Editing Proxemics

{{Short description|Study of human use of space and the effects that population density has on behavior}}
{{Redirect|Private space|a sector of societal life under an individual's control|private sphere}}

'''Proxemics''' is the study of human use of space and the effects that population density has on behavior, communication, and social interaction.<ref>{{cite web|title=Proxemics|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proxemics|website=Dictionary.com|access-date=November 14, 2015}}</ref> Proxemics is one among several subcategories in the study of [[nonverbal communication]], including [[Haptic communication|haptics]] (touch), [[kinesics]] (body movement), [[paralanguage|vocalics]] (paralanguage), and [[chronemics]] (structure of time).<ref name="nina moore">{{cite book|last=Moore|first=Nina|title=Nonverbal Communication:Studies and Applications|year=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York}}</ref>

[[Edward T. Hall]], the [[Cultural anthropology|cultural anthropologist]] who coined the term in 1963, defined proxemics as "the interrelated observations and theories of humans' use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture".<ref name="Hidden Dimension">{{cite book| last = Hall| first = Edward T.| title = The Hidden Dimension| year = 1966| publisher = Anchor Books| isbn = 978-0-385-08476-5 }}</ref> In his foundational work on proxemics, ''The Hidden Dimension'', Hall emphasized the impact of proxemic behavior (the use of space) on [[interpersonal communication]]. According to Hall, the study of proxemics is valuable in evaluating not only the way people interact with others in daily life, but also "the organization of space in [their] houses and buildings, and ultimately the layout of [their] towns".<ref name="Hall2">{{cite journal|last=Hall|first=Edward T.|date=October 1963|title=A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior|journal=American Anthropologist|volume=65|issue=5|pages=1003–1026|doi=10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020|doi-access=free}}</ref> Proxemics remains a hidden component of interpersonal communication that is uncovered through observation and strongly influenced by culture.

== Human distances ==

The distance surrounding a person forms a space. The space within intimate distance and personal distance is called ''personal space''. The space within social distance and out of personal distance is called ''social space'', and the space within public distance is called ''public space''.

Personal space is the region surrounding a person which they regard as psychologically theirs. Most people value their personal space and feel discomfort, anger, or anxiety when their personal space is encroached.<ref name="Hall">{{cite book | last = Hall | first = Edward T. | title = The Hidden Dimension | publisher = Anchor Books | year = 1966 | isbn = 978-0-385-08476-5}}</ref>  Permitting a person to enter personal space and entering somebody else's personal space are indicators of perception of those people's relationship. An intimate zone is reserved for close friends, lovers, children, and close family members. Another zone is used for conversations with friends, to chat with associates, and in group discussions. A further zone is reserved for strangers, newly formed groups, and new acquaintances. A fourth zone is used for speeches, lectures, and theater; essentially, public distance is that range reserved for larger audiences.<ref>{{cite book|author=Engleberg, Isa N.|title=Working in Groups: Communication Principles and Strategies|series=My Communication Kit Series|year=2006|pages=140–141}}</ref>

Entering somebody's personal space is normally an indication of familiarity and sometimes intimacy. However, in modern society, especially in crowded urban communities, it can be difficult to maintain personal space, for example when in a crowded [[train]], [[elevator]], or street. Many people find such physical proximity to be psychologically disturbing and uncomfortable,<ref name="Hall" /> though it is accepted as a fact of modern life. In an impersonal, crowded situation, eye contact tends to be avoided. Even in a crowded place, preserving personal space is important, and intimate and [[sexual contact]], such as [[frotteurism]] and [[groping]], is unacceptable physical contact.

A person's personal space is carried with them everywhere they go. It is the most inviolate form of territory.<ref>{{cite book|last=Richmond |first=Virginia |title=Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations |year=2008 |publisher=Pearson/A and B|location=Boston|isbn=9780205042302|page=130}}</ref> Body spacing and [[Posture (psychology)|posture]], according to Hall, are unintentional reactions to sensory fluctuations or shifts, such as subtle changes in the sound and pitch of a person's voice. Social distance between people is reliably correlated with physical distance, as are intimate and personal distance, according to the delineations below. Hall did not mean for these measurements to be strict guidelines that translate precisely to human behavior, but rather a system for gauging the effect of distance on communication and how the effect varies between cultures and other environmental factors.

=== Interpersonal distance ===
[[Edward T. Hall|Hall]] described the interpersonal distances of humans (the relative distances between people) in four distinct zones:

[[File:Personal Space.svg|thumb|A chart depicting [[Edward T. Hall]]'s interpersonal distances of man, showing [[radius]] in feet and meters]]
* '''[[Intimacy|Intimate]] distance''' for embracing, touching or whispering
** ''Close phase''&nbsp;– less than one inch (0.01 to 0.02&nbsp;m)
** ''Far phase''&nbsp;– {{convert|6|to|18|in|m}}
* '''Personal distance''' for interactions among good [[friendship|friends]] or [[family]]
** ''Close phase''&nbsp;– {{convert|1.5|to|2.5|ft|m}}
** ''Far phase''&nbsp;– {{convert|2.5|to|4|ft|m}}
* '''[[Social distance]]''' for interactions among acquaintances
** ''Close phase''&nbsp;– {{convert|4|to|7|ft|m}}
** ''Far phase''&nbsp;– {{convert|7|to|12|ft|m}}
* '''Public distance''' used for public speaking
** ''Close phase''&nbsp;– {{convert|12|to|25|ft|m}}
** ''Far phase''&nbsp;– {{convert|25|ft|m}} or more.

==== Vertical ====
The distances mentioned above are horizontal distance. There is also vertical distance that communicates something between people. In this case, however, vertical distance is often understood to convey the degree of dominance or sub-ordinance in a relationship. Looking up at or down on another person can be taken literally in many cases, with the higher person asserting greater status.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book| publisher = Boise State University| last = Ry| first = Veronica Van| title = Sociological Communication| chapter = 3.6: Types of Nonverbal Communication| access-date = 2024-06-05| date = 2023| chapter-url = https://boisestate.pressbooks.pub/soc122/chapter/3-6-types-of-nonverbal-communication/}}</ref>

Teachers, and especially those who work with small children, should realize that students will interact more comfortably with a teacher when they are in same vertical plane. Used in this way, an understanding of vertical distance can become a tool for improved teacher-student communication. On the other hand, a disciplinarian might put this information to use in order to gain psychological advantage over an unruly student.<ref name=":1" />

==Explanations==

=== Biometrics ===
{{Main article|Biometrics}}
Hall used biometric concepts to categorize, explain, and explore the ways people connect in space. These variations in positioning are impacted by a variety of nonverbal communicative factors, listed below.

* '''Kinesthetic factors''': This category deals with how closely the participants are to touching, from being completely outside of body-contact distance to being in physical contact, which parts of the body are in contact, and body part positioning.
* '''[[Haptic communication|Haptic]] code''': This behavioral category concerns how participants are touching one another, such as [[caressing]], holding, feeling, prolonged holding, spot touching, pressing against, accidental brushing, or not touching at all.
* '''Visual code''': This category denotes the amount of [[eye contact]] between participants. Four sub-categories are defined, ranging from eye-to-eye contact to no eye contact at all.
* '''Thermal code''': This category denotes the amount of [[body heat]] that each participant perceives from another. Four sub-categories are defined: [[heat conduction|conducted heat]] detected, [[thermal radiation|radiant heat]] detected, heat probably detected, and no detection of heat.
* '''[[Olfaction|Olfactory]] code''': This category deals in the kind and degree of [[odour|odor]] detected by each participant from the other.
* '''Voice loudness''': This category deals in the [[vocal effort]] used in speech. Seven sub-categories are defined: silent, very soft, soft, normal, normal+, loud, and very loud.

=== Neuropsychology ===
{{Main article|Neuropsychology}}
Whereas Hall's work uses human interactions to demonstrate spatial variation in proxemics, the field of neuropsychology describes personal space in terms of the kinds of "nearness" to an individual body.
* '''Extrapersonal space''': The space that occurs outside the reach of an individual.
* '''[[Michael Graziano#Peripersonal space|Peripersonal space]]''': The space within reach of any limb of an individual. Thus, to be "within arm's length" is to be within one's peripersonal space.
* '''Pericutaneous space''': The space just outside our bodies but which might be near to touching it. Visual-tactile perceptive fields overlap in processing this space. For example, an individual might see a feather as not touching their skin but still experience the sensation of being tickled when it hovers just above their hand. Other examples include the blowing of wind, gusts of air, and the passage of heat.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Elias, L.J. |author2=Saucier, M.S. |year=2005 |title=Neuropsychology: Clinical and Experimental Foundations|location=Boston, MA|publisher=Pearson Education Inc.|isbn=978-0-205-34361-4}}</ref>

Previc<ref>{{cite journal|author=Previc, F.H.|year=1998|title=The neuropsychology of 3D space|journal=Psychol. Bull.|volume=124|issue=2|pages=123–164 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.123 |pmid=9747184}}</ref> further subdivides extrapersonal space into ''focal-extrapersonal'' space, ''action-extrapersonal'' space, and ''ambient-extrapersonal'' space.  Focal-extrapersonal space is located in the lateral temporo-frontal pathways at the center of our vision, is retinotopically centered and tied to the position of our eyes, and is involved in object search and  recognition.  Action-extrapersonal-space is located in the medial temporo-frontal pathways, spans the entire space, and is head-centered and involved in orientation and locomotion in topographical space.  Action-extrapersonal space provides the "presence" of our world.   Ambient-extrapersonal space initially courses through the peripheral parieto-occipital visual pathways before joining up with vestibular and other body senses to control posture and orientation in earth-fixed/gravitational space.  Numerous studies involving peripersonal and extrapersonal neglect have shown that peripersonal space is located dorsally in the parietal lobe whereas extrapersonal space is housed ventrally in the temporal lobe.

The [[amygdala]] is suspected of processing people's strong reactions to personal space violations since these are absent in those in which it is damaged and it is activated when people are physically close.<ref name="Kennedy">{{cite journal |vauthors=Kennedy DP, Gläscher J, Tyszka JM, Adolphs R |year=2009 |title=Personal space regulation by the human amygdala |journal=Nat. Neurosci. |volume=12|issue=10 |pages=1226–1227 |pmid=19718035 |doi=10.1038/nn.2381|pmc=2753689}}</ref> Research links the amygdala with emotional reactions to proximity to other people. First, it is activated by such proximity, and second, in those with complete bilateral damage to their amygdala, such as [[S.M. (patient)|patient S.M.]], lack a sense of personal space boundary.<ref name="Kennedy" /> As the researchers have noted: "Our findings suggest that the amygdala may mediate the repulsive force that helps to maintain a minimum distance between people. Further, our findings are consistent with those in monkeys with bilateral amygdala lesions, who stay within closer proximity to other monkeys or people, an effect we suggest arises from the absence of strong emotional responses to personal space violation."<ref name="Kennedy" />

=== Kinematics ===
Some quantitative theories propose that the zone sizes are generated by the potential [[kinematics]] of the two agents, and their abilities to cause or avoid contact with one another.<ref name="Camara, F and Fox, C. 2021 1929–1949">{{cite journal|author=Camara, F and Fox, C.|year=2021|title=Space invaders: Pedestrian proxemic utility functions and trust zones for autonomous vehicle interactions|journal=International Journal of Social Robotics|volume=13|issue=8|pages=1929–1949|doi=10.1007/s12369-020-00717-x|s2cid=230640683 |doi-access=free}}</ref>   Such models also suggest that the zone sizes and shapes should change according to the sizes and speeds of the agents.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Camara, F and Fox, C.|year=2023|title=A kinematic model generates non-circular human proxemics zones|journal= Advanced Robotics|volume=37|issue=24|pages=1566–1575|doi=10.1080/01691864.2023.2263062|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==Organization of space in territories==
[[Image:PerSpa1.png|220px|right|thumb|Two people not affecting each other's personal space]]
[[Image:PerSpa2.png|220px|right|thumb|Reaction of two people whose regions of personal space are in conflict]]While personal space describes the immediate space surrounding a person, territory refers to the area which a person may "lay claim to" and defend against others.<ref name="nina moore" /> There are four forms of human territory in proxemic theory. They are:
* '''Public territory''': a place where one may freely enter. This type of territory is rarely in the constant control of just one person. However, people might come to temporarily own areas of public territory.
* '''Interactional territory''': a place where people congregate informally
* '''Home territory''': a place where people continuously have control over their individual territory
* '''Body territory''': the space immediately surrounding us
These different levels of territory, in addition to factors involving personal space, suggest ways for us to communicate and produce expectations of appropriate behavior.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Lyman|first=S.M.|author2=Scott, M.B. |title=Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension|journal=Social Problems|year=1967|volume=15|issue=2|pages=236–249|doi=10.2307/799516|jstor=799516 }}</ref>

In addition to spatial territories, the interpersonal territories between conversants can be determined by "[[wikt:sociopetal|socio-petal]] [[wikt:sociofugal|socio-fugal]] axis",<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sommer|first=Robert|date=May 1967|title=Sociofugal Space|journal=American Journal of Sociology|volume=72|issue=6|pages=654–660|doi=10.1086/224402 |s2cid=222428003}}</ref> or the "angle formed by the axis of the conversants' shoulders".<ref name="nina moore" />  Hall has also studied combinations of postures between dyads (two people) including lying prone, sitting, or standing.

==Cultural factors==
Personal space is highly variable, due to [[cultural diversity|cultural differences]] and personal preferences. On average, preferences vary significantly between countries. A 2017 study<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sorokowska|first1=Agnieszka|last2=Sorokowski|first2=Piotr|last3=Hilpert|first3=Peter|title=Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison|journal=Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology|date=22 March 2017|pages=577–592|doi=10.1177/0022022117698039|language=en|issn=0022-0221|volume=48|issue=4|s2cid=53054744|url=http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/100226/7/WRAP-preferred-interpersonal-distances-global-comparison-Realo-2017.pdf}}</ref> found that personal space preferences with respect to strangers ranged between more than 120&nbsp;cm in Romania, Hungary and Saudi Arabia, and less than 90&nbsp;cm in Argentina, Peru, Ukraine and Bulgaria.

The cultural practices of the [[United States]] show considerable similarities to those in northern and central European regions, such as [[Germany]], [[Scandinavia]], and the [[United Kingdom]]. Greeting rituals tend to be the same in Europe and in the United States, consisting of minimal body contact—often confined to a simple handshake. The main cultural difference in proxemics is that residents of the United States like to keep more open space between themselves and their conversation partners (roughly {{convert|4|ft|m}} compared to {{convert|2|to(-)|3|ft|m|1}} in Europe).<ref name="Edward Hall, the hidden dimension online abstract">{{cite web|url=http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/13|title=Edward Hall, the hidden dimension online abstract|access-date=2006-12-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061124161517/http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/13|archive-date=2006-11-24|url-status=usurped}}</ref> European cultural history has seen a change in personal space since [[Roman Empire|Roman times]], along with the boundaries of public and private space. This topic has been explored in ''A History of Private Life'' (2001), under the general editorship of [[Philippe Ariès]] and [[Georges Duby]].<ref>''Histoire de la vie privée'' (2001), editors [[Philippe Ariès]] and [[Georges Duby]]; le Grand livre du mois. {{ISBN|978-2020364171}}. Published in English as ''A History of Private Life'' by the Belknap Press. {{ISBN|978-0674399747}}.</ref> On the other hand, those living in densely populated places likely have lower expectations of personal space. Residents of [[India]] or [[Japan]] tend to have a smaller personal space than those in the [[Mongolia]]n [[steppe]], both in regard to [[home]] and [[individual]] spaces. Different expectations of personal space can lead to difficulties in intercultural communication.<ref name=Hall />

Hall notes that different culture types maintain different standards of personal space.  Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves [[cross-cultural communication|cross-cultural understanding]], and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand-offish") or too small (intrusive).

==Adaptation==
People make exceptions to and modify their space requirements. A number of relationships may allow for personal space to be modified, including familial ties, romantic partners, friendships and close acquaintances, where there is a greater degree of trust and personal knowledge. Personal space is affected by a person's position in society, with more affluent individuals expecting a larger personal space.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Charisma: Seven Keys to Developing the Magnetism that Leads to Success|last=Alessandra|first=Tony|date=2000-02-01|publisher=Business Plus|isbn=9780446675987|location=New York|pages=165–192|language=en}}</ref> Personal space also varies by gender and age. Males typically use more personal space than females, and personal space has a positive relation to age (people use more as they get older). Most people have a fully developed (adult) sense of personal space by age twelve.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Aiello, John R.|first=Aiello, Tyra De Carlo|date=July 1974|title=The Development of Personal Space: Proxemic Behavior of Children 6 through 16|jstor=4602298|journal=Human Ecology|doi=10.1007/bf01531420|volume=2|issue=3|pages=177–189|bibcode=1974HumEc...2..177A |s2cid=144162974}}</ref>

Under circumstances where normal space requirements cannot be met, such as in public transit or elevators, personal space requirements are modified accordingly. According to the psychologist [[Robert Sommer (psychologist)|Robert Sommer]], one method of dealing with violated personal space is '''[[dehumanization]]'''. He argues that on the subway, crowded people often imagine those intruding on their personal space as inanimate. '''Behavior''' is another method:  a person attempting to talk to someone can often cause situations where one person steps forward to enter what they perceive as a conversational distance, and the person they are talking to can step back to restore their personal space.<ref name=":0" />

==Applications==

===Architecture===
Hall's original work on proxemics was conducted with the aim of informing architectural and urban planning practice, to design living and working spaces to better fit human needs and feelings, and to avoid [[behavioral sink]]. In particular, Hall emphasized the need for individuals to be allocated enough personal space for comfort, and the differences in these needs between cultures, especially the multiple, different, immigrant cultures found in large cities.

===Work psychology===

The theory of proxemics is often considered in relation to the impact of technology on human relationships. While physical proximity cannot be achieved when people are connected virtually, perceived proximity can be attempted, and several studies have shown that it is a crucial indicator in the effectiveness of virtual communication technologies.<ref name="perceived">{{cite journal|last=O'Leary|first=Michael Boyer|author2=Wilson, Jeanne M |author3=Metiu, Anca |author4= Jett, Quintus R |title=Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close|journal=Organization Studies|year=2008 |volume=29 |issue=7|pages=979–1002 |doi=10.1177/0170840607083105|s2cid=7715386}}</ref><ref name="monge and kirste">{{cite journal |last=Monge|first=Peter R|author2=Kirste, Kenneth K |title=Measuring Proximity in Human Organization |journal=Social Psychology Quarterly|year=1980 |volume=43|issue=1|pages=110–115 |doi=10.2307/3033753 |jstor=3033753}}</ref><ref name="dynamics of org proximity">{{cite journal|last=Monge|first=Peter R|author2=Rothman, Lynda White |author3=Eisenberg, Eric M |author4=Miller, Katherine I |author5= Kirste, Kenneth K |title=The Dynamics of Organizational Proximity|journal=Management Science|year=1985|volume=31 |issue=9 |pages=1129–1141 |doi=10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1129}}</ref><ref name="distance matters">{{cite journal|last=Olson|first=Gary M|author2=Olson, Judith S |title=Distance Matters |journal= Human–Computer Interaction|year=2000|volume=15|issue=2–3|pages=139–178|doi=10.1207/s15327051hci1523_4|s2cid=18990624}}</ref>  These studies suggest that various individual and situational factors influence how close we feel to another person, regardless of distance. The [[mere-exposure effect]] originally referred to the tendency of a person to positively favor those who they have been physically exposed to most often.<ref name="zajonc">{{cite journal|last=Zajonc|first=R.B.|title=Attitudinal Effect of Mere Exposure|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |year=1968 |volume=9 |issue=2, Pt.2|pages=2–17|doi=10.1037/h0025848|citeseerx=10.1.1.453.9341}}</ref> However, recent research has extended this effect to virtual communication. This work suggests that the more someone communicates virtually with another person, the more he is able to envision that person's appearance and workspace, therefore fostering a sense of personal connection.<ref name="perceived" />  Increased communication has also been seen to foster common ground, or the feeling of identification with another, which leads to positive attributions about that person.  Some studies emphasize the importance of shared physical territory in achieving common ground,<ref name="distrib work">{{cite book|last=Hinds|first=Pamela|title=Distributed Work|year=2002 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, MA|author2=Kiesler, Sara }}</ref> while others find that common ground can be achieved virtually, by communicating often.<ref name="perceived" />

Much research in the fields of communication, [[psychology]], and sociology, especially under the category of [[organizational behavior]], has shown that physical proximity enhances peoples' ability to work together. Face-to-face interaction is often used as a tool to maintain the culture, authority, and norms of an organization or workplace.<ref name="org learning">{{cite journal|last=Levitt|first=B|author2=J.G. March |title=Organizational Learning |journal=Annual Review of Sociology|year=1988|volume=14|pages=319–340|doi=10.1146/annurev.soc.14.1.319|doi-access=}}</ref><ref name="evolutionary theory">{{cite book|last=Nelson|first=R. R.|title=An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change|year=1982|publisher=Belknap Press|location=Cambridge, MA}}</ref>  An extensive body of research has been written about how proximity is affected by the use of new communication technologies.  The importance of physical proximity in co-workers is often emphasized.

===Cinema===
Proxemics is an essential component of cinematic [[mise-en-scène]], the placement of characters, props and scenery within a frame, creating visual weight and movement.<ref>{{cite web|title=Cinematography – Proxemics|url=http://www.esfmedia.com/page/Cinematography+-+Proxemics|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141209192745/http://www.esfmedia.com/page/Cinematography+-+Proxemics|url-status=usurped|archive-date=December 9, 2014|work=Film and Media Studies in ESF|publisher=South Island School|access-date=28 October 2012}}</ref>  There are two aspects to the consideration of proxemics in this context, the first being '''character proxemics''', which addresses such questions as: ''How much space is there between the characters?'', ''What is suggested by characters who are close to'' (''or, conversely, far away from'') ''each other?'', ''Do distances change as the film progresses?'' and, ''Do distances depend on the film's other content?''<ref>{{cite web|title=Mise en scene|url=http://filmstudies.uncc.edu/sites/filmstudies.uncc.edu/files/media/mise_en_scene.pdf|work=Film Studies|publisher=University of North Carolina at Charlotte|access-date=28 October 2012|archive-date=16 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170516205458/http://filmstudies.uncc.edu/sites/filmstudies.uncc.edu/files/media/mise_en_scene.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> The other consideration is '''camera proxemics''', which answers the single question: ''How far away is the camera from the characters/action?''<ref>{{cite web|title=Shot and Camera Proxemics|url=http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/pruter/film/scproxemics.htm|work=The Fifteen Points of Mise-en-scene|publisher=College of DuPage|access-date=28 October 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120428184521/http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/pruter/film/scproxemics.htm|archive-date=28 April 2012}}</ref>  Analysis of camera proxemics typically relates Hall's system of proxemic patterns to the [[camera angle]] used to create a specific shot, with the [[Long shot|long shot or extreme long shot]] becoming the ''public proxemic'', a full shot (sometimes called a figure shot, complete view, or medium long shot) becoming the ''social proxemic'', the [[medium shot]] becoming the ''personal proxemic'', and the [[Close-up|close up or extreme close up]] becoming the ''intimate proxemic''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Cinematography Part II: MISE-EN-SCENE: Orchestrating the Frame|url=http://courses.csusm.edu/fmst300bc/mise.html|publisher=California State University San Marcos|access-date=28 October 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130413103352/http://courses.csusm.edu/fmst300bc/mise.html|archive-date=13 April 2013}}</ref>
<gallery>
file:Eg Totale.jpg|A long shot—the public proxemic
file:Eg Halbtotale.jpg|A full shot—the social proxemic
file:Eg Nah.jpg|A medium shot—the personal proxemic
file:Eg Groß.jpg|A close-up—the intimate proxemic
</gallery>
Film analyst Louis Giannetti has maintained that, in general, the greater the distance between the camera and the subject (in other words, the public proxemic), the more emotionally neutral the audience remains, whereas the closer the camera is to a character, the greater the audience's emotional attachment to that character.<ref>{{cite book| last = Giannetti| first = Louis| title = Understanding Movies, 5th edition| year = 1990| publisher = Prentice Hall| location = Englewood Cliffs, N.J.| isbn = 978-0-13-945585-8| pages = [https://archive.org/details/understandingmov00gian_1/page/64 64]| url-access = registration| url = https://archive.org/details/understandingmov00gian_1/page/64}}</ref>  Or, as actor/director [[Charlie Chaplin]] put it:   "Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long shot."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Roud|first=Richard|title=The Baggy-Trousered Philanthropist|journal=The Guardian|date=28 December 1977|pages=3}}</ref>

===Education===

Implementing appropriate '''proxemic cues''' has been shown to improve success in monitored behavioral situations like psychotherapy by increasing patient trust for the therapist (see [[active listening]]).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kelly|first=Francis D.|date=1972|title=Communicational Significance of Therapist Proxemic Cues|url=http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.18.0b/ovidweb.cgi?WebLinkFrameset=1&S=CAKDFPEMMDDDGADLNCJKGDIBOBLNAA00&returnUrl=ovidweb.cgi%3fMain%2bSearch%2bPage%3d1%26S%3dCAKDFPEMMDDDGADLNCJKGDIBOBLNAA00&directlink=http%3a%2f%2fgraphics.tx.ovid.com%2fovftpdfs%2fFPDDNCIBGDDLMD00%2ffs046%2fovft%2flive%2fgv023%2f00004730%2f00004730-197210000-00033.pdf&filename=Communicational+significance+of+therapist+proxemic+cues.&navigation_links=NavLinks.S.sh.18.1&link_from=S.sh.18%7c1&pdf_key=FPDDNCIBGDDLMD00&pdf_index=/fs046/ovft/live/gv023/00004730/00004730-197210000-00033&D=ovft&link_set=S.sh.18&#124;1&#124;sl_10&#124;resultSet&#124;S.sh.18.19&#124;0|journal=Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology|volume=39|issue=2|pages=345|doi=10.1037/h0033423|pmid=5075888|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Instructional situations have likewise seen increased success in student performance by lessening the actual or '''perceived distance''' between the student and the educator (perceived distance is manipulated in the case of [[educational technology|instructional videoconferencing]], using technological tricks such as angling the frame and adjusting the zoom).<ref>{{Citation |last=Ellis |first=Michael E. |title=Perceived Proxemic Distance and Instructional Videoconferencing: Impact on Student Performance and Attitude |url=http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED354558 |language=en |date=1992-04-30 |id={{ERIC|ED354558}}}}</ref>{{Self-published inline|date=April 2022}} Studies have shown that proxemic behavior is also affected when dealing with [[social stigma|stigmatized]] minorities within a population. For example, those who do not have experience dealing with disabled persons tend to create more distance during encounters because they are uncomfortable. Others may judge that the disabled person needs to have an increase of touch, volume, or proximity.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Proxemic Behavior of the Nonhandicapped Toward the Visually Impaired|last=Olsen|first=Carol J.|year=1989|location=University of Nebraska at Omaha|id = {{ProQuest|1696286801}}}}</ref>

=== Virtual environments ===

Bailenson, Blascovich, Beall, and Loomis conducted an experiment in 2001, testing Argyle and Dean's (1965) equilibrium theory's speculation of an inverse relationship between mutual gaze, a nonverbal cue signaling intimacy, and interpersonal distance. Participants were [[Immersion (virtual reality)|immersed]] in a 3D virtual room in which a virtual human representation (that is, an [[embodied agent]]) stood.<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Bailenson, J. N. |author2=Blascovich, J. |author3=Beall, A. C. |author4=Loomis, J. M. |year=2001 |title=Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments|journal=Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments|volume=10 |issue=6|pages=583–598|doi=10.1162/105474601753272844 |s2cid=15484007 |url=https://vhil.stanford.edu/mm/2001/bailenson-equilibrium.pdf}}</ref> The focus of this study is on the ''subtle nonverbal exchanges'' that occur between a person and an embodied agent. Participants in the study clearly did not treat the agent as a mere animation. On the contrary, the results suggest that, in virtual environments, people were influenced by the 3D model and respected personal space of the humanoid representation. The result of the experiment also indicated that women are more affected by the gaze behaviors of the agent and adjust their personal space more accordingly than do men. However, men do subjectively assign gaze behavior to the agent, and their proxemic behavior reflects this perception. Furthermore, both men and women demonstrate less variance in their ''proxemic behavior'' when the agent displays mutual gaze behavior than when the agent does not.

Other researchers have established that proxemics can be a valuable tool for measuring the behavioral realism of an agent or an avatar. People tend to perceive nonverbal gestures on an implicit level, and degree of personal space appears to be an accurate way to measure people's perception of ''[[Social presence theory|social presence]]'' and realism in virtual environments.  Nick Yee in his PhD thesis at Stanford discovered that real world proxemic distances also were applied in the virtual world of [[Second Life]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Yee | first1 = Nick |display-authors=etal  | year = 2007 | title = Unbearable Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social Norms in Online Virtual Environments | journal = CyberPsychology & Behavior | volume = 10 | issue = 1| pages = 115–121 | doi=10.1089/cpb.2006.9984| pmid = 17305457 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.119.9840 | s2cid = 6647242 }}</ref> Other studies demonstrate that implicit behavioral measures such as body posture can be a reliable measure of the user's sense of presence in [[virtual environment]]s. Similarly, personal space may be a more reliable measure of social presence than a typical ratings survey in immersive virtual environments.

=== Social robotics ===
Proxemic zones have been proposed as tools to control interactions between [[autonomous robots]] and humans, such as between [[self-driving cars]] and pedestrians.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Rios-Martinez, J., Spalanzani, A. & Laugier, C.|year=2015|title=From Proxemics Theory to Socially-Aware Navigation: A Survey.|journal=International Journal of Social Robotics|volume=7|issue=2 |pages=137–153|doi=10.1007/s12369-014-0251-1|s2cid=255573990 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=    Pakpoom Patompak, Sungmoon Jeong, Itthisek Nilkhamhang & Nak Young Chong |year=2020|title=Learning Proxemics for Personalized Human–Robot Social Interaction.|journal=International Journal of Social Robotics|volume=12|pages=267–280|doi=10.1007/s12369-019-00560-9|s2cid=255584502 }}</ref><ref name="Camara, F and Fox, C. 2021 1929–1949"/>  [[Robot navigation]] is often controlled using costmaps which these models link to proxemic zones.<ref>{{cite web
	| url = http://wiki.ros.org/social_navigation_layers
	| title = ROS Social Navigation Layers
}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite journal|author=D. V. Lu, D. Hershberger and W. D. Smart|title="Layered costmaps for context-sensitive navigation,"|year= 2014 |journal=IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems|pages=709–715}}</ref>

=== Cyberbullying ===
[[Cyberbullying]] is a communication phenomenon in which a bully utilizes electronic media in order to harass peers. Adolescents favor [[texting]] or  [[computer-mediated communication]] as an alternative to the more directly combative face-to-face interactions because it takes advantage of evading imposed [[norm (social)|social norms]] such as "[[school rule]]s", which are likely to be especially repressive of aggression involving females.<ref>"The Future Of Adolescent Female Cyber-Bullying: Electronic Media's Effect On Aggressive Female Communication". ''Jena Ponsford''. Texas State University. Retrieved 27 March 2016.</ref> Online bullying has a lot in common with bullying in school: Both behaviors include harassment, humiliation, teasing, and aggression. Cyberbullying presents unique challenges in the sense that the perpetrator can attempt to be anonymous, and attacks can happen at any time of day or night.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/health/cyberbullying-online-bully-victims/|title=When bullying goes high-tech|last=Landau|first=Elizabeth|date=February 27, 2013|website=CNN|access-date=March 28, 2016}}</ref>

The main factor that encourages cyberbullying is the fact that a cyberbully can hide behind the shield of online anonymity. In other words, social media magnifies the face-to-face ''social space'' into a '''[[Virtual community|virtual space]]''' where a cyberbully can say anything about the victims without the pressure of facing them.

=== Social distancing ===

During the [[COVID-19]] pandemic, many countries enforced [[social distancing]], the requirement to maintain a minimum distance between people at all times. These distances were typically larger than in normal interactions, and proxemics may help to explain the social effects of the change, including long-term changes in levels of interpersonal trust.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Mehta, Vikas|year=2020|title=The new proxemics: COVID-19, social distancing, and sociable space.|journal= Journal of Urban Design|volume=26|issue=6 |pages=669–674|doi=10.1080/13574809.2020.1785283 |s2cid=225096639 }}</ref>

It has been suggested that the pandemic has made people adverse to hugs or handshakes, less trusting, and more transactional, as a long-term cultural change.  In an article in ''[[Psychology Today]]'', author Jane Adams discussed "boundary style" as the way people behave when they come in contact with others. "Some changes in how we interact with others may be temporary while others could be long-lasting," she says.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Pandemic Proxemics: Is Six Feet Enough? |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/202004/pandemic-proxemics-is-six-feet-enough |website=Psychology Today |language=en-SG |access-date=2020-05-15}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Columns-list|colwidth=30em|
* {{annotated link|Behavioral sink}}
* {{annotated link|Body language}}
* {{annotated link|Comfort zone}}
* {{annotated link|Personal boundaries}}
* {{annotated link|Proxemic communication strategies}}
* {{annotated link|Shyness}}
}}

== References ==
{{Reflist|2}}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite journal|title=The Proxemics Lexicon: a first approximation|author=T. Matthew Ciolek|journal=Journal of Nonverbal Behavior|volume=8|issue=1|date=September 1983|pages=55–75|doi= 10.1007/BF00986330|s2cid=143452368}}
* {{cite journal|author=Edward T. Hall|title=A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behaviour|journal=American Anthropologist|volume=65|year=1963|pages=1003–1026|doi=10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020|issue=5|author-link=Edward T. Hall|doi-access=free}}
* {{cite journal|title=Sociofugal Space|author=Robert Sommer|journal=The American Journal of Sociology|volume=72|issue=6|date=May 1967|pages=654–660|doi=10.1086/224402|s2cid=222428003|author-link=Robert Sommer}}
* {{cite book| last = Lawson| first = Bryan| title = The Language of Space| url = https://archive.org/details/languagespace00laws| url-access = limited| year = 2001| publisher = Architectural Press| isbn = 978-0-7506-5246-9| pages = [https://archive.org/details/languagespace00laws/page/n150 140]–144| chapter = Sociofugal and sociopetal space }}
*Herrera, D. A. (2010). ''Gaze, turn-taking and proxemics in multiparty versus dyadic conversation across cultures'' (Ph.D.). The University of Texas at El Paso, United States—Texas. {{ISBN|9781124175645}}
*McArthur, J.A. (2016). ''Digital Proxemics: How technology shapes the ways we move.'' Peter Lang. {{ISBN|9781454199403}}
*Busbea, Larry D. (2020). ''Proxemics and the Architecture of Social Interaction''. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City (Columbia UP) {{ISBN|9781941332672}}

{{Authority control}}

{{Nonverbal communication}}

[[Category:Semiotics]]
[[Category:Ethology]]
[[Category:Interpersonal communication]]
[[Category:Environmental psychology]]
[[Category:Nonverbal communication]]