proxemics, locus of control, anxiety, and type of movement in emotionally disturbed and normal boys

Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1976

Proxemics, Locus of Control, Anxiety, and Type of

Movement in Emotionally Disturbed and Normal Boys

Philip C. Kendall 1 and P. A. Deardorff Virginia Commonwealth University

A. J. Finch, Jr. Virginia Treatment Center for Children

Lewis Graham University o f Georgia

In order to determine the interpersonal distancing requirements for emotionally disturbed and normal children and in order to investigate the relationship o f locus o f control and anxiety to interpersonal space, 20 emotionally disturbed and 20 normal boys were randomly required to approach an object person and to let the object person approach them until they felt uncomfortable. Results indicated that emotionally disturbed boys required more space than normals; that subjects would approach closer than they would allow the object person to approach them; and that externals required more space than internals. There were no significant differences between high and low anxious subjects, nor between emotionally disturbed children diagnostically classified as overanxious reaction and those with other diagnosis. Finally, neither anxiety nor locus o f control explained the significant normal-emotionally disturbed differences in space requirements. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed as well as the relationship between the present and previous research.

Personal space (Sommer, 1967, 1969), territoriality (Hediger, 1950), body buffer zone (Horowitz, Duff, & Stratton, 1964), individual distance (Burkhardt, 1944), and proxemics (Hall, 1963, 1966) all refer to the spacing that humans and animals maintain between themselves and others. Such variables as sex and

Manuscript received in final form September 14, 1975. i Requests for reprints should be sent to Philip C. Kendall, Virginia Treatment Center for

Children, P. O. Box l-L, Richmond, Virginia 23201.

�9 1976 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West 17th Street, New York , N .Y . 10011 . No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfi lming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.

10 Kendall, Deardorff, Finch, and Graham

type of movement (Hartnett, Bailey, & Gibson, 1970), locus of control (Duke & Nowicki, 1972), implied threat (Bailey, Hartnett, & Gibson, 1972), affiliation and liking (Mehrabian, 1969), and cultural background (Hall, 1966) have been found to influence personal space requirements.

Several studies have investigated personal space in abnormal children and adolescents. Fisher (1967) found that boys who were disruptive in the classroom placed human figures farther apart than nondisruptive boys. Employing the felt figure technique of Kuethe (1962) and a replacement procedure which requires the child to place the figures on a feltboard after seeing them and their being removed, Weinstein (1965) found that emotionally disturbed boys replaced the human figures farther apart than did normals. However, Tolor (1968) used a modified Kuethe (1962) technique and did not find a difference between emotionally disturbed and normals but did find a need for greater distance with in- creasing age. Employing a technique which actually required the experimenter to approach the subject, Newman and Pollack (1973) found that adolescents de- scribed as hostile, defiant, and aggressive demanded more personal space than controls. The differences in these results may have been due to the difference in their measures of personal space.

Studies investigating personal space with abnormal populations have tend- ed to employ two theoretical explanations in accounting for their findings. Tolor (1968) suggested that an "upsurge of pubertal anxiety" (p. 700) may account for the differences he obtained. Likewise, Newman and Pollack (1973) attribute their results to greater anxiety in their abnormal population. Support- ing this hypothesis that anxiety influences interpersonal distancing is a study by McBride, King, and James (1965). They found a greater GSR reaction with de- creasing distance between the experimenter and subject. If anxiety is a significant factor in personal space, it would be expected that proxemic intimacy would be more intolerable for highly anxious children and for the emotionally disturbed children classified as overanxious.

A second theoretical explanation of personal space requirements focuses on locus of control. Duke and Nowicki (1972) found that externals require a greater proxemic area than internals. They maintain that since externals perceive themselves as less able to control what happens in social interactions, they are less likely to permit other people to come near. Further support for the importance of locus of control in personal space is provided by Duke and Mullens (1973) while Tolor, Brannigan, and Murphey (1973) found this relationship for females but not males. If locus of control is a significant factor it would be expected that externals would require more space than internals.

The present study investigates the personal space requirements of normal and emotionally disturbed boys using two types of movement. In that previous research would suggest that both anxiety and locus of control should influence personal space requirements, the theoretical understanding of proxemic behavior

Proxemics, Locus of Control, and Anxiety 11

is Unclear. In order to develop a better theoretical understanding the present study is intended to test anxiety and locus of control explanations of proxemic behavior for normal and disturbed boys.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were 20 emotionally disturbed boys who were at the Virginia Treatment Center for Children, a state-supported short-term psychiatric hospital for emotionally disturbed children, and 20 boys enrolled in a local elementary school. The average stay at the Treatment Center was 4�89 to 5 months. The mean age for both groups was 10.0 yr. with a range of 9 yr. to 11 yr. 1 mo. for nor- reals and 8 yr. 7 mo. to 11 yr. 5 mo. for the emotionally disturbed group. Racial composition of the groups was comparable with 18 white and 2 black children in each group. Diagnostic classification of the emotionally disturbed group included overan~ous reaction (35%), anxiety neurosis (5%), depressive neurosis (20%), unsocialized aggressive reaction (15%), and one child in each of five other cate- gories.

The experimental object personal was a very bright 9 yr. 1 mo.-old white male who had never been to either facility prior to the experiment. His dress was the same at both facilities: blue jeans, sneakers, and football jersey. Training of the object person included an explanation of the task and role playing with two of the present authors. The object person was quite mature and consistent in performing the confederate role.

Measures

The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (Spiel- berger, 1973) were administered to both groups in order to obtain an indication of the child's perception of locus of control and his level of anxiety, respectively.

Similar to Harnett et al. (1970), two distancing measures were employed. The subject movement index (SMI) and the experimenter movement index (EMI) both measure the distance between the subject and the object person as decided by the subject. However, the SMI is obtained by having the subject move toward the object person until he feels uncomfortable, while in the EMI the object person moves toward the subject until the subject feels uncomfortable. In both instances the stationary person stood at a designated mark and the


moving person walked toward the stationary person until the subject stated they were close enough. The spot where the nonstationary person stopped was un- obtrusively marked and measured after the subject had left the room.

Procedure

Paper and pencil measures were individuaUy administered with care being taken to ensure that all items were understood. Personal space measures were obtained in two experimental rooms of approximately the same size with all furniture removed and windows covered.

Prior to the task, the object person was instructed to approach the subject in the EMI condition walking normally and remaining as emotionless as possible while maintaining eye contact. For the SMI condition he was instructed to stand normally, flat on two feet, and look at the subject when the subject approached.

For both conditions the stationary person stood with his feet touching a taped line. The moving person began from another taped line approximately 10 ft. (3.03m) away. The instructions for the two movement indexes were as follows:

1. Subject Movement Index: You are going to walk toward him (pointing to the object person) and you are to walk to him until you feel uncomfortable and want to stop. Stop when you feel uncomfortable and that will be all.

2. Experimenter Movement Index: He (pointing to the object person) is going to walk toward you. When you begin to feel uncomfortable you are going to tell him to stop. He will stop when you tell him and that will be all.

The two movement indexes were obtained in random order from each subject during one experimental session. If a child inquired the reason for this task, he was told that we were interested in seeing how people walk up to others. This appeared to be sufficient explanation for children of this age.

RESULTS

Results of a two between-subject (diagnosis, normal or emotionally disturbed, and locus of control, median split at 17 into internals and externals) and one within-subject (movement, subject movement index or experimenter movement index) analysis of variance indicated a significant difference between emotionally disturbed and normal boys, F (1,76) = 41.22, p < .001, with the mean SMI being 98.50 centimeters for the disturbed group and 23.00 centimeters for the normals. The mean EMI was 115,65 centimeters for the disturbed group and


Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for the Emotionally Disturbed and Normal Groups on the SMI, EMI, Locus of

Control, and A-State and A-Trait Anxiety

Group (mean _+ SD)

Measure Emotionally disturbed Normal

SMI 98.50 -+ 63.04 23.00 _+ 29.51 EMI 115.65 -+ 72.84 24.60 +_ 33.43 Locus of control 16.90 +- 4.49 17.45 _+ 3.35 A-State 32.05 +- 6.44 30.05 _+ 4.63 A-Trait 41.75 _+ 7.36 36.00 _+ 6.58

24.60 for the normals. Likewise, externals were found to require significantly more space than internals, F (1, 76) = 19.79, p < .001, and significantly more space was required when the object person was approaching the subject, F (1, 76) = 5.06, p < .03, than when the subject approached the object person. None of the interactions were significant.

Separate analyses of space requirements with subjects median split on both the A-State (median = 31) and A-Trait (median = 37) portion of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children were not significant, F (1, 76) = 1.10,p > .10 and F (1, 7 6 ) < 1, p > .10, respectively. None of the interactions were significant. Analysis of the emotionally disturbed group divided into diagnostic classifi- cations of overanxious and other yielded no significant difference on either the SMI, t (18) = 1.43, p > .10, or the EMI, t (18) = .95, p > .10.

Normal and emotionally disturbed boys were not found to differ significantly on locus of control, t (38) = .44,p > .10, or state anxiety, t (38) ; 1.13, p > .10. However, emotionally disturbed boys were found to be significantly more anxious on the A-Trait scale, t (38) = 2.21, p < .025. The means and standard deviations on all measures for both groups are presented in Table I.

The correlations between locus of control and both the A-State and A- Trait were not significant (A-State r = .10; A-Trait r = .01). The correlation between the A-State and A-Trait portions of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children was significant (r = .39; p < .025).

DISCUSSION

Concerning the normal-emotionally disturbed comparison, the results of the present study support the findings of Weinstein (1965) that emotionally disturbed boys require significantly more personal space than do normals. However, these findings are in direct disagreement with those o f Tolor (1968), who did not find a difference. Although both Weinstein and Tolor employed replacement measures of personal space, an in vivo measure was employed in the present study.

14 Kendall, Deatdorff, Finch, and Graham

Differences in interpersonal distancing due to direct versus projected methods have been demonstrated using children (Mallenby, 1974), yet Haase and Markley (1973) found that feltboard replacement methods and in vivo measures yielded similar results with college students. While the in vivo measure is considered more valid by the present authors, methodological research of the relative effica- cy and validity of various personal space measures is badly needed.

Regarding the importance of locus of control in interpersonal spacing, the results of the present study are supportive of Duke and Nowicki (1972) in that for both normal and emotionally disturbed children externals require more space than internals and are inclined to keep others at a greater distance. Thus, locus of control appears related to interpersonal space.

Regarding the. role of anxiety in determining interpersonal space requirements, as suggested by Tolor (1968) and Newman and Pollack (1973), the results of the present study failed to support this hypothesis. There were no differences between high and low anxious subjects and no significant interaction between anxiety level and type of movement. Also, there were no significant differences between disturbed children classified as overanxious and those with other diagnoses. Considering the magnitude of the differences between the emotionally disturbed and the normal group on personal space and the fact that the two groups also differed on measures of trait anxiety, it was surprising that the anxious subjects did not differ significantly. Likewise, since personal space measures are determined by having the subjects respond when they feel uncomfortable, it seemed logical to conclude that those subjects with high trait anxiety would have become uncomfortable earlier than low trait subjects, since individuals with high trait anxiety are more anxiety-prone (Spielberger, 1972). However, such was not the case and it must be concluded that based on the results of the present study anxiety is not a significant factor in determining personal space in an in vivo task. Perhaps when a child feels anxious or stressed he will approach meaning- ful others for comfort or avoid known antagonists for safety. In that both groups did not differ in A-State anxiety the situation cannot be considered differential- ly stressful and thus did not produce stress-related approach or avoidance behavior.

The major finding of the present study is that, although locus of control appears related to space requirements, neither locus of control nor anxiety explanations can account for differences between normal and emotionally disturbed boys. This suggests that alternate explanations need to be developed to explain the normal-emotionally disturbed differences. Possibly the concept of trust could be explanatory. Emotionally disturbed children are more likely to have had experiences of being hurt by others, including peers, and therefore are less likely to trust others and more likely to avoid intimacy. The tendency not to trust others could certainly affect both approach and be-approached behavior. This is at present only a hypothesis and, indeed, other hypotheses concerning the different interpersonal space requirements are possible. Future efforts should


attempt to uncover the variable(s) which can best explain the observed differences.

Practically, two points are worth noting. First, if one extrapolates from boy-~-boy relationships to child-therapist relationships then these results are sug- gestive that, especially when beginning treatment with a child, care should be taken not to invade his space or implode him with the therapist's presence. Sec-

ond, although the relationship between interpersonal distance and environmental planning has not been clearly demonstrated, the finding that emotionally disturbed boys require more space than normals has many implications for planning facilities as well as treatment. Perhaps care should be taken to provide sufficient space in classrooms and treatment facilities for emotionally disturbed as to allow for this difference. Certainly the overcrowded conditions frequently encoun- tered should be avoided as much as possible. When proxemic intimacy cannot be

avoided or minimized, desensitization of closeness might prove beneficial.

REFERENCES

Bailey, K. G., Harnett, J. J., & Gibson, F. W., Jr. Implied threat and the territorial factor in personal space. Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 263-270.

Burckhardt, D. Mowenbeobachtungen in Basel. Ornithologische Beobachter, 1944, 5, 49-76. Duke. M. P., & Mullens, M. C. Preferred interpersonal distance as a function of locus of

control orientation in schizophrenics, nonschizophrenic patients, and normals. Jour- nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41,230-234.

Duke, M. P., & Nowicki, S., Jr. A new measure and social learning model for interpersonal distance. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1972, 6, 1-16.

Fisher, R. L. Social schema of normal and disturbed school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967,58, 88-92.

Haase, R. F., & Markley, M. S. A methodological note on the study of personal space. Jour- nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 122-125.

Hall, E. T. A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 1963, 65, 1003-1026.

Hall, E. T. The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday, 1966. Hartnett, J. J., Bailey, K. G., & Gibson, F. W., Jr. Personal space as influenced by sex and

type of movement. Journal of Psychology, 1970, 76, 139-144. Hediger, H. Wild animals in captivity. London: Butterworths Scientific Publications, 1950. Horowitz, M. J., Duff, D., & Stratton, L. The body buffer zone: An exploration of personal

space. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1964, 11, 651-656. Keuthe. J. L. Social schemas. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsyehology, 1962, 64, 31-38. Mallenby, T. W. Personal space: Projective and direct measures with institutionalized men-

tally retarded children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1974, 38, 28-31. McBride, G., King, M. G., & James, S. W. Social proxemity effects of galvanic skin responses

in adult humans. Journal of Psychology, 1965, 61, 153-157. Mehrabian, A. Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and

status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 359-372. Newman, R. C., & Pollack, D. Proxemics in deviant adolescents. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40. 6-8. Nowicki, S,, Jr., & Strickland, B. R. A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Con-

sulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 148-154. Sommer, R. Small group ecology. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 67, 145-152.


Sommer, R. Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Spielberger, C. D. Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Cur-

rent trends in theory and researeh. New York: Academic Press, 1972, Spielberger, C. D. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory o f Children. Palo Alto, Cali-

fornia: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1973. Tolor, A. Psychological distance in disturbed and normal children. Psychological Reports,

1968, 23, 659-701. Tolor, A., Brannigan, G. G., & Murphey, V. M. Psychological distance, future time perspect-

ive, and internal-external expectancy. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personal- ity, 1970, 34, 283-294.

Weinstein, L. Social schemata of emotional disturbed boys. Journal of Abnormal Psycho- logy, 1965, 70, 457-461.

proxemics, locus of control, anxiety, and type of movement in emotionally disturbed and normal boys

Documents