Weingartner, 1964). A few
studies have found no sex differences at all (McDowell, 1972;
.Patterson, Mullens, & Romano, 1971).

Much of the research on this issue has suffered from
at least one methodological problem whose explication may
render existing interpretations less contradictory. A general
problem is that most studies purporting to investigate P8
are not measuring the same phenomenon. The most popular type

of study has involved the investigation of preferred or

comfortable interaction distance. This is exactly what PS
(as here defined) is not! Further, live measures are in—
creasingly being replaced by nonlive simulations and pro-
jective techniques, which have demonstrated questionable
validity.

Another problem is that most of the experimental
data have been obtained in nondisguised laboratory experi-
ments. In such cases much of the threat normally associated
with extreme proximity probably is attenuated. Aside from
potential reactivity of the laboratory itself, several other
related factors may contribute substantially to the attenua-
tion of threat. One consideration concerns the presence of
counterthreat resources. In some cases experimental procedures
reduce threat. The Subject Movement Index, for example, re-
quires a subject to approach and/or be approached by another
person. In either case the distance attained is completely
controlled by the subject. A more subtle counterthreat re-
source is the experimenter who is usually visible and acces-
sible to subjects in the laboratory situation.

There is also a much neglected methodological problem
which seems especially prevalent in invasion studies. That
is, the tendency to use several same sex invaders or one in-
vader of each sex. In the former case only partial sex data
can be obtained. In the latter case it is impossible to

determine whether subjects are reacting to the sex of the

invader or some other potentially reactive characteristic
of the particular stimulus person which is unrelated to her

or his sex.

Recent Findings

 

With these considerations in mind a series of field
experiments were conducted (Quick & Crano, 1973). These
studies, while sharing the advantages of ready generaliza-
bility, were designed to approximate the control of the
typical laboratory investigation.

The first experiment was viewed initially as little
more than a training exercise. Later deveIOpments, however,
have altered this conception. The procedure called for an
experimental confederate to invade the PS of an individual
seated alone at a four—person table in the university library.
It was hypothesized that more rapid defensive reactions to
the invasion would be more likely to occur when the invader
and the invadee were of the Opposite sex. The distance be-
tween invader and the subject was also expected to affect
reaction time. An invader in very close proximity to a sub-
ject was expected to induce more rapid response than an in-
vader in more distant positions.

In this experimental invasion there were 25 confed-
erate invaders (9 females and 16 males) and 150 subjects (75

of each sex). Each confederate was instructed to invade

three male and three female subjects from each of three
designated seating distances: at the near position the
confederate sat directly adjacent to the subject (a maximum
of one foot separated interactants); at the intermediate
position the confederate sat immediately across from the
subject (three foot separation); at the far position the
confederate sat diagonally across from the subject (five
foot separation).

The time--noted by an uninformed observer--at which
the first defensive reaction (barrier building, turning away
from the invader, flight, etc.) occurred constituted the de-
pendent measure. The effects of the factorial combination of
sex of subject, sex of confederate, and distance were examined
in a three-way factorial analysis of variance. Since the
nested effect of confederates within sex was not significant,
specific confederate by treatment effects were pooled as error.

The analysis disclosed that both distance (E = 6.71,
df = 2/138, 2 < .01) and sex of confederate (E = 4.40, df =
1/138, 2 < .05) had a significant impact on subjects' re-
sponses. As expected, confederates in the most proximal
position elicited the most rapid reSponses. The main effect
for sex of confederate disclosed the rather unexpected finding
that female confederates elicited more rapid defensive reactions

than males.

This unexpected result in combination with a number
of irrelevant, but potentially reactive features of the experi-
ment (e.g., the study was run during the week preceding mid-
term examinations and the subjects might have been extremely
resistant to flight from the library, etc.) stimulated another
investigation. In this second study, a field experiment was
conducted during the summer at the university's outdoor swim-
ming pool where forty-eight unaware subjects (24 of each sex)
were invaded for a maximum of five minutes. The subjects
were individuals sitting alone in the pool area with at least
six feet of unobstructed space surrounding them.

The variables of sex of subject, sex of confederate,
and the presence or absence of an introductory remark on the
part of the confederate were investigated. The conversation
variable was included to determine the effect of minimal verbal
inputs on invasion reactions. It was expected that conversing
invaders would be responded to more positively than non-
conversing invaders. Two invasion approaches were utilized in
order to manipulate the conversation variable. Upon establish-
ing a distance of less than one foot between himself and a
subject, the invader would either initiate conversation with
the subject by saying "Hello" (verbal condition) or remain
silent (nonverbal condition).

There were six confederate invaders (three of each

sex). Each invaded four male and four female subjects (two

of each in the verbal and nonverbal conditions). The sub-
ject's response to the invader constituted the dependent
measure, and was assessed by an unobtrusive observer. If

the subject leaned toward the invader, attempted to initiate
conversation or otherwise indicated some positive gesture
(e.g., smiling, moving closer, etc.), the reaction was scored
as positive. If the subject turned away from the invader,
left the area, or provided some other form of negative verbal
or physical response, it was scored as negative. When the
subject did not emit any response to the invader a neutral
score was recorded.

Since the nested effect of confederates within sex
was not significant, the analysis of subjects' reaction scores
was reduced to a three—way factorial analysis of variance.

The analysis disclosed that the sex of invader (E = 4.35, df =
1/40, E < .05) and the conversation manipulation (E = 15.80,
gf = 1/40, E < .01) significantly influenced subjects' re-
actions to spatial invasion.

As predicted the threat of the invasion was
appreciably attenuated when the invader initiated conversation.
This finding was interesting in that the confederate's initial
conversational gambit was limited to the word "Hello." This
result might be viewed as an example of simple "priming."

That is, once the invader initiated conversation, his actions

were seen as inviting response.

10

The direction of response differences indicated by
the significant sex of invader effect replicated that of the
first experiment: Women invaders in this field situation
evoked a greater degree of negative response than male in-
vaders.

In attempting to come to grips with these replicated
results a normative explanation was suggested. It was pro-
posed that in this society, as presently constituted, it is
counternormative for women to invade the space of others.

This proposition is based on the premise that the invasion
task requires a high degree of aggressiveness which is in
direct Opposition to the more passive role culturally ascribed
to females. It was suggested that “task counternormativeness"
may have induced the obtained results in one of two ways. One
possibility is that the subjects acknowledged the counter-
normative nature of the invasion for female invaders. If such
was the case female invaders might have been viewed as in-
herently more threatening than male invaders.

Another possibility concerns the confederates' own
acknowledgement of the counternormative nature of the task.

If female confederates acknowledged the rather strong prohi-
bitions against their invasive actions, they might have been
appreciably more anxious about their role than male invaders,
for whom the task was perhaps not so reactive. The heightened

anxiety on the part of the female confederates might have been

ll

"contagious,' and hence resulted in the findings which were
obtained.

To test the plausibility of these hypotheses a third
experiment was conducted in which two male and two female
confederates, feigning either high or low anxiety, invaded
the PS of ninety-six naive subjects (48 of each sex). The
procedure called for each confederate to invade twelve same
sex and twelve opposite sex subjects. As in the initial
study the subjects were individuals sitting alone at four-
person tables in the university library.

The independent variables were sex of confederate,
sex of subject, and confederate anxiety. In all conditions
the invader took a position in the chair adjacent to the sub-
ject and assumed a distance of twelve inches or less. In
half of the invasions the confederate pretended to be highly
nervous (e.g., fidgeting in the chair, playing with body and
available objects, etc.); the remaining invasions were to be
undertaken such that there was no detectable display of
anxiety.

It was expected that if females are inherently more
threatening, female invaders would induce more rapid reactions
than male invaders in both anxiety conditions. If, on the
other hand, invasion threat was mediated by differential dis-
plays of anxiety, anxious invaders were expected to be more

threatening than nonanxious invaders.

12

The dependent measure was the time at which subjects
initiated defensive reactions. Reaction scores were recorded
by an unobtrusive observer seated in the immediate area.
Subjects' reaction scores were analyzed in a three-way factorial
analysis of variance. The analysis revealed no significant
main effects or interactions. Female invaders did not induce
more rapid responses than male invaders nor did anxious invaders
elicit more rapid responses than nonanxious invaders.

This nonconfirmation is subject to suspicion on several
grounds. One problem is that the design of the study may have
prevented an adequate analysis of hypothesized relationships.
It would appear that the proposition that females are inher-
ently more threatening than males while invading was adequately
investigated. Across anxiety conditions invaders performed
the same intrusion task. If counternormativeness is strictly
a function of invader gender, accompanying behaviors should
not have affected reactions to female invaders. The noncon-
firmation enhances the probability that this hypothesis is
erroneous.

It is more difficult to accept the nonconfirmation
of the alternate proposition that invader anxiety induces
more rapid threat responses. A major consideration concerns
the operational definition of anxiety. Essentially the
anxious and nonanxious definitions were distinguishable along

only one dimension—-movement. That is, in the anxious

13

condition invaders were instructed to display continuous,
pronounced movements while nonanxious invaders displayed as
little movement as possible. Anxiety, while sometimes con-
taining a movement component, is probably not identified by
movement alone. There is, for example, a large emotional
factor usually displayed facially which was entirely neglected
in the study. Even if invaders did inadvertently exhibit
appropriate emotional cues subjects were not likely to have
seen them because in this study (unlike studies 1 and 2) eye
contact-~and consequently face contact--was prohibited.

Another consideration is that the study was designed
so that each invader was aware of and indeed performed in both
anxiety conditions. It was clearly obvious that contrasting
behaviors were sought, and it is conceivable that invaders
exaggerated this obvious contrast in an attempt to obtain de-
sirable results. Invaders may have exhibited what amounts to
a hyperactive state in the high anxiety condition and a para-
lyzed state in the low anxiety condition. Both extremes may
have been equally distressing to subjects.

Several other potential problems also have been con-
sidered. Overall, it would appear that the most crucial
problems focus on the anxiety simulation. Until a more real-
istic anxiety assessment is made the effects of counternorma-

tive anxiety remain unexplored.

l4

Rationale and Hypotheses

 

An evaluation of the research up to this point
suggests that yet another study is warranted. Indeed the
significance of the replicated finding of the first two
studies cannot be realized until an adequate explanation has
been obtained. At this point abandonment of an anxiety ex-
planation would be premature. The primary purpose of the
present study was therefore to investigate further the effects
of invader anxiety on subjects' reactions.

The disappointing nonconfirmation of the third study
suggests that "synthetic anxiety" is subject to considerable
distortion from several sources. It would seem that one way
to eliminate or reduce many related problems would be to re-
place the "synthetic anxiety performance" with an assessment
of actual invader anxiety. Such an approach would also per-
mit an investigation of the fundamental question of real
anxiety differences between male and female invaders. The
present study used this approach.

The following hypotheses were proposed:

H1: Female invaders will be more anxious than

male invaders.
H2: More anxious invaders will evoke more

invadee threat than less anxious invaders.

15

The present investigation also attempted to explore
two other aspects of PS invasion. One consideration was the
limited measurement of the dependent variable (invadee dis-
comfort or threat) in the initial studies, and in PS studies
in general. Usually one measure is selected out of a wide
range of possibilities. There is, however, little information
to validate the selection of a particular measure or to assess
the equivalence of one measure with another. The present in-
vestigation attempted to address this problem by exploring the
relationships between multiple measures of invadee threat.

Another consideration was the possibility that there
are personality correlates of invader anxiety and invadee re-
actions that might provide useful information. The present
study included a limited exploration of potential invader and
invadee personality correlates. The chosen traits were aggres-
sion, affiliation, autonomy, and internal-external control.

Although no formal hypotheses were proposed, it was
anticipated that the data would yield support for the existence
of several such relationships. It was suspected, for example,
that invaders with a disposition to reSpond aggressively would
be less anxious about invading than invaders who were not so
disposed. Since males are credited with being more aggressive
than females confirmation of this suspicion would provide
support for the proposed counternormative explanation of

previous findings.

16

Affiliation was also examined as a potential per-
sonality correlate of invasion reactions. Previous research
(Exline, 1963) suggests that individuals with high affiliative
needs should be more tolerant of close proximity than indi-
viduals with low affiliative needs. Individuals who are
highly autonomous, on the other hand, might be anxious about
the prospect of invading or being invaded. Autonomous indi-
viduals might be inclined to perceive an invasion as a re-
striction of their freedom.

Internal control is very similar to the concept of
autonomy, and it was similarly suspected that individuals
high on internal control would be more anxious about invasions

than externally controlled individuals.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Subjects

Eighty-one subjects (44 females and 37 males) par-
ticipated in the experiment. The data from seventeen sub-

2 The re-

jects, however, were excluded prior to analysis.
maining sample of sixty—four subjects consisted of thirty-
two females and thirty-two males. (Subject selection was
based on a quota system to insure equal sex groups). Sub-
jects were recruited by newspaper advertisements and.by
announcements posted in various university buildings which
offered $2.50 for participation in a psychology experiment.
(Subjects enrolled in introductory psychology classes were

permitted to participate for credits in partial fulfillment

of course requirements.)

Design and Operations

 

Two designs were used in the present study. A 2 (sex

of invader) X 2 (sex of invadee) design was used to evaluate

 

2Four subjects indicated suspicion of the experimental
procedure; eleven subjects were members of incomplete dyads in
which scheduled interactants were absent; two subjects failed
to follow instructions.

17

18

sex differences in invader anxiety. A 2 (sex of invader

X 2 (sex of invadee) X 2 (invader anxiety) design was used
to determine differences in invadee threat as a function of
invader sex, invadee sex, and invader anxiety.

Invader anxiety level in both designs was measured
by self and observer ratings on five items of the State
Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) A-State Scale (Appendix A).

In the 2 X 2 design invader anxiety was the dependent variable.
The ratings were analyzed in a multivariate analysis of vari-
ance.

In the three-way design invader anxiety (high or low)
was an independent variable. Self and observer ratings were
analyzed in two separate multivariate ANOVAS. For self-rated
anxiety, invaders scoring in the upper half of the distribution
were designated high anxious; invaders scoring in the lower
half of the distribution were designated low anxious. Observer
ratings of invader anxiety were combined into an average score
for each invader. The observer's ratings correlated with each
other .65, and with the averaged scores .80 and .76. Placement

into high or low anxious groups was determined by a median

K.
).

split of the averaged scores.

Dependent Measures

 

Invadee threat was operationalized in terms of three

observer-scored behavioral measures, and two measures (self

19

and observer) of invadee anxiety. The ACL and I-E scale

were included solely for exploratory purposes.

Recording Behavioral Data

Each observer filled out an Observer Rating Form
(Appendix B) during each invasion. Scoring began when the
invader was seated, and was terminated after five minutes
had elapsed. The observers used stop watches to time the
invasions.

The scored avoidance behaviors were leaning away,
moving away, and turning away. (A description of scoring
techniques also appears in Appendix B.) Three response
categories were used: reaction time, frequency, and intensity.
Interobserver correlations across response categories were .85,
.81, and .71 respectively. When the five minute invasion was
terminated the observers rated the invadee and invader on the

STAI A—State Scale (Appendix A: Forms C and D).

Measuring Anxiety

The STAI A—State Scale (Speilberger, Gorush, & Lushene,
1970) was used for all anxiety assessments made in the study.
The scale contains twenty items which ask peOple to describe
their feelings of tension, worry, or apprehension at a par-
ticular moment in time. Ratings are made along a four point

scale ranging from "not at all" to "very much." The scale

20

may be used in its entirety or any number of items may be
selected (Speilberger, 1972). In the present study five
items of the scale were scored:

was tense.
felt upset.
felt nervous.
felt content.
felt pleasant.

HHHHH

The internal consistency of the five—item scale was .80.

Exploratory Measures
*9

The Adjective Checklist (Gough & Hielbrun, 1965) is
a list of 300 adjectives (Appendix C). The respondent is
instructed to endorse those adjectives which apply to himself
or herself. Twenty-four need scales and personality indices
can be derived from the checklist. Three scales were socred
for the present study; affiliation, autonomy, and aggression.
Gough & Hielbrun (1965) have defined the three scales as
follows:

Affiliation-~to seek and sustain numerous personal
friendships

Autonomy--to act independently of others or of
social expectations

Aggression--to engage in behaviors which attack or
hurt others

The Internal-External Scale (Rotter, 1966) is a
forced choice instrument which measures individual differences

toward a generalized belief in external control (Appendix D).

21

According to Rotter (1971) the instrument seeks to determine
"whether or not an indiVidual believes that his own behavior,
skills, or internal dispositions determine the reinforcements

he receives."

Experimental Setting

 

The experiment was conducted in a 15' x 30' room with
small one-way mirrors located on one wall. Four rectangular
tables (2.5' x 5') were placed in two rows (six feet apart)
in the center of.the room. Two chairs were placed at each
table (eighteen inches apart). The chairs faced the mirrored
wall which was partially obscured by a blackboard containing
questionnaire instructions. (The blackboard was intended to
make the mirrors less salient.) Two observers were stationed
behind the one-way mirrors.

A sign was posted on the door of the experimental
room:

Subjects scheduled for come in and

be seated. If you are scheduled for an-

other time have a seat in the hall until

your time is posted.

When the subjects arrived the blank space always indicated a

time which was earlier than scheduled. This prevented subjects

from inadvertently entering the room or wandering in the halls.

22

Procedure

 

Two subjects participated in each experimental
session. Each session was scheduled so that one subject
(the invader) reported to the experimental room earlier than
the other (the invadee). When the first subject arrived he
or she was escorted to an adjacent room, and instructed to
fill out the Adjective Checklist (ACL). The subject was then
asked to read the invasion instructions:

In the second part of this study we are interested
in how close interpersonal distance affects responses
to a questionnaire. Another subject is scheduled to
report to the room across the hall in a few minutes.
When that subject arrives you will be signalled by the
experimenter to approach the room. (The other subject
will expect that you have arrived late for the experi-
ment.)

You are to select the chair immediately beside the
other subject. When you seat yourself, slide your
chair to within 12 inches of the other subject. Once
you have established this distance, begin working on
the written task (following instructions on the black-
board).

Try to sit straight in the chair facing forward.
Avoid leaning toward or away from the other subject.
When you have completed the questionnaire remain seated
until the experimenter instructs you further.

For reasons we will explain later the other subject
will not be made aware that we are interested in how
his or her response to the questionnaire is affected
by close interpersonal distance.

Please do not initiate conversation with the other
subject.

After you have read these instructions thoroughly
feel free to ask the experimenter any questions you
might have.

23

When the experimenter was satisfied that the instructions
were clearly understood she requested that the subject remain
in the room until the invadee arrived.

When the invadee arrived the experimenter explained
that the experimental room was intended as a waiting room,
and that the experiment was to take place in the adjacent
room. She further explained that the sessions were behind

schedule, and that she was permitting subjects to begin the

 

first part of the study in the experimental room while she

was conducting a delayed session in the adjacent room. The

 

explanation was intended to allay suspicions the subjectS‘
might have about the mirrored experimental room.

The invadee was told to enter the experimental room,
and complete one of the questionnaires (Internal-External
Scale) placed at each table. The experimenter remarked in
parting that other subjects were also scheduled to be present,
and that she intended to complete the delayed session quickly,
and would return when it was completed. When the invadee was
seated the experimenter signalled the invader to enter the
experimental room and begin the invasion. During the in-
vasion two observers stationed behind the one—way mirrors
timed and scored the interaction.

After five minutes had elapsed the experimenter
returned to the experimental room, and announced that the

next part of the study would be conducted with each subject

24

individually in the adjacent room. The invadee was always
selected as the first post-invasion respondent.

Upon entering the adjacent room the invadee was
first asked to fill out the ACL. He or she was then
questioned about the purpose and nature of the experiment.
At this time the experimenter revealed that the study was
interested in determining how people respond to close inter-
personal distance, noting that "while you were in the other

room the other subject was sitting very close to you." The

 

invadee was then asked to fill out the STAI A-State Scale
(Form B). When the form was completed the invadee was asked
to sit outside the room while the invader interview was being
conducted. The invader session consisted only of having the
invader fill out the STAI A-State Scale (Form A). Both
scales are presented in Appendix A.

When the invader seSSion was over both subjects were
paid and fully debriefed. The debriefing included a further
probe of suspicions the subjects might have entertained during

the study.

 

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Invader Sex and
Invader Anxiety

 

 

It was hypothesized that female invaders would be
more anxious than male invaders. Table 1 presents a summary

of the multivariate analysis of variance of self— and observer-

WAM...N,_._ _

 

 

U... i-I-F-

rated invader anxiety scores. As expected, a significant

¥
w “0:-
M ”nun... —.

- l-au.“lq-fl‘ .

difference was found for SEX of invader. An examination of
the means in Table 2 indicates that female invaders tended

to be more anxious than male invaders.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE OF INVADER ANXIETY

 

 

 

Source {I 3
Sex of invader (A) 2.837 .076
Sex of invadee (B) 1.542 ns
A X B .341 ns

 

a§£ for these comparisons were 2/27.

25‘

fl,

26

TABLE 2

MEAN INVADER ANXIETY AS A
FUNCTION OF INVADER SEX

 

 

 

Male Female
Source Invaders Invaders
Observer Ratings 9.66 11.19
Self Ratings 8.87 11.12

 

An additional comparison of invadee anxiety means
(Table 3) was undertaken to assess the possibility that
higher ratings of and by female invaders was the result of
a sex-biased assessment of anxiety. If this were the case,
female invadees would be expected to receive higher anxiety
ratings relative to males. Table 3 indicates that a tendency
to rate females higher than males did not extend across all

subjects.

TABLE 3

MEAN INVADEE ANXIETY AS A
FUNCTION OF INVADEE SEX

 

Male Female
Source Invadees Invadees
Observer Ratings 9.18 8.56
Self Ratings 10.94 10.37

 

Invader Anxiety and
Inyadee Threat

 

 

It was also expected that more anxious invaders

would evoke more invadee threat than less anxious invaders.

27

To test this hypothesis the data were analyzed in two
separate multivariate analyses of variance. One analysis
used a self—rated anxiety factor, the other used the observer
rating of anxiety. Since, as the MANOVA presented above in-
dicated invader anxiety and invader sex were nonorthogonal
variables, the design of the present MANOVAS had unequal
frequencies (Appendix E presents cell frequencies and invadee
threat means). In light of the nonorthogonal relationship
between these variables, a least squares solution to the un-
equal cell frequencies (Bock, 1963) was used. Tables 4 and 5
present MANOVA summaries for analyses using self-rated and
observer-rated factors, respectively. The summaries indicate
no significant main effects or interactions. Invader anxiety

level did not significantly affect invadee threat.

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF
INVADEE THREAT (SELF-RATED INVADER ANXIETY)

 

 

Source Fa
Sex of Invader (A) .473
Sex of Invadee (B) .304
Invader Anxiety (C) .729
AB .607
AC .478
BC .653
ABC .259

 

3g; = 5/20.

 

28

TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF
INVADEE THREAT (OBSERVER-RATED INVADER ANXIETY)

 

 

 

 

Source Fa
Sex of Invader (A) .474
Sex of Invadee (B) .339
Invader Anxiety (C) .053
AB .566
AC 1.645
BC .164
ABC .861
agg = 5/20.

Relationships Among
Threat Measures

 

 

Although no specific hypothesis regarding the re-
lationships among threat measures were proposed it was
anticipated that a high degree of relationship would exist.
Overall, the correlations between measures (Table 6) indicate
that this was not the case. Only three values attained
statistical significance. Reaction time was significantly
related only to self—rated anxiety. It should be noted that
higher reaction time scores indicated slower reactions, so
the negative correlation is in the anticipated direction.
Intensity and observer-rated anxiety were also significantly
related. Interestingly, observer- and self-rated anxiety
were only marginally (p < .10) related, and intensity and

reaction time were not related at all.

29

TABLE 6

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THREAT MEASURES

 

 

Reaction Time
Frequency -.28
Intensity .06 -.27

Self-Rated -.38** -.02 .26
Invadee Anxiety

5 Observer-Rated -.25 -.23 .53*** .32*
Invadee Anxiety

n.cu BJIH

 

*p < .10
*‘p < .05
***p < .01

Personality Correlates

 

Two types of personality-invasion relationships were
analyzed: (1) relationships between invader/invadee person-
ality and invader anxiety (Table 7), and (2) relationships
between invader/invadee personality and invadee threat re-
sponse (Table 8).

Table 7 indicates that invader anxiety was signifi-
cantly correlated with one invader personality trait and two
invadee personality traits. Invader internal-external control
was significantly related to observer-rated invader anxiety.
There was also a significant relationship between invadee
autonomy and invader anxiety, and a marginally significant

relationship between invadee affiliation and invader anxiety.

30

TABLE 7

PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF INVADER ANXIETY

 

 

Invader Measures

 

Aff Aut Agg I-E

 

Observer-rated -.12 .21 .06 .38**
invader anxiety

 

Invadee Measures

 

-.30* -.46** .13 -.28

 

Invader Measures

 

Aff Aut Agg I-E

 

 

Self-rated -.04 -.06 .07 .17
invader anxiety

 

Invadee Measures

 

 

 

-014 -02]. .02 _001
*g < .10 Aff - Affiliation; Aut - Autonomy;
* E < .05 Agg - Aggression; I-E - Internal-

External Control

Table 8 indicates that one measure of invadee

threat (reaction time) was significantly correlated with

one invader personality trait, aggression. Another measure
of invadee threat (anxiety) was significantly correlated

with invadee autonomy. Neither set of results is encouraging.
In light of the small proportion of significant correlations
and their relatively low magnitude it would appear that none
of the personality traits are meaningfully related to invader

anxiety or invadee threat.

31

TABLE 8

PERSONALITY CORRELATES OF INVADEE THREAT

 

ll

Invader Measures Invadee Measures
Aff Aut Agg I-E Aff Aut Agg

I-E

 

Reaction Time
Frequency
Intensity

Self-rated
Invadee Anxiety

Observer-rated
Invadee Anxiety

.26 -.ll -.36* -.09 .00 -.22 .15
020 -001 002 -029 009 -019 -008
-.12 -.22 -.18 -.02 .22 .00 .28

-.18 .ll .11 -.O4 .19 .35* .18

-.13 .17 .22 .20 -.04 .14 .15

 

.25
.19
-.15

-.29

-.23

 

*p < .05

Aff - Affiliation; Aut - Autonomy;
Agg - Aggression; I-E - Internal-External
Control

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

The results support the hypothesis that female
invaders are more anxious than male invaders. The comple-
mentary prediction that more anxious invaders evoke more
invadee threat than less anxious invaders was not supported.
In addition, the correlational evidence suggests that neither
the dependent measures of threat nor the proposed personality
correlates are significantly related in the expected manner.
Effects of Invader Sex

and Invader Anxiety_on
Invadee Threat

 

 

 

The results did not confirm the proposed explanation
for the replicated finding that female invaders are more
threatening than male invaders. While female invaders were
more anxious than males the expected link between invader
anxiety and invadee threat was not demonstrated. Moreover,
the results failed to reconfirm the causal link between in-
vader sex and invadee threat in the absence of systematic
variations in invader anxiety.

Since the sex effect was not replicated at all it
cannot be concluded that the anxiety explanation is erroneous.

32

 

33

This conclusion would have required that sex differences
prevail in the absence of systematic variations in invader
anxiety. A more plausible interpretation is that certain
features of the experimental setting may have obscured the
sex effect and/or the expected anxiety effect.

A comparison of the initial "confirming" studies
with the present investigation suggests that several factors
may have so influenced the obtained results. A critical
factor is that the present study was conducted in a con-
trived setting. The confirming studies, on the other hand,
both were conducted in naturalistic settings. Although
attempts were made to keep the experiment as natural as
possible it is likely that the laboratory setting (with its
inevitable expectancy and demand characteristics) might have
made the invasions less salient. The laboratory might have
been perceived, for example, as a safe, protective setting
containing ample counterthreat resources (e.g., the experi-
menter).

Another possibility is that experimental task re-
quirements may have reduced the salience of invasions. That
is, subjects may have become so preoccupied with the question-
naire (which was administered during the invasion) that in-
vasions were simply not attended to. The questionnaire may
have become involving for several reasons. A simple primacy

effect may have occurred. The invadee began the questionnaire

 

34

before the invasion was initiated. Further, remuneration
was contingent on questionnaire completion. To allow the
invasion to interrupt the task was to delay receipt of pay-
ment.

This line of reasoning would seem to suggest that
peOple may be able to "tune out" a potentially distracting,
uncomfortable invasion when it interferes with important
goal directed behavior. Since subjects in the library set-
ting were probably also goal directed this suggestion may
require some qualifications, however.

An immediate consideration is that in the library
studies subjects did have the Option of leaving the situation.
In the present study this alternative was to some extent
blocked. If subjects expected to be paid they were forced
to remain in the experimental room. It might be suggested
then that invasions may be "tuned out“ when goal directed
behavior is threatened, and when escape from the invasion
somehow is restricted. On a more practical level, this might
explain how people tolerate such events as crowded rush hour
bus rides. Riding the bus is presumably goal directed, and
alternatives such as taking a taxi or driving a private car
may be economically unfeasible.

Situational factors may have also had unanticipated
effects on invader anxiety. One possibility is that high

anxious invaders were not anxious enough to evoke the expected

35

reactions. Indeed the differences between high and low
anxiety means were not large.

It is conceivable that transgressions of Spatial
norms were less arousing in the laboratory because invaders
felt that normative sanctions were not applicable in an
artificial environment. Further, even if the invasion did
represent an arousing transgression it was a justifiable one.
Invaders were paid to transgress. A final consideration is
that the invasion involved an isolated dyad. Unlike the con-
firming studies a potentially threatening audience was simply
not available in the present research.

This discussion, while not exhaustive, suggests that
several features of the present investigation may have altered
the invadees‘ perception of threat as well as the invaders'
experience and display of anxiety. In light of this possi-
bility it seems reasonable to conclude that the anxiety
hypothesis deserves additional investigation. A preliminary
step would be to retest the hypothesis in a naturalistic
setting. Further, the basic parameters of the present study
should be extended to include a comparison of lab/field
effects, task motivational factors, and possible audience
effects.

Before retesting is attempted some methodological
improvements should be implemented. A pretest of invader

anxiety is definitely warranted. The obvious problem is that

36

nonreactive measures may be difficult to devise. One
possibility might be to measure the anxiety of naive in-
vaders before and after being told of the invasion task.
This would probably involve observational measures since
self-report and physiolOgical indices of anxiety have a
high potential for reactivity. “a.
A measure of self-reported invader anxiety while
the invasion is in progress would also be advantageous.

The present post-invasion measure may involve too great a

 

time lag to be accurate. This might be accomplished by
placing an unobtrusive recording device at the invader's
disposal.

It would also be desirable to eliminate the need
for one-way mirrors in future laboratory studies. Less
obtrusive "peep holes" might be a solution if they can be
made available. Videotaping the interactants would also be a
considerable improvement over the live one-shot scoring
technique. In addition, a wealth of data which are neces-
sarily ignored when live procedures are used would be readily

available.

gprrelational Findings

 

The correlations between the personality traits and
invader anxiety and invader threat were disappointingly low.

This may have been a function of several factors. The traits

37

themselves simply may not be related to invadee threat or
invader anxiety. Perhaps more importantly, the traits may
not be related to invadee threat or invader anxiety as they
were manifested in the laboratory setting.

Another consideration is that some of the measures
possess questionable validity. Although this may be the rule Fab
rather than the exception for personality measures in general, é
under such circumstances any evidence is suspect.

A more feasible approach to the problem of personality

 

effects would be to manipulate traits experimentally when L_.
possible. When this cannot be done, pretesting is certainly
necessary if one is to be assured that various levels of a
particular trait are adequately represented in the sample.

The correlations among measures of invadee threat
were also quite low. The measures may have failed to show
convergence for several reasons. One possibility is that one
or more of the measures was inadequate in terms of reliability
or validity. It would appear that reliability is not a crucial
issue, however, since interobserver correlations were rela-
tively high. The question Of validity, on the other hand, is
difficult to assess.

Another possibility is that invasion threat may be a
multidimensional phenomenon which produces a range of inde-
pendent response patterns. In the context Of the present
study-this may mean that intenSity, latency, and frequency,

for example, are all independent indices Of threat.

38

This possibility presents an interesting suggestion
for the present line of research. In the present study none
of the measures supported the hypotheses independently. It
is possible, however, that under less restrictive conditions
only certain measures will support the replicated finding.
This could mean that females are not more threatening than
males, but rather that subjects diSplay different response
patterns depending on the sex Of the invader.

More generally, a multidimensional conception of
invasion threat might explain the characteristic failure to
generate consistent findings across studies. If, for example,
one study uses the number of avoidance measures as a dependent
variable, and another uses reaction time the two may not be
comparable because each is systematically measuring dif-
ferent response patterns.

It would seem that a multivariate approach to the
problem of invadee threat is not only desirable but necessary.
While there are problems With this approach in terms of inter-
pretability it is anticipated that future research will de-

vote increasing attention to remedy this situation.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
STATE-TRAIT ANXIETY INVENTORY A-STATE SCALES*’

(FORMS A, B, C, & D)

*Scales (excluding instructions) reproduced by special
permission from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, by
C. D. Spielberger, R. L. Gorsuch and R. Lushdne,

copyright date 1968, published by Consulting Psychol-
ogists Press, Inc.

STATE-TRAIT ANXIETY INVENTORY A-STATE SCALES

 

 

Form A
Please circle the apprOpriate number following
each statement to indicate how you felt when
you were sitting_close to the other subjngT
H
M “:3 B ' 8
g n m E
5 S >.
g E O H
o o o
Z a) . 2: . ;>
1. I felt calm O O O O O I O O O O O O l 2 3 4
2. I felt secure . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
3. I was tense . . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
4. I was regretful . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
5. I felt at ease . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
6. I felt upset . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
7. I was worrying over possible
misfortunes . . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
8. I felt rested O O O O O O O O O O O l _ 2 3 4
9. I felt anxious . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
10. I felt comfortable . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
11. I felt self-confident . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
12. I felt nervous . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
13. I was jittery . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
14. I felt "high strung" . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
15. I was relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
l6 0 I felt content 0 O I O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
17. I was worried . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
18. I felt over-excited and rattled . . l 2 3 4
19. I felt joyful . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
20. I felt pleasant . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

39

4O

 

 

 

Form B
Please circle the appropriate number following
each statement to indicate how you felt when
the other subject was sitting close to you.
v-‘l >1
H a g
m u m o
m p s
u c m E
m 3 H
m m m
+J E. '0 5-4
0 o o m
Z U) E >
1. I felt Clam O O O O O O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
2. I felt secure . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
3. I was tense . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
4. I was regretful . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
5. I felt at ease . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
6 O I felt upset O O O O O O O O C O O l 2 3 4
7. I was worrying over possible
miSfortuneS O O O O O O 1 O O O ’ O l 2 3 4
8. I felt rested . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
9. I felt anxious . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
10. I felt comfortable . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
11. I felt self-confident . . . . . . o 1 2 3 4
12. I felt nervous . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
13. I was jittery . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
14. I felt "high strung" . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
15. I was relaxed . . . . o . . . . . . l 2 3 4
16. I felt content . o . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
17. I was worried . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
18. I felt over-excited and rattled . . 1 2 3 4
19. I felt joyful . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
20. I felt pleasant . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

 

 

41

 

 

 

Form C
S#: Date:
OBSERVER: Time:
SUBJECT RATING FORM
Circle the appropriate number following each item
to indicate how the subject appeared to feel during
the invasion.
H m
H H g
m u m o
m p s
u 3 m E
“3 3 H
m m m
4J E 'U H
o o o m
,2. _m, .2 . >
10 cam o o o o o o o o o o o o o l 2 3 4
2 o secure 0 o o o o o o o o o o o l 2 3 4
3. Tense . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
4 Q Regretful O O O O I O O O O O l 2 3 4
5 0 At ease O O O O O O I O O C O l 2 3 4
6 0 Upset O O O O O O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
7. Worried over misfortune . . . 1 2 3 4
8. Rested . . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
9 O AnXiouS O O O O O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
10. Comfortable . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
ll. SGlf-Confident o o o o o o o o l 2 3 4
12. Nervous . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
13 O Jittery O O O O O C O O O O O l 2 3 4
14 o I! High strung II o o o o o o o o l 2 3 4
15 . Relaxed I O O O O O C O O O O l 2 3 4
16 0 Content 0 O O O O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
17. Worried . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
18. Over-excited and rattled . . . l 2 3 4
19. Joyful . . L . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4
20 0 Pleasant O O O O O O O O O O O l 2 3 4

 

42

 

 

 

 

1

Form D
S#: DATE:
OBSERVER: TIME:
INVADER RATING FORM
Circle the appropriate number following each item
to indicate how the invader appeared to feel during
the invasion.
v-i >1
a H a
m u m o
m u 9
JJ 3 (U E;
“3 3 H
m w m
4J E 'U H
o o o 0
Z w 2 >
1. Calm O O O O O O O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
2 O secure 0 O O O O O O O C O O O l 2 3 4
3 C Tense O O O O 0 O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
4. Regretful . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
5. At ease . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
6 O Upset C O O O ‘3 O O I O O O C l 2 3 4
7. Worried over misfortune . . . l 2 3 4
8. Rested . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
9 o AnXiOUS ~ 0 o o o 9 o a o o o l 2 3 4
10. Comfortable . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
ll. Self-confident . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
12. Nervous . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
l3 0 Jittery O O O 0 O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
14. "High strung" . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4
15 O Relaxed O O O O O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
16 0 Content 0 O 9 O O O 0 O O O O l 2 3 4
17 O Worried O O O 0 O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
18. Over-excited and rattled . . . l 2 3 4
19 O JOYfUl O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O l 2 3 4
20. Pleasant . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 3 4

APPENDIX B

OBSERVER RATING FORM AND SCORING PROCEDURES

 

OBSERVER RATING FORM SCORING

I. Preliminary Information (items l-8): Items 2, 3, 5,

and 6 were more or less "curiosity items,‘ and were not
analyzed in the present study. Items 7 and 8 were manipula-

tion checks, and were examined to determine if the invasion

 

was executed properly. If the invader failed to sit within
12 inches of the invadee the data were omitted from the final

analysis. (Only one delinquent invader choose to sit at a

 

different table from the invadee. Thus only two subjects #5

were eliminated for this reason.)

II. Invadee Threat (within grid): The observers were in-
structed to record the intensity or the distance of each
response. (The "Other" category was an exception. Data from
this category were not analyzed.) Three measures were obtained

from each score. Intensity for "leaning away" and "moving

 

away" was scored according to deviations away from a 45° body
angle. If the invadee leaned or turned away from the invader
at an angle of more than 45° from his original position a high
score (+2) was recorded. If the angle was less than 45° a low
score (+1) was recorded. For "moving away" the observers
simply recorded the number of inches moved. In the final
analysis scores which were higher than the sample average

were given a high intensity score (+2). Reaction time was

 

43

44

simply the time at which the initial reaction occurred,

A provision was made to control for reactions which were
obviously not invasion related. Frequency was scored as

the number of times each behavior was initiated as indicated

by the number of intensity scores.

*Note: For observers I represents the invader and S

represents the invadee.

 

 

 

 

45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m
w
m
m
a
msomcmaamomflz
umcflxoonluUMpcoo ohm Aomv v A “omv A my Ammmosz Acme v a “omv A mv MRHH
mmmeo w¢3¢ wszmDB wmzfi wzH>oz wdzd 02H24mq ..
.omflmflmcwucfl we
Hoa>mcmn pao may no omuMHpHsH ma H0H>mnmn 3m: m cmnz Mano muoom cOHmm>cH
mag ou Hoaum pmsfl msflcmma no mswxooHn we m MH .mommm muommumo cam mafia
mwMflumoummm on» CH mpflmcmbcw may mumoflosfl musooo H0H>mnmn was maflw comm
"H coflumucmfluo .m “mocmumaa GOHmm>cH .n
"powwow H 0» mEflB .o "H mmwcm>fluomuuu¢ .m “H mo xmm .v
um coflpmooq .m “m mmmsm>flpomnuu¢ .N "m mo xmm .a

 

"# onma>zH
"mm>mmmmo zmom ozHemm mm>mmmmo

 

APPENDIX C

ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST *

*Reproduced by special permission from the Adjective
Checklist by Harrison G. Gough, copyright date 1952,
published by Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.

 

 

ADJECT IVE CHECKLIST

The following sheets contain a list of adjectives.
Please read them quickly, and put an X in the box beside
each one you would consider to be self-descriptive. Do not
worry about duplications, contradictions, and so forth.
Work quickly and do not spend too much time on any one
adjective. Try to be frank, and check those adjectives
which describe you as you really are, and not as you would

like to be.

[jabsent-minded
Dactive
Dadaptable
Dadventurous
Daffected
Daffectionate
[jaggressive
Dalert
Daloof
Dambitious

[] anxious
Dapathetic
gappreciative
[jargumentative
Darrogant
Dartistic

[j assertive

[j attractive
Uautocratic

[j awkward
Dbitter

C] blustery
Dboas tful

Dbossy

Dcalm

[J capable
Dcareless
Dcautious
Dchangeable
Ucharming
Dcheerful

D civilized

D clear-thinking
Cl clever

E] coarse

(3 cold
Ucommonplace
Ucomplaining
Dcomplicated
D conceited

C] confident

U confused

D conscientious
Dconservative
Dconsiderate
Ucontented

46

Clconventional
Dcool
Dcooperative
Dcourageous
Ucowardly
Dcruel
[qurious
Ucynical
Ddaring
Ddeceitful

[3 de fens ive
Dde liberate
Ddemanding
Ddependab 1e
Udependent
[JdeSpondent

[J determined

"C1 dignified

Udiscreet
Eldisorderly
Udissatisfied
Udistractible
Udistrustful

Ddominant
Cldreamy
Udull
Cleasy going
D effeminate
D efficient
[I] egotistical
Demotional
Denergetic
Denterprising
Cl enthusiastic
Devasive
Uexci table
Ufair-minded
Cl fault-finding
Dfearful
Dfeminine
[inckle
El flirtatious
Dfoolish
[j forceful
[Jforesighted
U forgetful
[Jforgiving
Dformal
Dfrank
Dfriendly
Ufrivolous
Elfussy
'Dgenerous
Dgentle

Dgloomy

47

Ugood—looking
[jgood- natured
[jgreedy

'Dhandsome

Dhard-headed
Dhard-hearted
Uhasty

'E] heads trong

Dhealthy
Uhelpful
Dhigh-strung
Dhonest

Dhos ti le
Dhumorous
[Jhurried

C] idealistic
Dimaginative
C] immature
(jimpatient

C] impulsive

C] independent
[I indifferent
Dindividualistic
Dindus trious
Dinfantile
Dinformal

E] ingenious

D inhibited

U initiative
[I insightful
Dintelligent

D interests narrow

[jinterests wide
Dintolerant

E] inventive

E] irresponsible
D irritable
Ujolly TOM)
[jkind DerC-‘Jx’
Dlazy MW?
Clleisurely M I '6 e,
Dlogical P. m.)
Dloud Tl MMY
Clloyal
[jmannerly
Dmasculine
Dmature
Dmeek
Dmethodical
Umild
Dmischievous
Umoderate
[Jmodest
Umoody
Unagging
Dnatural

‘Dnervous

Dnoisy
Dobliging
Clobnoxious
Dopinionated
[jopportuni stic
[joptimis tic

Dorgani zed

Doriginal
[floutgoing
Uoutspoken
Dpains taking
Dpatient

[jpe ace able
Dpeculiar
[jpersevering
Dpersistent
Dpessimistic
[jplanful

Up le as ant
Dpleasure seeking
Upoised
Upoli shed
Dpracti cal
[jpraising
Dprecise
Uprejudiced
Upreoccupied
Dprogressive
Dprudish
unarrelsome
uneer
unick
uniet
unitting
Urational
Drattlebrained
Drealistic
Dreasonable

Drebellious

48

[j reckless

C] reflective
Drelaxed
[jreliable
Dresentful
Ureserved
Dresourceful
Dresponsible
Urestless
Dretiring
Drigid
Drobust

[jrude
Usarcastic
Dself-centered
Dself-confident
Dself-controlled
Uself-denying
Use lf-pi tying
L'Jself-punishing
[jself-seeking
Uselfish
Usensitive
Usentimental
Dserious
Usevere

Usexy

Ushallow
Usharp-witted
Ushiftless
Dshow-off
[jshrewd

C] shy

C] silent

D simple

C) sincere
filipshod

[3 slow

D sly

U smug
Usnobbish
Dsociable

El soft-hearted
Usophisticated

U s endthrift
[ngineless

[jspontaneous
Dspunky
Dstable

[j steady

E] stern
Dstingy

U stolid

Cl strong
Dstubborn

[j submissive
Dsuggestible
Usulky

C] superstitious
Ususpicious
Dsympathetic
L'J tactful

CI tactless
Dtalkative

49

Utemperamental thiny
Dtense tholesome
Dthankless Dwise
Dthorough [Jwi thdrawn
Dthoughtful Dwitty
Dthrifty Dworrying
Utimid Dzany
Dtolerant
Utouchy
Cltough
Eltrus ting
Clunaffected
Dunambitious
Uunassuming
Dunconventional
Dundependable
Dunderstanding
Dunemotional
Dunexci table
Dunfriendly
Duninhibi ted
[Junintelligent
[junkind
[junrealistic
[junscrupulous
Dunselfish
Duns table
Dvindictive
Dversati le
Charm
Uwary
eak

50

TABLE C-l

INDICATIVE AND CONTRAINDICATIVE ADJECTIVES
FOR ACL SCALES OF AFFILIATION (AFF),
AUTONOMY (AUT), AND AGGRESSION (AGG)

 

Adjectives marked with an X count one point on the appropriate
scale; for those marked with an 0 subtract one point. The
total raw score for a scale is the algebraic sum of pluses and

minuses for that scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFF AUT AGG AFF AUT AGG
active X contented X
adaptable X conventional 0
adventurous X cooperative X 0
aggressive X X cruel .X
aloof X cynical X X
apathetic 0 daring X
appreciative X defensive x
argumentative X X dependable 0
arrogant X X dependent 0 ‘0
assertive X x dissatisfied X X
attractive X dominant X
autocratic X X easy going 0
bitter X egotistical X
blustery X excitable X
calm O fault-finding X X
cautious O 0 forceful X
éheerful X ‘forgiving 0
confident X X frank X

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

TABLE C-l--Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFF AUT AGG ‘AFfl AUT AGG
gentle O opinionated X X
good-natured X 0 Optimistic X
hard-headed X outspoken X XI
headstrong X X patient 0
hostile X X peaceable O
impatient X pleasant X 0
independent X poised X
indifferent X praising X 0
individualistic X quarrelsome X
inhibited 0 quiet OI-
initiative X reasonable 0
intolerant X rebellious X XE
irreSponsible X relaxed X 0
irritable X resentful X
kind X 0 reserved 0
mannerly X 0 retiring O
mature X rude X
meek O O sarcastic X
mild O self-centered X X
mischievous X self-confident X
moderate O self-controlled X 0
nagging X self-denying O
obliging o 0* shy o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w

 

TABLE C-l--Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AFF AUT AGG AFF AUT AGG
silent O trusting x
sociable X unconventional X
soft-hearted 0 undependable X Th
spineless 0 understanding 0
~submissive 0 0 unemotional 0
sympathetic 0 uninhibited X
tactful 0 O unkind X
tactless X X vindictive X
talkative X versatile X
thoughtful 0 warm X
timid O 0 wholesome X
tolerant 0 0 withdrawn 0
touchy X

 

APPENDIX D

INTERNAL-EXTERNAL SCALE

 

 

INTERNAL-EXTERNAL SCALE

Listed below are 29 pairs of statements. The letter

"a" or "b" precedes each statement. Indicate the item of
each pair which you agree with most by placing a circle
around the appropriate letter. Be sure to mark one item of
every pair. Please work quickly. Do not spend too much time
on any item.

1. a.

b.

b.

 

Children get into trouble because their parents punish
them too much.

The trouble with most children nowadays is that their
parents are too easy with them.

Many of the unhappy things in peOple's lives are partly
due to bad luck.
People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

.One of the major reasons why we have wars is because

people don't take enough interest in politics.
There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try
to prevent them.

In the long run people get the respect they deserve in
this world.

Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes un-
recognized no matter how hard he tries.

The idea that teachers are unfair to students is non-
sense.

Most students don't realize the extent to which their
grades are influenced by accidental happenings.

Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective
leader.

Capable peOple who fail to become leaders have not
taken advantage of their opportunities.

No matter how hard you try some people just don't like
you 0

People who can't get others to like them don't under—
stand how to get along with others.

Heredity plays the major role in determining one's
personality.

It is one's experiences in life which determine what
they're like.

53

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

b.

a.
b.

a.

b.

54

I have often found that what is going to happen will
happen.

Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me

as making a decision to take a definite course of action.

In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely
if ever such a thing as an unfair test.

Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to
course work that studying is really useless.

Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has
little or nothing to do with it.

Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right
place at the right time.

The average citizen can have an influence in government
decisions.

This world is run by the few people in power, and there
is not much the little guy can do about it.

When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make
them work.

It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because
many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad
fortune anyhow.

There are certain people who are just no good.
There is some good in everybody.

In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to
do with luck.

Many times we might just as well decide what to do by
flipping a coin.

Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky
enough to be in the right place first.

Getting people to do the right thing depends upon
ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it.

As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are
the victims of forces we can neither understand, nor
control.

By taking an active part in political and social affairs
the people can control world events.

Most peOple don't realize the extent to which their
lives are controlled by accidental happenings.
There really is no such thing as "luck."

One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.

It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes
you.

How many friends you have depends on how nice a person
you are.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

b.

a.
b.

a.
b.

a.
b.

a.
b.

b.

55

In the long run the bad things that happen to us are
balanced by the good ones.

Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability,
ignorance, laziness, or all three.

With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
It is difficult for people to have much control over
the things politicians do in office.

Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the
grades they give.

There is a direct connection between how hard I study
and the grades I get.

A good leader expects people to decide for themselves
what they should do.

A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their
jobs are.

Many times I feel that I have little influence over
the things that happen to me.

It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck
plays an important role in my life.

People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
There's not much use in trying too hard to please people,
if they like you, they like you.

There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.
Team sports are an excellent way to build character.

What happens to me is my own doing.
Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over
the direction my life is taking.

Most of the time I can't understand why politicians
behave the way they do.

In the long run the people are responsible for bad
government on a national as well as on a local level.

 

APPENDIX E
MEAN INVADEE THREAT AS A FUNCTION OF
INVADER SEX, INVADEE SEX, AND

INVADER ANXIETY

 

oo.oa m>.m No.H mm.» mN.H m mHmEmmlmHmEmm
mn.oa wm.m mH.a mm.m mo.a m mamznwamawm
mm.oa mn.m va.a hm.m No.a m mHmEmMImHmz
mH.NH NH.m mo.H mn.m mw.a m mamzlmamz
"mmpm>cH mo xmm
x umpm>cH mo xwm
mH.HH nm.m MH.H mv.o om.a ma 30A
«v.0H mm.m mo.a mv.o mm.a SH roam
. "Apmpmulum>ummbov
mumflxq¢ Hmpm>cH
Hm.HH mo.m NH.H mm.m om.a ma 30A
Hm.m mv.m mo.H ma.“ om.H ma swam
"Apmumulwammv
mbmflxcd Hmpm>cH
NNJHH mm.m HH.H oo.w mm.a ma mmamz
av.oa mm.m oa.a Hm.m mv.a ma mmamamm
"mmpm>cH mo xmm
nv.aa mn.m ma.a 00.0 mm.a ma mmamz
0H.OH mh.m mo.H nm.m vv.a ma mmHmEmm
“Hw©m>cH mo xmm
Auw>ummbov Amammv muflmcmch mocwsqmum wEHB z
wuwflxsfl mbmflxcd cofluommm
wmpm>cH mm©m>sH

56

 

1'! LI 1‘

(‘HIV I.

wBMHxZ< mm0¢>ZH QZ¢ rxmm mmm¢>ZH
.xmm mmm¢>ZH b0 ZOHBUZDm fl m4 94mmme mmo¢>ZH de2

AIM mamfie

57

 

 

om.oa mk.m ~H.H ~a.m mm.a m nmflmsmamz
km.HH ma.m OH.H oo.m mm.a m soaumamz
Hm.oa om.m mo.H mk.m om.a m smflmumamamm
om.oH mm.m mH.H km.m km.a m zoqumamsmm
"Aomwmulum>ummnov
muwflxcd Hmpm>sH
x mm©m>cH mo xmm
Hk.m sH.m GH.H m~.m km.a k swam-mamz
am.ma mk.m no.H mm.m km.a a zouumamz
am.m mm.k mo.H mm.k vv.a m amnmumfimamm
no.HH mq.m mH.H mv.m ms.a k segumamsmm
"Acmumunuammv
hpmflxsé Hmpm>sH
x m0©m>GH MO me
so.oa mm.» oo.a km.k mm.a m smumumamz
mm.HH om.m mH.H oo.m om.H OH sequmamz
om.oa oa.m HH.H on.m on.a OH smflmumamsmm
mm.m na.m so.a mmym, oo.a o soqumam2mm
u Aflwflmnlhmxrhwmflov
mpwflxcm Hmpm>sH
x Hmom>sH mo xmm
om.oa om.m mo.H ov.k ov.a m . nmflmumamz
oo.ma oo.m kH.H om.m mk.H as segumamz
mm.m sm.m NH.H mo.k sm.a HA nmfimumHmEmm
os.HH om.m oo.a ov.m om.H m zoqumHmEmm
"Aowumuumammv
hpmfixsfi prm>sH
X Hm©m>GH MO Xmm
Aum>uwmnov Amammv huflmcmusH mocmsqmum wEHB z
mumflxsd wumflxsd coauommm
mmpm>aH mmom>cH

pmscHOGOOIIHnm mqmée

REFERENCES

4‘

REFERENCES

Argyle, M. & Dean, J. Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation.
Sociometry, 1965, gg, 289-304.

 

Becker, T. D. & Mayo, G. Measurement effects in studying
reactions to spatial invasions. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological
Association, New York, April, 1970.

Bock, R. D. Programming univariate and multivariate analysis
of variance. Technometrics, 1963, 5, 95-118.

 

Campbell, D. T., Kruskal, W. H. & Wallace, W. P. Seating
aggregation as an index of attitude. Sociometry,
1966, 29(1), 1-16.

 

Duke, M. & Nowicki, S. A new measure and social learning
model for interpersonal distance. Journal of
Experimental Personality Research, I972, 6, 119-132.

 

 

Evans, G. W. & Howard, R. B. Personal space. Psycholoqical
Bulletin, 1973, §g(4), 334-344.

 

Exline, R. V. Explorations in the process of person per-
ception: Visual interaction in relation to compe-
tition, sex, and need for affiliation. Journal of
Personality, 1963, 31, 1-20.

 

 

Felipe, N. & Sommer, R. Invasions of personal space.
§9cia1 Problems, 1966, l4, 206-214.

 

Gough, H. G. and Heilbrun, A. B. The adjective checklist
manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists
Press, 1965.

 

Hartnett, J. J., Bailey, K. G. & Gibson, T. W. Personal
space as influenced by sex and type of movement.
Journal of Psychology, 1970, 16, 139-144.

 

Horowitz, M. J., Duff, D. T. & Stratton, L. O. The body-
buffer zone: An exploration of personal space.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 1964, 11, 651-656.

 

58

59

Kuethe, J. L. & Weingartner, H. Male-female schemata of
homosexual and non-homosexual penitentiary inmates.
Journal of Personality, 1964, 32(1), 23-31.

 

Leibman, M. The effects of sex and race norms on personal
'space. Environment and Behavior, 1970, 2, 208-246.

 

Lett, B. E., Clark, W. & Attman, I. A propositional in-
ventory of research on interpersonal distance.
Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland,
Technical Report No. 1, May, 1969.

McBride, G., King, M. G., & James, J. W. Social proximity
effects on galvanic skin responses in adult humans.
Journal of Psychology, 1965, 91, 153-157.

 

McDowell, K. V. Violations of personal space. Canadian
Journal of Behavioral Science, 1972, 4(3), 210-217.

 

Mehrabian, A. & Diamond, 8. Effects of furniture arrange-
ments, props, and personality on social interaction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971,
29.—(l) , .18-30¢

 

Patterson, M. L. Spatial factors in social interactions.
Human Relations, 1968, 21(4), 351-361.

 

Patterson, M. L., Mullens, S. & Romano, J. Compensatory
reactions to spatial intrusion, Sociometry, 1971,
34, 114-121.

 

Pedersen, D. M. Personality and demographic correlates on
simulated personal space. Journal of Psychology,
1973, BE, 101-108.

 

Pedersen, D. M. & Heaston, A. B. The effects of sex of
subject, sex of approaching person, and angle of
approach on personal space. Journal of Psychology,
1972, §2(2), 276-286.

 

Pedersen, D. M. & Shears, L. M. A review of personal space
research in the framework of general systems theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 1973, §0(5), 367-388.

 

Pelligrini, R. J. & Empey, J. Interpersonal spatial orienta-
tions in dyads. Journal of Psychology, 1970, 16(1),
67-70.

 

60

Quick, A. D. & Crano, W. D. Effects of sex, distance, and
conversation in the invasion of personal space.
Paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting, Mid-
western Psychological Association, Chicago, May,
1973.

Rotter, J- B" Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. Psyphological
Monographs, 1966, g0, (Whole No. 609).

 

 

Sommer, R. Personal space: The behavioral basis of design.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

 

Spielberger, C. D. Anxiety} Current trends in theory and
research. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

 

Spielberger, C. D., Gorush, R. L. & Lushene, R. L. State
ttait anxiety inventoty test manual. Palo Alto,
Califl: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1970.

 

Willis, T. N. Initial speaking distance as a function of
the speaker's relationship. Psychonomic Science,
1966, 5(6), 221-222.

 

HICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
111|111111111111111111111111111111111
31293104820661