- Email: [email protected]
Physical distance and attraction: An intensification effect
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMFNTAL
SOCIAL
12, 274-282
PSYCHOLOGY
(1976)
Physical Distance and Attraction: An Intensification Effect1
AND
R. STEVEN Wellesiey
Received
SCHIAVO College
April
25, 1975
This study was designed to test the effects of both interaction distance and the quality of the interaction upon attraction. It was found that close interaction distances amplified the quality of the interaction so that for a positive interaction there was more liking for a close rather than a far partner, while for a negative interaction a close partner was liked less. The implications of this finding for research concerning crowding is discussed, as are possible explanatory mechanisms.
Several authors (Argyle, 1969; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) have treated close interaction distances between two individuals as both a sign and an inducer of interpersonal attraction and mutual positive evaluation. A series of studies by Mehrabian and his colleagues (Mehrabian & Diamond, 1971a, 1971b) is typical of the research used to support this view. In these studies it was found that strangers who sat close to each other came to like each other more than did strangers who sat further away. Although these studies and others (see Evans & Howard, 1974, for a complete review) support a relationship between distance and attraction in which close interaction distances are coupled with high attraction, not all researchers have reported similar findings. Porter, Argyle, and Salter (1970). using a mock interview situation, found no effect for interaction distance on any of 21 personality ratings they collected. Patterson and Sechrest (1970), using distances and a procedure very similar to Porter et al. (1970), found a nonmonotonic relationship between distance on only one of a number of judged personality characteristics. A very different conceptualization of the effects of distance upon ’ Reprint requests should be sent to Allen Schiffenbauer, Department of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24060. We are indebted to Cindy Reynolds. Jean Underwood, and Nancy Johnson for their contributions to this experiment. 274
DISTANCE
AND
ATTRACTION
275
interpersonal perception behavior has been emphasized by others. Sommer (1969) treats close approaches as violations of personal space. These violations are seen as aversive and cause the invaded individual to escape the situation (Felipe & Sommer, 1966). Stokols (1972) also takes a position which postulates negative affective consequences of close distances. He states that perceived crowdedness, caused in large part by small interpersonal distances, is a stressor. This view is consistent with research which shows that decreasing interpersonal distance can lead to increased physiological arousal (e.g. Aiello, Epstein, & Karlin, 197.5; Evans, 1972; Knowles, Middlewest, & Matter, 1975; McBride, King, & James. 1965). Both of the above formulations tend to treat distance as a factor influencing person perception independent of the quality of the interaction taking place. A different way of conceptualizing the effect of close interaction distances is that the impact of distance is dependent upon the interaction. This framework can be used to integrate some seemingly inconsistent results. It can be argued that in those studies in which close distance was aversive, the context of the interactions was negative. In Patterson and Sechrest (1970) the closest approach was interpreted as inappropriate behavior and viewed negatively. Sommer intentionally creates situations in which the subjects see close approaches as invasions of their own personal territories; again, the context in which the close approach occurs is a negative one. The situation used by Porter (1970) appears to be more neutral than those used by Patterson or Sommer, and in this study no distance effect is obtained. Extending this analysis further, the experimental situations used by Mehrabian (Mehrabian & Diamond, 1971a. 1971b) seem to foster positive interactions. In these positive contexts close interaction distance enhances liking. The studies cited above are all consistent with an hypothesis which states that close interaction distances tend to amplify the impact of the affective quality of an interaction. However, none of these studies directly compares the effect of distance under similar positive and negative interaction conditions. The purpose of the present study is to demonstrate that closeness does intensify the affective impact of an interaction. It is predicted that the affective quality of a meeting will interact with the distance between the individuals when the meeting takes place. A pleasant, positive meeting taking place at a close distance will lead to more attraction than will the same meeting occurring at a further distance. If the interaction is neutral, then distance will have no effect on attraction. If the meeting is negative, then close interactions will lead to less liking than far interactions. METHOD Design. The present study which two levels of distance
utilized a between-subjects (2 ft or 5 ft) were crossed
fully factorial 2 x 3 design in with three levels of interaction
276
SCHIFFENBAUER
AND SCHIAVO
quality (positive, neutral, or negative). All subjects were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions of this experiment. Subjects. Seventy-six female undergraduate students enrolled in Introductory Psychology served as subjects in this experiment. Of these, four were dropped from all analyses because they expressed spontaneous suspicion during a postexperimental interview. No two of these subjects were in the same condition. Procedure. Subjects volunteered for an experiment in which a pair of students would engage in a problem-solving task. One member of each pair was actually one of two female confederates of the experimenter. The real subject was always the first to arrive in the laboratory and was asked to sit in a predetermined seat. When the confederate arrived she was instructed to take a seat diagonally across from the subject either 2 ft (close condition) or 5 ft (far condition) away from the subject. Both partners were informed that the experiment they were participating in was meant to examine the effects of several variables upon problem-solving strategies. A questionnaire (current state check list) was distributed to assess the subject’s current affective state. This self-report measure of anger, depression, and happiness was derived from Davitz’ (1969) dictionary of emotional meaning (see Schiffenbauer, l974a and 1974b for a fuller discussion of this questionnaire). The experimenter explained that first one subject would try to solve a problem while the other observed and, that later, these roles would be reversed and the original observer would attempt to solve the problem. The actual subject was always chosen to attempt a solution first. At this point, the problem was set up and instructions given. The problem consisted of a “magic square” puzzle. The subject had to arrange I6 tiles numbered from I to 16 into a 4 x 4 matrix so that each row, column, and diagonal summed to 34. The instructions emphasized that, although the puzzle was solvable it was very difficult, no subject was expected to solve it in the time given, and the major interest was in the subject’s strategy. If the subject had no questions she was given 5 min to work on the puzzle while the confederate observed in silence, avoiding eye contact with the subject by concentrating her gaze on the tiles. After the 5 min were up the tiles were removed. (No subject solved the puzzle.) The confederate was handed a form on which she was to evaluate the subject’s performance. When the confederate completed the form she was asked if she had any additional comments. The exact form of this question alerted the confederate to the interaction condition the subject had been assigned. Until this point, the confederate was in complete ignorance of the interaction treatment any subject was to receive. The confederate said either, “Yes. that was a very good strategy. It is a strategy only a really smart person would use.” (positive); “No. no comments.” (neutral); or “Yes, that was a very poor strategy. It is the strategy only a dumb person would use.” (negative). At this point, both partners filled out a second Current State Check List (CSCL). When both subjects were finished the whole previous procedure was repeated. This time, however, the confederate attempted to solve the problem while the subject observed and later evaluated her performance. The confederate performed in a standardized manner for each subject. A third CSCL was completed, and both partners filled out a questionnaire assessing liking for each other. This signalled the end of the experiment. The experimenter thoroughly debriefed each subject alone first and then with the confederate present. During this session the experimenter explained the true nature of the experiment and probed for any suspicions the subjects may have had. The procedure described above involves a situation in which neither the confederate nor the experimenter could be blind to the distance manipulation. The confederate was blind to the interaction quality manipulation each subject was to receive up to the point at which this manipulation was delivered. This creates two problems with respect to interpreting the results of this study: (1) Since the experimenter was not blind, there might have been more systematic variability in her behavior. Any results might be due to an experimenter effect: and (2) The confederate might have systematically
DISTANCE
AND ATTRACTION
277
altered some aspect of her behavior. In this case, any results might be due to distance but to some other confounded variables. To rule out these two sorts of explanations, the following steps were taken: (1) Two confederates were used. Both were thoroughly pretrained so that their behavior showed little variability; (2) Each confederate was given specific eye contact and posture training; (3) Each confederate was observed by one of three naive judges. Neither the confederate nor the experimenter was aware of these observations. The confederate was rated as to amount of eye contact, posture (leaning in-leaning out, and fidgeting), and the positiveness of her vocal qualities. On all of these measures there were no significant distance or distance by evaluation effects; (4) Video tapes were taken of the experimenters, again without them being aware of the operation. These tapes were then observed by 20 judges who were asked to evaluate the experimenters’ behaviors. The judges evaluated the experimenters’ friendliness towards the subject, her liking for the subject, her amount of eye contact with the subject, and how close she stood to the subject. There were no significant main effects or interactions on any of these measures; (5) Each session was audio-taped. Once again, neither the experimenter nor the subject was aware of this procedure. These audio tapes were played back to a group of independent naive judges who were asked to rate each tape for the positiveness or negativeness of the confederate’s comment. Again, there was no significant distance effect nor was there a distance by evaluation interaction. There was a significant evaluation main effect in the expected direction; and (6) The experimental session was so designed that the confederate was looking at the tiles or at the experimenter most of the time; this decreased the possibility of an eye contact confound. The inability of judges to detect consistent variability in confederate behavior across conditions coupled with the design safeguards listed above makes it highly unlikely that any observed results are due to experimenter effects or to a confounded distance manipulation.
RESULTS
Two sets of data reflect the subjects’ feelings toward the confederate: (a) the subject’s evaluation of the confederate’s strategy, and (b) the final liking questionnaire. At the conclusion of the study the subject was asked to indicate, on a 7 point scale, how much she liked the confederate, as well as how much she would recommend the confederate for participation in future experiments. In addition, subjects indicated the degree of confidence they felt in their judgments. The two liking questions were summed to yield a global liking measure.2 This measure was submitted to an analysis of variance which yielded a significant main effect of evaluation condition (F(2,66) = 39.1, p -=c.OOl), with confederates in the positive condition being liked more than those in the neutral condition. Confederates who delivered a negative evaluation were liked least. There was a nonsignificant distance effect (F (1,66) < 1) and a highly significant evaluation by interaction F(2,66) = 9.21, p < .001).3 This pattern of results confirms the intensification ’ Analyses for the two measures separately yielded significance levels identical to those for the combined analysis. ’ For this analysis, and all that follow, tests for confederate effects were performed. In no case was there a significant main effect nor were there any interactions involving the confederate variance.
278
SCHIFFENBAUER
AND
SCHIAVO
predictions made above. In the positive interaction condition confederates were liked better close than far (F( 1,66) = 8.40, p < .Ol); in the neutral interaction condition there was no distance effect (F(1,66) < 1); in the negative interaction condition there was a reversal of the pattern of results obtained in the positive condition with the confederate liked more far than near F(1,66) = 9.31, p < .005). An analysis of the combined confidence ratings for the two liking scores yielded no significant effects. This lack of results is very difficult to interpret because liking and confidence were significantly correlated (r(70) = .443, p < .OOl). Therefore, the highly significant differences between groups on the liking measure are confounded with any differences on the confidence measure. An analysis of covariance adjusting for liking scores could not be performed because there was a lack of homogeneity of within-cell variate/covariate correlations (correlations ranged from 0.15 to OSS), and independence of the covariate and treatments could not be assumed (Keppel, 1973). The other data relevant to the subject’s liking of the confederate was the subject’s evaluation of the confederates’ standard puzzle strategy solution. Each subject evaluated the confederates’ strategy and stated whether or not she would herself adopt it using a 7-point scale. The values for these two questions were summed for each subject and analyzed using analysis of variance. GThis analysis yielded a pattern similar to that obtained for the liking measures. There was no significant main effect for distance (F(1,66) = 2.04). Both the main effect for evaluation (F(2,66) = 14.21 p < .OOl) and the distance by evaluation interaction (F(2,66) = 5.23 p < .05) were significant. The pattern of cell means was similar to the pattern of the liking scores. DISCUSSION The results for both measures of liking supported the hypothesis that close interaction distances would act to intensify the impact of the confederate’s evaluation of the subject. When the comment was positive the confederate was liked more and her strategy evaluated more positively when she sat close to the subject rather than far away. This pattern was reversed in the negative evaluation condition: when the confederate stated that the subject had performed badly the confederate elicited more negative evaluations in the close than in the far condition. There was no difference between the close and the far groups in the neutral interaction condition; nor was there any main effect of distance across the three different sorts of interactions. 4 Analyses for the two measures for the combined analysis.
separately
yielded
significance
levels
identical
to those
DISTANCE
279
AND ATTRACTION TABLE
1
MEAN LIKING OF CONFEDERATES Evaluation Negative
Distance
Positive
Neutral
Close
12.25 10.67
8.67
7.42
9.00
9.08
Far
NOW. High numbers indicate high liking of the confederate.
These findings support an interpretation of personal space research which holds that the inconsistency of previous results which sought to establish a causal link between distance and attraction is due to a lack of control over the affective quality of the interaction that took place. In the present study it was demonstrated that all three previously reported patterns of results (no differences due to distance, small distances leading to increased liking, and small distances leading to decreased liking) could be replicated within the same experimental procedure if careful attention was paid to controlling the affective tone of the interaction. These data are relevant to research performed to examine the effects of human crowding. In many studies designed to study crowding the independent variable is manipulated by varying the amount of area available to each individual in the group. Densely populated experimental situations mean that all of the individuals are sitting very close to each other; the mean interpersonal distance between interactants is small. If the crowding research is viewed from this perspective then we should expect the results of the crowding literature to parallel those obtained from the personal space literature in general and from the present study in particular. The general pattern of results found in the crowding literature parallels that of the personal space literature in that there does not seem to be any TABLE RATING
2
OF CONFEDERATE’S
STRATEGY
Evaluation Distance Close Far
Positive
Neutral
11.32
8.90
11.00
10.75
Negative 6.08 8.67
N&e. High numbers indicate a more favorable rating of the confederate’s strategy.
280
SCHIFFENBAUER
AND SCHIAVO
unitary effect of crowding. Crowding has been found to have both positive and negative effects (Freedman et al. 1972). These findings have lead Freedman as well as other authors (Linder, 1974; Stokols, Rall, Pinner, & Schopler, 1973) to speculate that high density intensifies ongoing affect. This intensification effect is exactly what was found in the present study. One explanation for these effects is that the subject is aroused by close approaches and crowded environments, searches the environment for a reason, uses any cues (i.e., the confederate’s comment) as an explanation for his arousal, and the subject’s liking for others (i.e., the confederate) is thus determined by the subject’s perception of the other’s impact on him/her. In the positive evaluation condition the subject is more aroused close than far, labels her arousal positively (based on the confederate’s evaluation), and comes to feel better than a subject in the far condition (Schachter, 1964). The confederate is then evaluated more positively because she is the source of the subject’s positive affective state. In the negative evaluation condition the same mechanism would lead to greater dislike for the confederate in the close rather than the far condition (Clore & Byrne, 1974). This explanation is based upon the assumption that close interaction distances lead to an increase in arousal. This has been demonstrated both in dyadic situations (Evans, 1972; Knowles, in press; McBride et al., 1965) and in groups (Aiello et al., 1975; D’Atri, 1975; Zajonc, 1965). In the present study arousal differences between the two distance conditions should have produced differential CSCL responses. This was not the case. There were no significant differences among groups for any analysis of the CSCL. This is damaging but not fatal to an arousal explanation. It can be argued that verbal self-reports of arousal are inadequate measures of internal states: therefore? it would not be justifiable to claim that there were no differences among groups solely on the basis of self-reports. This point of view is support by Evans’ (1972) research. He concludes that neither physiological measures nor self-reports give an adequate reflection of a subject’s true internal emotional state. Thayer (1967, 1970, 1971) has also demonstrated that while the correlations between self-reports of arousal and physiological measures can be large enough to be statistically significant they are by no means perfect. An adequate test of the arousal explanation for the amplification effect demands measurements of arousal using several methods simultaneously. The results reported for this experiment show that distance does not have a simple unidimensional effect upon attraction. Close interaction distances can lead to increased attraction. decreased attraction, or have no effect depending upon the quality of the interaction taking place. Close distances amplified the impact of the experimental manipula-
DISTANCE
AND ATTRACTION
281
tions. Conceptualizing close distance as an amplifier makes it possible to reconcile the previously obtained and seemingly inconsistent results obtained in studies of the usage of space in dyads. This amplification effects is also relevant to a discussion of spatial usage in larger groups. It may not be true, as has been hypothesized, that high density living or working conditions must have detrimental effects upon mutual attraction. Under appropriate conditions high density might very well lead to increased attraction. REFERENCES Aiello. J. R., Epstein, Y. M., & Karlin. R. A., Effects of crowding on electrodermai activity. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University, 1975. Argyle, M. Social interaction. New York: Atherton Press. 1969. Clore, G. L., & Byrne. D. A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974. D’Atri, D. A. Psychophysiological responses to crowding. Environment and Behavior, 1975, 7, 237-252. Davitz, J. The [anguage ofemotion. New York: Academic Press, 1969. Evans. G. The relationship between interpersonal distance and human behavior (Report 72-2). Cognitive Processes Laboratory: University of Massachusetts (Amherst), 1972. Evans, G. W., & Howard, R. B. Personal space. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 334-344. Felipe. N. J.. & Sommer, R. Invasions of personal space. Social Problems, 1966, 14, 206-214. Freedman, J. L., Levy, A. S.. Buchanan, R. W., & Price, J. Crowding and human aggressiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1972, 8, 528-548. Keppel, G. Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Knowles, E. S., Middlemist. D.. and Matter, C. F. Physiological responses to personal space invasions: Two Lavatory Studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press. McBride. G. C., King. M. G., & James, J. W. Social proximity effects on galvanic skin responses in human adults. Journal of Psychology. 1965, 61, 153-157. Mehrabian. A.. & Diamond, S. G. Seating arrangement and conversation. Sociometry, 1971a, 34, 281-289. Mehrabian, A., & Diamond, S. G. The effects of furniture arrangements. props, and personality or social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971b, 20, 18-30. Mehmbian, A.. & Russell, J. A. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: M. I. T. Press, 1974. Patterson, M. L., & Sechrest. L. B. Interpersonal distance and impression formation. Journal of Personaliry . 1970, 38, 161- 166. Porter, E., Argyle, M., & Salter, V. What is signalled by proximity? Perceptual and Motor
Skills,
1970, 30, 39-42.
Schachter. S. The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional states. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad\,ance 01 experimental social psychology (Vol. I). New York: Academic Press, 1964. Schiffenbauer, A. Effect of observer’s emotional state on judgments of the emotional
282
SCHIFFENBAUER
AND SCHIAVO
state of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1974a. 30, 31-3.5. Schiffenbauer, A. When will people use facial information to attribute emotion?: The effect of judge’s emotional state and intensity of facial expression on attribution of emotion. Representatit,e Research in Social Psychology. 1974b. 5, 47-53. Sommer. R. /‘el:~oncr/ .sp(~ce: The heirtrr~io~rrl hrrsis ,fbr de.\;,~~r, Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Stokols, D. On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review. 1972. 79, 275-277. Thayer, R. E. Measurement of activation through self-report. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 663-678. Thayer. R. E. Activation states as assessed by verbal report and four psychophysiological variables. Psychophysiology, 1970. 7, 86-94. Thayer, R. E. Personality and discrepPncies between verbal reports and physiological measures of private emotional experiences. Jo~trnal qf Personaiify, 1971. 39, 57-69. Zajonc, R. B. Social facilitation. Science. 1965, 149, 269-274.
OF EXPERIMFNTAL
SOCIAL
12, 274-282
PSYCHOLOGY
(1976)
Physical Distance and Attraction: An Intensification Effect1
AND
R. STEVEN Wellesiey
Received
SCHIAVO College
April
25, 1975
This study was designed to test the effects of both interaction distance and the quality of the interaction upon attraction. It was found that close interaction distances amplified the quality of the interaction so that for a positive interaction there was more liking for a close rather than a far partner, while for a negative interaction a close partner was liked less. The implications of this finding for research concerning crowding is discussed, as are possible explanatory mechanisms.
Several authors (Argyle, 1969; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) have treated close interaction distances between two individuals as both a sign and an inducer of interpersonal attraction and mutual positive evaluation. A series of studies by Mehrabian and his colleagues (Mehrabian & Diamond, 1971a, 1971b) is typical of the research used to support this view. In these studies it was found that strangers who sat close to each other came to like each other more than did strangers who sat further away. Although these studies and others (see Evans & Howard, 1974, for a complete review) support a relationship between distance and attraction in which close interaction distances are coupled with high attraction, not all researchers have reported similar findings. Porter, Argyle, and Salter (1970). using a mock interview situation, found no effect for interaction distance on any of 21 personality ratings they collected. Patterson and Sechrest (1970), using distances and a procedure very similar to Porter et al. (1970), found a nonmonotonic relationship between distance on only one of a number of judged personality characteristics. A very different conceptualization of the effects of distance upon ’ Reprint requests should be sent to Allen Schiffenbauer, Department of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24060. We are indebted to Cindy Reynolds. Jean Underwood, and Nancy Johnson for their contributions to this experiment. 274
DISTANCE
AND
ATTRACTION
275
interpersonal perception behavior has been emphasized by others. Sommer (1969) treats close approaches as violations of personal space. These violations are seen as aversive and cause the invaded individual to escape the situation (Felipe & Sommer, 1966). Stokols (1972) also takes a position which postulates negative affective consequences of close distances. He states that perceived crowdedness, caused in large part by small interpersonal distances, is a stressor. This view is consistent with research which shows that decreasing interpersonal distance can lead to increased physiological arousal (e.g. Aiello, Epstein, & Karlin, 197.5; Evans, 1972; Knowles, Middlewest, & Matter, 1975; McBride, King, & James. 1965). Both of the above formulations tend to treat distance as a factor influencing person perception independent of the quality of the interaction taking place. A different way of conceptualizing the effect of close interaction distances is that the impact of distance is dependent upon the interaction. This framework can be used to integrate some seemingly inconsistent results. It can be argued that in those studies in which close distance was aversive, the context of the interactions was negative. In Patterson and Sechrest (1970) the closest approach was interpreted as inappropriate behavior and viewed negatively. Sommer intentionally creates situations in which the subjects see close approaches as invasions of their own personal territories; again, the context in which the close approach occurs is a negative one. The situation used by Porter (1970) appears to be more neutral than those used by Patterson or Sommer, and in this study no distance effect is obtained. Extending this analysis further, the experimental situations used by Mehrabian (Mehrabian & Diamond, 1971a. 1971b) seem to foster positive interactions. In these positive contexts close interaction distance enhances liking. The studies cited above are all consistent with an hypothesis which states that close interaction distances tend to amplify the impact of the affective quality of an interaction. However, none of these studies directly compares the effect of distance under similar positive and negative interaction conditions. The purpose of the present study is to demonstrate that closeness does intensify the affective impact of an interaction. It is predicted that the affective quality of a meeting will interact with the distance between the individuals when the meeting takes place. A pleasant, positive meeting taking place at a close distance will lead to more attraction than will the same meeting occurring at a further distance. If the interaction is neutral, then distance will have no effect on attraction. If the meeting is negative, then close interactions will lead to less liking than far interactions. METHOD Design. The present study which two levels of distance
utilized a between-subjects (2 ft or 5 ft) were crossed
fully factorial 2 x 3 design in with three levels of interaction
276
SCHIFFENBAUER
AND SCHIAVO
quality (positive, neutral, or negative). All subjects were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions of this experiment. Subjects. Seventy-six female undergraduate students enrolled in Introductory Psychology served as subjects in this experiment. Of these, four were dropped from all analyses because they expressed spontaneous suspicion during a postexperimental interview. No two of these subjects were in the same condition. Procedure. Subjects volunteered for an experiment in which a pair of students would engage in a problem-solving task. One member of each pair was actually one of two female confederates of the experimenter. The real subject was always the first to arrive in the laboratory and was asked to sit in a predetermined seat. When the confederate arrived she was instructed to take a seat diagonally across from the subject either 2 ft (close condition) or 5 ft (far condition) away from the subject. Both partners were informed that the experiment they were participating in was meant to examine the effects of several variables upon problem-solving strategies. A questionnaire (current state check list) was distributed to assess the subject’s current affective state. This self-report measure of anger, depression, and happiness was derived from Davitz’ (1969) dictionary of emotional meaning (see Schiffenbauer, l974a and 1974b for a fuller discussion of this questionnaire). The experimenter explained that first one subject would try to solve a problem while the other observed and, that later, these roles would be reversed and the original observer would attempt to solve the problem. The actual subject was always chosen to attempt a solution first. At this point, the problem was set up and instructions given. The problem consisted of a “magic square” puzzle. The subject had to arrange I6 tiles numbered from I to 16 into a 4 x 4 matrix so that each row, column, and diagonal summed to 34. The instructions emphasized that, although the puzzle was solvable it was very difficult, no subject was expected to solve it in the time given, and the major interest was in the subject’s strategy. If the subject had no questions she was given 5 min to work on the puzzle while the confederate observed in silence, avoiding eye contact with the subject by concentrating her gaze on the tiles. After the 5 min were up the tiles were removed. (No subject solved the puzzle.) The confederate was handed a form on which she was to evaluate the subject’s performance. When the confederate completed the form she was asked if she had any additional comments. The exact form of this question alerted the confederate to the interaction condition the subject had been assigned. Until this point, the confederate was in complete ignorance of the interaction treatment any subject was to receive. The confederate said either, “Yes. that was a very good strategy. It is a strategy only a really smart person would use.” (positive); “No. no comments.” (neutral); or “Yes, that was a very poor strategy. It is the strategy only a dumb person would use.” (negative). At this point, both partners filled out a second Current State Check List (CSCL). When both subjects were finished the whole previous procedure was repeated. This time, however, the confederate attempted to solve the problem while the subject observed and later evaluated her performance. The confederate performed in a standardized manner for each subject. A third CSCL was completed, and both partners filled out a questionnaire assessing liking for each other. This signalled the end of the experiment. The experimenter thoroughly debriefed each subject alone first and then with the confederate present. During this session the experimenter explained the true nature of the experiment and probed for any suspicions the subjects may have had. The procedure described above involves a situation in which neither the confederate nor the experimenter could be blind to the distance manipulation. The confederate was blind to the interaction quality manipulation each subject was to receive up to the point at which this manipulation was delivered. This creates two problems with respect to interpreting the results of this study: (1) Since the experimenter was not blind, there might have been more systematic variability in her behavior. Any results might be due to an experimenter effect: and (2) The confederate might have systematically
DISTANCE
AND ATTRACTION
277
altered some aspect of her behavior. In this case, any results might be due to distance but to some other confounded variables. To rule out these two sorts of explanations, the following steps were taken: (1) Two confederates were used. Both were thoroughly pretrained so that their behavior showed little variability; (2) Each confederate was given specific eye contact and posture training; (3) Each confederate was observed by one of three naive judges. Neither the confederate nor the experimenter was aware of these observations. The confederate was rated as to amount of eye contact, posture (leaning in-leaning out, and fidgeting), and the positiveness of her vocal qualities. On all of these measures there were no significant distance or distance by evaluation effects; (4) Video tapes were taken of the experimenters, again without them being aware of the operation. These tapes were then observed by 20 judges who were asked to evaluate the experimenters’ behaviors. The judges evaluated the experimenters’ friendliness towards the subject, her liking for the subject, her amount of eye contact with the subject, and how close she stood to the subject. There were no significant main effects or interactions on any of these measures; (5) Each session was audio-taped. Once again, neither the experimenter nor the subject was aware of this procedure. These audio tapes were played back to a group of independent naive judges who were asked to rate each tape for the positiveness or negativeness of the confederate’s comment. Again, there was no significant distance effect nor was there a distance by evaluation interaction. There was a significant evaluation main effect in the expected direction; and (6) The experimental session was so designed that the confederate was looking at the tiles or at the experimenter most of the time; this decreased the possibility of an eye contact confound. The inability of judges to detect consistent variability in confederate behavior across conditions coupled with the design safeguards listed above makes it highly unlikely that any observed results are due to experimenter effects or to a confounded distance manipulation.
RESULTS
Two sets of data reflect the subjects’ feelings toward the confederate: (a) the subject’s evaluation of the confederate’s strategy, and (b) the final liking questionnaire. At the conclusion of the study the subject was asked to indicate, on a 7 point scale, how much she liked the confederate, as well as how much she would recommend the confederate for participation in future experiments. In addition, subjects indicated the degree of confidence they felt in their judgments. The two liking questions were summed to yield a global liking measure.2 This measure was submitted to an analysis of variance which yielded a significant main effect of evaluation condition (F(2,66) = 39.1, p -=c.OOl), with confederates in the positive condition being liked more than those in the neutral condition. Confederates who delivered a negative evaluation were liked least. There was a nonsignificant distance effect (F (1,66) < 1) and a highly significant evaluation by interaction F(2,66) = 9.21, p < .001).3 This pattern of results confirms the intensification ’ Analyses for the two measures separately yielded significance levels identical to those for the combined analysis. ’ For this analysis, and all that follow, tests for confederate effects were performed. In no case was there a significant main effect nor were there any interactions involving the confederate variance.
278
SCHIFFENBAUER
AND
SCHIAVO
predictions made above. In the positive interaction condition confederates were liked better close than far (F( 1,66) = 8.40, p < .Ol); in the neutral interaction condition there was no distance effect (F(1,66) < 1); in the negative interaction condition there was a reversal of the pattern of results obtained in the positive condition with the confederate liked more far than near F(1,66) = 9.31, p < .005). An analysis of the combined confidence ratings for the two liking scores yielded no significant effects. This lack of results is very difficult to interpret because liking and confidence were significantly correlated (r(70) = .443, p < .OOl). Therefore, the highly significant differences between groups on the liking measure are confounded with any differences on the confidence measure. An analysis of covariance adjusting for liking scores could not be performed because there was a lack of homogeneity of within-cell variate/covariate correlations (correlations ranged from 0.15 to OSS), and independence of the covariate and treatments could not be assumed (Keppel, 1973). The other data relevant to the subject’s liking of the confederate was the subject’s evaluation of the confederates’ standard puzzle strategy solution. Each subject evaluated the confederates’ strategy and stated whether or not she would herself adopt it using a 7-point scale. The values for these two questions were summed for each subject and analyzed using analysis of variance. GThis analysis yielded a pattern similar to that obtained for the liking measures. There was no significant main effect for distance (F(1,66) = 2.04). Both the main effect for evaluation (F(2,66) = 14.21 p < .OOl) and the distance by evaluation interaction (F(2,66) = 5.23 p < .05) were significant. The pattern of cell means was similar to the pattern of the liking scores. DISCUSSION The results for both measures of liking supported the hypothesis that close interaction distances would act to intensify the impact of the confederate’s evaluation of the subject. When the comment was positive the confederate was liked more and her strategy evaluated more positively when she sat close to the subject rather than far away. This pattern was reversed in the negative evaluation condition: when the confederate stated that the subject had performed badly the confederate elicited more negative evaluations in the close than in the far condition. There was no difference between the close and the far groups in the neutral interaction condition; nor was there any main effect of distance across the three different sorts of interactions. 4 Analyses for the two measures for the combined analysis.
separately
yielded
significance
levels
identical
to those
DISTANCE
279
AND ATTRACTION TABLE
1
MEAN LIKING OF CONFEDERATES Evaluation Negative
Distance
Positive
Neutral
Close
12.25 10.67
8.67
7.42
9.00
9.08
Far
NOW. High numbers indicate high liking of the confederate.
These findings support an interpretation of personal space research which holds that the inconsistency of previous results which sought to establish a causal link between distance and attraction is due to a lack of control over the affective quality of the interaction that took place. In the present study it was demonstrated that all three previously reported patterns of results (no differences due to distance, small distances leading to increased liking, and small distances leading to decreased liking) could be replicated within the same experimental procedure if careful attention was paid to controlling the affective tone of the interaction. These data are relevant to research performed to examine the effects of human crowding. In many studies designed to study crowding the independent variable is manipulated by varying the amount of area available to each individual in the group. Densely populated experimental situations mean that all of the individuals are sitting very close to each other; the mean interpersonal distance between interactants is small. If the crowding research is viewed from this perspective then we should expect the results of the crowding literature to parallel those obtained from the personal space literature in general and from the present study in particular. The general pattern of results found in the crowding literature parallels that of the personal space literature in that there does not seem to be any TABLE RATING
2
OF CONFEDERATE’S
STRATEGY
Evaluation Distance Close Far
Positive
Neutral
11.32
8.90
11.00
10.75
Negative 6.08 8.67
N&e. High numbers indicate a more favorable rating of the confederate’s strategy.
280
SCHIFFENBAUER
AND SCHIAVO
unitary effect of crowding. Crowding has been found to have both positive and negative effects (Freedman et al. 1972). These findings have lead Freedman as well as other authors (Linder, 1974; Stokols, Rall, Pinner, & Schopler, 1973) to speculate that high density intensifies ongoing affect. This intensification effect is exactly what was found in the present study. One explanation for these effects is that the subject is aroused by close approaches and crowded environments, searches the environment for a reason, uses any cues (i.e., the confederate’s comment) as an explanation for his arousal, and the subject’s liking for others (i.e., the confederate) is thus determined by the subject’s perception of the other’s impact on him/her. In the positive evaluation condition the subject is more aroused close than far, labels her arousal positively (based on the confederate’s evaluation), and comes to feel better than a subject in the far condition (Schachter, 1964). The confederate is then evaluated more positively because she is the source of the subject’s positive affective state. In the negative evaluation condition the same mechanism would lead to greater dislike for the confederate in the close rather than the far condition (Clore & Byrne, 1974). This explanation is based upon the assumption that close interaction distances lead to an increase in arousal. This has been demonstrated both in dyadic situations (Evans, 1972; Knowles, in press; McBride et al., 1965) and in groups (Aiello et al., 1975; D’Atri, 1975; Zajonc, 1965). In the present study arousal differences between the two distance conditions should have produced differential CSCL responses. This was not the case. There were no significant differences among groups for any analysis of the CSCL. This is damaging but not fatal to an arousal explanation. It can be argued that verbal self-reports of arousal are inadequate measures of internal states: therefore? it would not be justifiable to claim that there were no differences among groups solely on the basis of self-reports. This point of view is support by Evans’ (1972) research. He concludes that neither physiological measures nor self-reports give an adequate reflection of a subject’s true internal emotional state. Thayer (1967, 1970, 1971) has also demonstrated that while the correlations between self-reports of arousal and physiological measures can be large enough to be statistically significant they are by no means perfect. An adequate test of the arousal explanation for the amplification effect demands measurements of arousal using several methods simultaneously. The results reported for this experiment show that distance does not have a simple unidimensional effect upon attraction. Close interaction distances can lead to increased attraction. decreased attraction, or have no effect depending upon the quality of the interaction taking place. Close distances amplified the impact of the experimental manipula-
DISTANCE
AND ATTRACTION
281
tions. Conceptualizing close distance as an amplifier makes it possible to reconcile the previously obtained and seemingly inconsistent results obtained in studies of the usage of space in dyads. This amplification effects is also relevant to a discussion of spatial usage in larger groups. It may not be true, as has been hypothesized, that high density living or working conditions must have detrimental effects upon mutual attraction. Under appropriate conditions high density might very well lead to increased attraction. REFERENCES Aiello. J. R., Epstein, Y. M., & Karlin. R. A., Effects of crowding on electrodermai activity. Unpublished manuscript. Rutgers University, 1975. Argyle, M. Social interaction. New York: Atherton Press. 1969. Clore, G. L., & Byrne. D. A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974. D’Atri, D. A. Psychophysiological responses to crowding. Environment and Behavior, 1975, 7, 237-252. Davitz, J. The [anguage ofemotion. New York: Academic Press, 1969. Evans. G. The relationship between interpersonal distance and human behavior (Report 72-2). Cognitive Processes Laboratory: University of Massachusetts (Amherst), 1972. Evans, G. W., & Howard, R. B. Personal space. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 334-344. Felipe. N. J.. & Sommer, R. Invasions of personal space. Social Problems, 1966, 14, 206-214. Freedman, J. L., Levy, A. S.. Buchanan, R. W., & Price, J. Crowding and human aggressiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1972, 8, 528-548. Keppel, G. Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Knowles, E. S., Middlemist. D.. and Matter, C. F. Physiological responses to personal space invasions: Two Lavatory Studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press. McBride. G. C., King. M. G., & James, J. W. Social proximity effects on galvanic skin responses in human adults. Journal of Psychology. 1965, 61, 153-157. Mehrabian. A.. & Diamond, S. G. Seating arrangement and conversation. Sociometry, 1971a, 34, 281-289. Mehrabian, A., & Diamond, S. G. The effects of furniture arrangements. props, and personality or social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971b, 20, 18-30. Mehmbian, A.. & Russell, J. A. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: M. I. T. Press, 1974. Patterson, M. L., & Sechrest. L. B. Interpersonal distance and impression formation. Journal of Personaliry . 1970, 38, 161- 166. Porter, E., Argyle, M., & Salter, V. What is signalled by proximity? Perceptual and Motor
Skills,
1970, 30, 39-42.
Schachter. S. The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional states. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad\,ance 01 experimental social psychology (Vol. I). New York: Academic Press, 1964. Schiffenbauer, A. Effect of observer’s emotional state on judgments of the emotional
282
SCHIFFENBAUER
AND SCHIAVO
state of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1974a. 30, 31-3.5. Schiffenbauer, A. When will people use facial information to attribute emotion?: The effect of judge’s emotional state and intensity of facial expression on attribution of emotion. Representatit,e Research in Social Psychology. 1974b. 5, 47-53. Sommer. R. /‘el:~oncr/ .sp(~ce: The heirtrr~io~rrl hrrsis ,fbr de.\;,~~r, Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Stokols, D. On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review. 1972. 79, 275-277. Thayer, R. E. Measurement of activation through self-report. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 663-678. Thayer. R. E. Activation states as assessed by verbal report and four psychophysiological variables. Psychophysiology, 1970. 7, 86-94. Thayer, R. E. Personality and discrepPncies between verbal reports and physiological measures of private emotional experiences. Jo~trnal qf Personaiify, 1971. 39, 57-69. Zajonc, R. B. Social facilitation. Science. 1965, 149, 269-274.