Proxemics

Proxemics is the study of human use of space and the effects that population density has on behaviour, communication, and social
interaction.[1]

Proxemics is one among several subcategories in the study of nonverbal communication, including haptics (touch), kinesics (body
movement), vocalics (paralanguage), and chronemics (structure of time).[2]

Edward T. Hall, the 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".[3] 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".[4] Proxemics remains a hidden component of
interpersonal communication that is uncovered through observation and strongly influenced by culture.

Contents
Human distances
Interpersonal distance
Horizontal
Vertical
Biometrics
Neuropsychology
Organization of space in territories
Cultural factors
Adaptation
Applied research
Advertising
Cinema
Cyberbullying
Virtual environments
See also
References
Further reading

Human distances

Interpersonal distance
Hall described the interpersonal distances of man (the relative distances between people) in four distinct zones: (1) intimate space, (2)
personal space, (3) social space, and (4) public space.

Horizontal
 Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering

Close phase – less than 1 to 2 cm

Far phase – 6 to 18 inches (15 to 46 cm)
Personal distance for interactions among goodfriends or family

Close phase – 1.5 to 2.5 feet (46 to 76 cm)

Far phase – 2.5 to 4 feet (76 to 122 cm)
Social distance for interactions among acquaintances

Close phase – 4 to 7 feet (1.2 to 2.1 m)

Far phase – 7 to 12 feet (2.1 to 3.7 m)
Public distance used for public speaking

Close phase – 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 m) A chart depicting Edward T. Hall's

Far phase – 25 feet (7.6 m) or more. interpersonal distances of man,
showing radius in feet and meters
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 calledsocial space. And the space within public distance is calledpublic 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.[5] 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
, public distance is that range reserved for larger audiences.[6]
used for speeches, lectures, and theater; essentially

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,[5] 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.

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.[7] 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 patient S.M., lack a sense of personal space boundary.[7] 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
[7]
effect we suggest arises from the absence of strong emotional responses to personal space violation."

A person's personal space is carried with them everywhere they go. It is the most inviolate form of territory.[8] Body spacing and
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.

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.
[9]
Looking up at or down on another person can be taken literally in many cases, with the higher person asserting greater status.
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.[9]

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 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 ofeye 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 ofbody heat that each participant perceives from another . Four
sub-categories are defined:conducted heat detected, radiant heat detected, heat probably detected, and no
detection of heat.
Olfactory code: This category deals in the kind and degree ofodor detected by each participant from the other .
Voice loudness: This category deals in thevocal effort used in speech. Seven sub-categories are defined: silent,
very soft, soft, normal, normal+, loud, and very loud.

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.
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. isual-tactile
V
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.[10]
Previc[11] 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.

Organization of space in territories

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.[2] 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.[12]

In addition to spatial territories, the interpersonal territories between conversants can

be determined by "socio-petal socio-fugal axis",[13] or the "angle formed by the axis
of the conversants' shoulders".[2] Hall has also studied combinations of postures
between dyads (two people) including lying prone, sitting, or standing. Two people not affecting each other's
personal space

Cultural factors
Personal space is highly variable, due to cultural differences and personal
preferences. On average, preferences vary significantly between countries. A 2017
study[14] found that personal space preferences with respect to strangers ranged
between more than 120 cm in Romania, Hungary and Saudi Arabia, and less than
90 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 Reaction of two people whose
United Kingdom. Greeting rituals tend to be the same in Europe and in the United regions of personal space are in
States, consisting of minimal body contact—often confined to a simple handshake. conflict
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 4 feet (1.2 m) compared to 2 to 3 feet (0.6–0.9 m) in Europe).[15] European cultural history has seen a change in personal
space since 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.[16] 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 Mongolian steppe, both in regard to home and individual spaces. Different expectations of personal space can lead
to difficulties in intercultural communication.[5]

Hall notes that different culture types maintain different standards of personal space. The Francavilla Model of Cultural Types,[17]
[18]
also known as The Lewis Model, lists the variations in personal interactive qualities, indicating three poles:

linear-active cultures, which are characterized as cool and decisive (Germany

, Norway, U.S.)
reactive cultures, characterized as accommodating and non-confrontational (Vietnam, China, Japan), and
multi-active cultures, characterized as warm and impulsive (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Italy).
Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves 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.[19] 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.[20]
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, 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.[19]

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).[21] 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 instructional videoconferencing, using technological tricks such as angling the frame and adjusting the
zoom).[22] Studies have shown that proxemic behavior is also affected when dealing with 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
.[23]
they are uncomfortable. Others may judge that the disabled person needs to have an increase of touch, volume, or proximity

Applied research
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.[24][25][26][27] 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.[28]
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.[24] 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,[29] while others find that common ground can be achieved virtually, by
communicating often.[24]

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.[30][31] 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.

Advertising
Part of Facebook's earning comes from on-site advertising. During these years, Facebook has offered companies the ability to post
and present content in a timeline format on their free brand or business page. By doing so, companies can deliver a more
comprehensive promotional message and increase audience engagement. If a user "likes" a brand page, corporate content posted on
the brand page will appear in the user's news feed. Many users felt angry about the overly implanted ads that showed up in their
Facebook timeline.[32]

Users that consider Facebook advertising "annoying" and "intrusive" may do so because companies are invading their social domain
(territory) with targeted, paid-for, corporate communications. Those that "hate" receiving targeted messages on their social media
profiles could be experiencing frustration.[33] It is likely that these users are devoting effort to the creation and maintenance of
boundaries around their social role, only to have advertisers break through these
boundaries with promotional content.

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.[34] 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?[35] The other consideration is camera proxemics, which answers the single question: How far
away is the camera from the characters/action?[36] 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 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 or extreme close upbecoming the intimate proxemic.[37]

A long shot—the public A full shot—the social A medium shot—the A close-up—the intimate
proxemic proxemic personal proxemic proxemic

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.[38] Or, as actor/director Charlie Chaplin put it: "Life is a tragedy when
seen in close-up, but a comedy in long shot."[39]

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 social norms such as "school rules", which are likely to be especially repressive of aggression
involving females.[40] 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.[41]

The main factor that encourages cyber bullying is the fact that a cyber bully can hide behind the shield of online anonymity. In other
words, social media magnifies the face-to-face social space into a virtual space where a cyber bully can say anything about the
victims without the pressure of facing them.

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 immersed in a 3D virtual room in which a virtual human representation (that is, an embodied agent) stood.[42] The
focus of this study is on thesubtle nonverbal exchangesthat 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 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.[43] 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
environments. Similarly, personal space may be a more reliable measure of social presence than a typical ratings survey in immersive
virtual environments.

See also
Body language Proxemic communication strategies
Comfort zone Shyness
Personal boundaries Spatial empathy

References
1. "Proxemics" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proxemics). Dictionary.com. Retrieved November 14, 2015.
2. Moore, Nina (2010). Nonverbal Communication:Studies and Applications
. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Hall, Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-08476-5.
4. Hall, Edward T. (October 1963). "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior".American Anthropologist. 65 (5):
1003–1026. doi:10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020(https://doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.1963.65.5.02a00020) .
5. Hall, Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-08476-5.
6. Engleberg, Isa N. (2006).Working in Groups: Communication Principles and Strategies
. My Communication Kit
Series. pp. 140–141.
7. Kennedy DP, Gläscher J, Tyszka JM, Adolphs R (2009). "Personal space regulation by the human amygdala"(http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753689). Nat. Neurosci. 12: 1226–1227. doi:10.1038/nn.2381 (https://do
i.org/10.1038%2Fnn.2381). PMC 2753689 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753689) .
PMID 19718035 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19718035).
8. Richmond, Virginia (2008). Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations
. Boston: Pearson/A and B. p. 130.
ISBN 9780205042302.
9. "Proxemics" (http://www.creducation.org/resources/nonverbal_communication/proxemics.html).
www.creducation.org. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
10. Elias, L.J., M.S., Saucier (2006).Neuropsychology: Clinical and Experimental Foundations
. Boston; MA: Pearson
Education Inc. ISBN 0-205-34361-9.
11. Previc, F.H. (1998). "The neuropsychology of3D space". Psychol. Bull. 124 (2): 123–164. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.124.2.123 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.124.2.123) . PMID 9747184 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu
bmed/9747184).
12. Lyman, S.M.; Scott, M.B. (1967). "Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension".Social Problems. 15: 236–249.
doi:10.1525/sp.1967.15.2.03a00090(https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fsp.1967.15.2.03a00090) .
13. Sommer, Robert (May 1967). "Sociofugal Space". American Journal of Sociology. The University of Chicago Press.
27 (6): 654–660.
14. Sorokowska, Agnieszka; Sorokowski, Piotr; Hilpert, Peter (22 March 2017).
"Preferred Interpersonal Distances: A
Global Comparison" (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022117698039) . Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology. 48: 0022022117698039.doi:10.1177/0022022117698039(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00220221176980
39). ISSN 0022-0221 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-0221).
15. "Edward Hall, the hidden dimension online abstract"(http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/13). Retrieved
2006-12-14.
16. Histoire de la vie privée(2001), editors Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby; le Grand livre du mois.ISBN 978-
2020364171. Published in English asA History of Private Lifeby the Belknap Press.ISBN 978-0674399747.
17. "The Lewis Model Explains Every Culture In The W
orld" (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-lewis-model-2013-9).
Business Insider. Retrieved 2016-03-28.
18. Lewis, Richard. "Cross-Culture" (http://www.crossculture.com/services/cross-culture/). Retrieved 27 March 2012.
19. Alessandra, Tony (2000-02-01). Charisma: Seven Keys to Developing the Magnetism that Leads to Success
(https://
www.amazon.com/Charisma-Seven-Developing-Magnetism-Success/dp/0446675989). New York: Business Plus.
pp. 165–192. ISBN 9780446675987.
20. Aiello, John R., Aiello, Tyra De Carlo (July 1974). "The Development of Personal Space: Proxemic Behavior of
Children 6 through 16".Human Ecology. 2: 177–189. doi:10.1007/bf01531420 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf015314
20). JSTOR 4602298 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4602298).
21. Kelly, Francis D. (1972). "Communicational Significance of Therapist Proxemic Cues"(http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.
18.0b/ovidweb.cgi?WebLinkFrameset=1&S=CAKDFPEMMDDDGADLNCJKGDIBOBLNAA00&returnUrl=ovidweb.cg
i%3fMain%2bSearch%2bPage%3d1%26S%3dCAKDFPEMMDDDGADLNCJKGDIBOBLNAA00&directlink=http%3
a%2f%2fgraphics.tx.ovid.com%2fovftpdfs%2fFPDDNCIBGDDLMD00%2f fs046%2fovft%2flive%2fgv023%2f0000473
0%2f00004730-197210000-00033.pdf&filename=Communicational+significance+of+therapist+proxemic+cues.&navi
gation_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%7C1%7Csl_10%7CresultSet%7CS.s
h.18.19%7C0). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology . 39.2: 345. doi:10.1037/h0033423 (https://doi.org/10.1
037%2Fh0033423).
22. Ellis, Michael E. "Perceived Proxemic Distance and Instructional V
ideoconferencing: Impact on Student Performance
and Attitude" (http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED354558).
23. Olsen, Carol J. (1989).Proxemic Behavior of the Nonhandicapped T oward the Visually Impaired (http://search.proqu
est.com/docview/1696286801?accountid=11091) . University of Nebraska at Omaha: Proquest Dissertations
Publishing.
24. O'Leary, Michael Boyer; Wilson, Jeanne M; Metiu, Anca; Jett, Quintus R (2008). "Perceived Proximity in iVrtual
Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close". Organization Studies. 29 (7): 979–1002.
doi:10.1177/0170840607083105(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840607083105) .
25. Monge, Peter R; Kirste, Kenneth K (1980). "Measuring Proximity in Human Organization".
Social Psychology
Quarterly. 43 (1): 110–115. doi:10.2307/3033753 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3033753).
26. Monge, Peter R; Rothman, Lynda White; Eisenberg, Eric M; Miller, Katherine I; Kirste, Kenneth K (1985). "The
Dynamics of Organizational Proximity".Management Science. 31 (9): 1129–1141. doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1129(http
s://doi.org/10.1287%2Fmnsc.31.9.1129).
27. Olson, Gary M; Olson, Judith S (2000). "Distance Matters".Human Computer Interaction. 15: 139–178.
doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1523_4(https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327051hci1523_4) .
28. Zajonc, R.B. (1968). "Attitudinal Effect of Mere Exposure". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 9: 2–17.
doi:10.1037/h0025848 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0025848).
29. Hinds, Pamela; Kiesler, Sara (2002). Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30. Levitt, B; J.G. March (1988). "Organizational Learning".Annual Review of Sociology. 14: 319–340.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.14.1.319 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.soc.14.1.319).
31. Nelson, R. R. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
32. Beauchamp, M. B. (2013). "Don't invade my personal space: Facebook's advertising dilemma". Journal of Applied
Business Research. 29 (1): 91. doi:10.19030/jabr.v29i1.7558 (https://doi.org/10.19030%2Fjabr.v29i1.7558).
33. Cohen, D. (February 23, 2012)."Brands, maintain a Facebook page, but don't bother me"(http://www.allfacebook.co
m/facebook-page-consumers-2012-02).
34. "Cinematography – Proxemics"(http://www.esfmedia.com/page/Cinematography+-+Proxemics). Film and Media
Studies in ESF. South Island School. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
35. "Mise en scene" (http://filmstudies.uncc.edu/sites/filmstudies.uncc.edu/files/media/mise_en_scene.pdf)
(PDF). Film
Studies. University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
36. "Shot and Camera Proxemics"(http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/pruter/film/scproxemics.htm). The Fifteen Points of
Mise-en-scene. College of DuPage. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
37. "Cinematography Part II: MISE-EN-SCENE: Orchestrating the Frame"(http://courses.csusm.edu/fmst300bc/mise.ht
ml). California State University San Marcos. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
38. Giannetti, Louis (1990).Understanding Movies, 5th edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. p. 64.ISBN 0-13-
945585-X.
39. Roud, Richard (28 December 1977). "The Baggy-T
rousered Philanthropist".The Guardian: 3.
40. "The Future Of Adolescent Female Cyber-Bullying: Electronic Media's Ef
fect On Aggressive Female
Communication". Jena Ponsford. Texas State University. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
41. Landau, Elizabeth (February 27, 2013)."When bullying goes high-tech"(http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/health/cybe
rbullying-online-bully-victims/). CNN. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
42. Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2001)."Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and
personal space in virtual environments"(https://vhil.stanford.edu/mm/2001/bailenson-equilibrium.pdf)(PDF).
Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments. 10 (6): 583–598. doi:10.1162/105474601753272844(https://doi.or
g/10.1162%2F105474601753272844).
43. Yee, Nick; et al. (2007). "Unbearable Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social Norms in Online
Virtual Environments". CyberPsychology & Behavior. 10 (1): 115–121. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9984(https://doi.org/1
0.1089%2Fcpb.2006.9984).

Further reading
T. Matthew Ciolek (September 1983). "The Proxemics Lexicon: a first approximation".Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior. 8 (1): 55–75. doi:10.1007/BF00986330.
Edward T. Hall (1963). "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behaviour".American Anthropologist. 65 (5): 1003–
1026. doi:10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020.
Robert Sommer (May 1967). "Sociofugal Space".The American Journal of Sociology. 72 (6): 654–660.
doi:10.1086/224402.
Lawson, Bryan (2001). "Sociofugal and sociopetal space".The Language of Space. Architectural Press. pp. 140–
144. ISBN 0-7506-5246-2.
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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proxemics&oldid=831051722

"

This page was last edited on 18 March 2018, at 13:12.

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.