- Email: [email protected]
Stability of nonverbal immediacy behaviors
JOURNAL
OF
EXPERIMENTAL
Stability
of
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Nonverbal
9, 97-109
Immediacy
(1973)
Behaviors1
MILES L. PATTERSON~ Uniz;ersity of Missouri-St. Louis The stability of the immediacy behaviors of approach distance, eye contact, approach orientation, and body lean was examined across two interviews over a 25 min and a l-week interval. Stability coefficients were similarly high between the sessions for each interval. General support was found for the presence of compensatory relationships between approach distance and eye contact and between approach distance and approach orientation. A bimodal distribution of approach distances, found in both studies, included a substantial intermediate range which was not used by any of the subjects. Evidence from personality data and self-ratings suggested that subjects who remained more distant were more anxious than those who approached closer.
The study of nonverbal social behavior has increased rapidly in the last few years. In that time three review papers have outlined much of the research on nonverbal social behavior (Duncan, 1969; Sommer, 1967; Patterson, 1968). Although the specific influences of nonverbal behaviors are quite complex, it seems clear that a variety of behaviors must be weighed to determine the total impression communicated in any situation. In fact, Argyle and Dean (1965) have suggested a composite label of “intimacy” to refer to the cumulative effect of distance, eye contact, smiling, and other behaviors. The term “immediacy” has been used by Mehrabian (1969b) to refer to a similar, but more specifically defined, range of nonverbal behaviors, in&ding touching, distance, eye contact, body lean, and body orientation. The communicative function of the immediacy behaviors appears to be more general and less dependent on verbal messages than other behaviors such as facial expressions and gestures. In fact, Mehrabian (1969a) concluded that the immediacy behaviors, more than other nonverbal behaviors, were critical in communicating interpersonal attitudes. The immediacy behaviors are also important because of their rele1 This study was supported by a summer Grant from the University of Missouri. Reprints may be obtained by writing the author at the Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63121. ‘The author expresses special thanks to Justine Maier, John Olsen, Peggy Seaver, Harlan Harber, and Karen Peterman for their assistance in collecting the data. 97 Copyright All rights
@ 1973 by AcademicPress,Inc. of reproduction
in any
form
reserved.
98
MILES
L.
PAlTERSON
Vance for a hypothesis advanced by Argyle and Dean (1965). These authors suggested that the expression of intimacy through a variety of behaviors, including the immediacy behaviors, reaches a clynanric equilibrium in a social interaction. If this equilibrium is disturbed through the action of one of the parties or through situational COIP straints, some compensatory reactions are required to regain thtx equilibrium. For example, if two strangers were forced b,. the situation to sit much closer to one another than they would prefer, compensator); reactions might occur which would lessen the effect of their close proximity to one another. In this case the strangers might orient thrnlselves away from one another and avoid the opportunity for eye contact. Although the investigation of such compensatory behaviors is a rchtively recent concern, there exists a substantial numlwr of stlldicls supporting the compensatory process.” In spite of the expanding research on immediacy behaviors there lras been little information on the intra-individual stability of these Iwhaviors over time. This problem has a direct bearing on the studies involving not only the compensatory process, but also on anv work r+ lating the immediacy behaviors to other dimensions, e.g., personalit) characteristics. Specifically, the concern is whether or not the immedincv behaviors are consistently expressed by an individual over time. JIG as coefficients of internal consistency set an upper limit on tlw relationship between two distinct measures, the degree of stability of tht in)mediacy behaviors sets an upper limit on possible criterion group clifferences. One of the few studies on the stability of the immcdiac!~ behaviors found a correlation of P = .81 bctwecn two meastIres of spatial approach taken on a sample of 30 hiexican psychotics ( Powers. 1967). Libby (1970) reported coefficients of r = .‘E and r = .?I l,? two raters scoring presence or absence of eye contact over ocld and even questions in a structured interview. Because those obscr\Tations were within the same session, the coefficients might morca accaratcl!~ be labeled indicators of internal consistency rather than stability WYI time. In another study examining the consistency of eye gaze within ;I single interaction session, the identity of the subject accounted for :I substantial proportion of the variance in guing behavior (Kcndon & Cook, 1969). This indicated that thr gaze patterns were consistflIt characteristics of the subjects, at least over a short period of tinlc,. The primary purpose of the present investigation \vas to gather further information on the stability of inmwdiacy bchaliors, spccific:llly approach distance and orientation, eye contact, and body lean. 111 a(ldi” Patterson, hl. L. manuscript, University
Compensation of Missouri-St.
in nonverbal inlmtdiaq Louis, 1972.
lwhnvio~s.
I’npu),lis)lt,d
STABILITY
OF
IMMEDIACY
BEHAVIORS
99
tion, three other problems were examined: (a) compensatory relationships between the immediacy behaviors, (b) the effect of sex of subject and sex of interviewer on the immediacy behaviors and (c) the relationship between personality variables and immediacy behaviors. STUDY
I
Method Subjects and assistants. The subjects in the experiment were 36 males and 36 females recruited from the introductory psychology classes at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. A total of six assistants were involved in this study. One female assistant served as the experimenter, checking on the other assistants and ushering the subjects to and from the experimental room. One male assistant served as the rater of the subjects’ behaviors throughout the experiment. Two males and two females served as interviewers. Each interviewer completed two or three practice sessions prior to the start of the study. An equal number of male and female subjects were interviewed across sex of interviewer, although scheduling difficulties prevented each interviewer from seeing an equal number of subjects. Design. Sex of subject and sex of interviewer were factorially combined in a repeated measures design involving the two interview sessions, resulting in 18 subjects in each of the conditions. Experimental setting. The interviews took place in a 10.5 X 20 ft room having one-way viewing mirrors on two walls. At one end of the room near the doorway was a desk at which the interviewer was working as the subject entered the room. At the opposite end of the room, directly below a viewing mirror, was the chair to which the interviewer moved before starting his questions. The distance between the two chairs at the start of the interviews was approx 17 ft. Instead of a desk the interviewer merely had a small stool next to his chair for his materials. This allowed the subject to come as close as he wanted without any object intervening. Distance from the interviewer was estimated from the middle of the interviewer’s chair to the axis on the base of the subject’s swivel chair. Small pieces of tape were placed at regular intervals along the base of the walls which allowed the rater to estimate the subject’s position by a system of rectangular coordinates. The subject’s position was estimated to one-half tile length on both coordinates. Procedure. Each subject was met outside of the interview room by the experimenter and ushered into the room. The interviewer was seated at the desk near the door and appeared to be working as the subject entered. The interviewer rose, and indicated that his materials were at the far end of the room. While he walked to his seat there, he invited the subject to “pull up a chair,” referring to the swivel chair near the desk. When the subject war seated, the interviewer briefly described the “purpose” of the experiment. The subject was told that the study was an attempt to find the influence of childhood experience on personality development. Several brief questions relating to early experience were asked of each subject, after which he was led to another room where he took a personality questionnaire. Upon completion of the questionnaire, he was ushered back to the room, and asked three questions regarding his impression of the personality inventory, and one question requesting a self-description. The second interview ended with the subject rating himself on the personality dimensions of social anxiety, extraversion, and dominance. The
109
MILES
L.
PATTERSON
subject also rated the enjoyability of the experiment and how much at ease ht. felt during the experiment. Immediacy measures. Approach distance was determined by the rater 1,~ identifying the two coordinates, beneath the axis of the subject’s chair, within the closest one-half tile. The actual distance was computed by calculating the length of the hypotenuse of the right triangle formed by the two coordinate lengths. The approach orientation was simply the number of degrees from a directly confrontine approach. Less direct approaches were therefore indicated by larger angles. The rater estimated lean of the subject on a five-point scale. The duration of interviewer-directed eye contact was measured between fised points in the interview\. which allowed the rater to obtain the other measures outside of that period. Approach distances and two of the three lean ratings were determined at the start of each interview while the interviewer was making the introductory cornmerits. In addition to the lean rating at the start of each session, another rating was completed during the last question of the first interview. The mcasuremcnt trf interviewer-directed eye contact began following introductory comments in each session and lasted until the start of the last question. During these questions the interviewer maintained a high, though not continuous, level of subject-directed eye contact, except when briefly writing the subject’s replies. It should he m)tcd that the rater’s position behind the intervie\vrr did not allow measl~rclnrlrt of mutual eye contact, but only the subject’s component of eye contact. Personality measures. Several scales selected for their potential relevance to social behavior were administered to each subject between the two interview sessions. The scales used were those of affiliation and dominance from Jackson’s ( 1964) Personality Research Form, social extraversion (Rrndig, 196’7 ), social anxiety (Watson & Friend, 1969)) and social desirability ( Cro\vnc: & hlarlowe. I 9136). RESULTS
Before examining the substantive results, it is important to establish the reliability of the rater along the recorded dimensions. In prelimiuar! tests involving 14 estimates of distance by the rater and another judge, an interrater reliability, r = .99, was found for both of the components of distance estimates, i.e., for both the X and Y coordinates of seating. The correlation between lean ratings by the same two iudividuals for 20 estimates of lean was T = .94. The same judge observed 14 scssior\s during the course of the experiment, and independently timed interviewer-directed eye contact with the rater. The correlation between the two estimates for duration of eye contact was r = 41. ,4s a protection against the inflation of the stability coefficients due to rntcr bias OII the purpose of the experiment, no specific information was given regarding the concern about stability. When quizzed after the study was completed, the rater assumed that the two observations were merely going to bc related to the personality data. The results regarding the stability coefficients for the immcdiac! dimensions and their reIationships to one another are included ill Table 1. The values for Study I are the correlations without parentheses. The
2 2
1 2
1
a Correlations
Lean 3 Lean 4 Orient 2
Lean Lean Orient Session Dist SEC2
Session I Dist 1 %ECl
without
-
parentheses
-
.96 (.97)
.09 (.14) .03 (- .06) - .44 (- .64)
.52 (.62) (.28) (.04) (-.32)
are from
--
.65 (.57)
-.13 -.16 -.37
%ECl
Dist
1
WITHIN
CORRELATIONS
Study
1
I. Those
.67 -- (.51) (.35) -
.77 (.64) .02 (-.02)
Lean
1
BETWEEN
Session
AND
2
1
in parentheses
--.58 (.64) C.59) -
.14 (.31)
Lean
IMMEDIACY
TABLE
1
are from
.90 -- (.90)
Orient
DIMENSIONS
2
Two
Study
II.
.04 (.05) (.OO) -.43 (-.57)
.3S (.20)
Dist
OVER
-.13
-.14
9”EC2
(.02)
(.31)
Session
INTERVALS~
2 3
C.80) .13 (.13)
Lean
(.13)
Lean
4
$ s 0 ZF
is
B B s a
g
2
2 m E
MILES
102
L.
PATTERSON
underlined correlations represent the stabilities of two independent measures within each of the immediacy dimensions. The stability of spatial approach, T = .96, and approach orientation, r = .90, men‘ surprisingly high, while the stability coefficients of eye contact and lcau were not so extreme. The stability coefficient for eye contact \\~ts T = .65, while the coefficients between the three lean measures ranged from T = .58 to r = .77. The correlation between percentage of eye contact and approach distance in the first interview, r( 70) = .52, p < .Ol, and in the second interview, T( 70) = .38, p < .Ol, indicated that as the distance betwecllr the subject and the interviewer became greater the percentage of eye contact iucreased. It should be noted that this relationship between cayc contact and approach was not significant within each of the ranges i11 the bimodal approach distribution. The two distinct approach ranges can be clearly seen in Fig. 1. In considering all 14-1 approaches. t\vt) 1,~. each subject, no subject ever sat between 9-13 ft. The single entry at the 9 ft average distance identifies the only subject who ovorlappcd the two distinct ranges, 2-8.5 ft and 13.5-17 ft, in his approaches. ‘I%(~ correlations between approach distance and orientation in the first session, ~(70) = -44, p < .Ol, and in the second session, r( 70) = -.43, p < .Ol, indicated that as subjects approached more closely, a less direct orientation was selected, Some caution is needed ilr illtc,r-
I
I!
1. Percentage
STUDY
1
.-.a
STUDY
2
;;ti
I
DISTANCE
FIG.
-
of distribution
ift
il
!
,
of average
approach
distances.
STABILITY
OF
IMMEDIACY
103
BEHAVIORS
preting the relationship between distance and orientation because of the naturally limiting structure of the room. The closer a subject approaches, the greater the divergence possible in number of degrees from a directly confronting approach. Eye contact and approach orientation were negatively correlated in the first interview, T( 70) = -.37, p < .Ol, but not in the second ~(70) = -.13, p > .lO. Amount of lean was not significantly related to any of the other immediacy behaviors. Because the bimodal approach ranges were very distinct, potential correlates of this difference were examined in the personality scores and self-ratings of the two groups of subjects. Two marginal, but related differences were found. The subjects in the close range tended to rate themselves as more at ease than those in the distant range, 2.91 vs 2.61 on a five point scale, t( 69) = 1.72, p < .lO. Additionally, the distant subjects tended to score higher on social anxiety than did the closer subjects, t( 69) = 1.71, p < JO. Analyses of variance with repeated measures were computed for each of the immediacy variables to determine if sex of interviewer or sex of subject had any effect on the nonverbal behavior. In none of the analyses did the sex of subject, sex of interviewer, or sex of subject X sex of interviewer interaction reach the standard significance level ( p < .OS). One tendency was noted for greater eye contact in same sex pairs than in opposite sex pairs, F( 1,68) = 2.39, p < .15. The mean immediacy behaviors for Study I are presented in the left half of Table 2. One clearly reliable difference was found in percentage of eye contact across the two interviews. Interviewer-directed eye contact in the first session was 43.7% while it was only 32.0% in the second session, F( 1,68) = 133.69, p < .OOl.
MEAN
TABLE IMMEDIACY
Session Approach distance y0 Eye contact Leans Orient,atior+
(ft)
7.7 43.7 2.7 24.4
2 BEHAVIORS
Study
I
Study
1
Session 7.5 32.0 2.6 24.8
2
Session 8.9 37.1 4.2 15.2
1
II Session
2
8.4 36.8 4.1 14.0
0 Lean in Study I was scored on a B-point scale, while in Study II a 7-point scale was used. In both cases the higher numbers indicate more forward lean. b Orientation was scored in degrees from a directly confronting approach, i.e., the larger the values, the less directly confronting the chair placement.
104
MILES
12. I’ATTEHSOX
Correlations were computed between the average immediacy behaviors and the personality dimensions of affiliation, social anxiety, cxtraversion, dominance, and social desirability. One correlation, that bctween social desirability and orientation, ~(70) = .32, p < .Ol, indicated that those higher on social desirability approached less directly thalr those low on social desirability. The only other correlation which npproached significance was that between approach distance and social anxiety scores. That correlation, T( 70) = .21, p < .lO, merely reflcctcd the earlier difference between the close and distant: subjects on socinl anxiety scores. Care is needed in the interprekltion of these relationships because only 2 out of 20 correlations exceeded p < .lO. In general, the coefficients of stability for the immediacy hchaviors indicated that these behaviors were quite stable, but it should bc noted that the very short interval between sessionsmight have contribntcbd to the correlations found. Consequently. a second study was undc~rtaken specifically to examine the stability of the immedincv behaviors O\W ;I much longer interval. STUDY
II
Method Subjects and msistants. The subjects in this study were 13 males and 13 females recruited from the introductory psychology classes at the ITniversity of MissouriSt. Louis. Each subject appeared in two sessions separated by a l-week interval. Three assistants, none of whom served in the first study, took part in this stlldy. In addition to the experimenter and the rater, only one female interviewer was employed. This change was made because there were no clear sex of inter\+\vcxr effects found in the first study. Experimental setting. The interviews took place in the same room as Stud>- I. Two minor changes were made in the setting. First, the interviewer’s chair was moved about 1.5 ft from the wall so that the rater could better judge the lines of the subject’s gaze relative to the interviewer’s face. Second, the desk at which tlbe subject’s chair was placed was moved 1.5 ft closer, resulting in a separation of npprox 14 ft between the chairs. This alteration was undertaken to determine if lessening the initial distance would affect the bimodal approach ranges found in Study I. Procedure. Each subject was met outside of the interview room by the (s\-pcr-imenter and directed into the room. The interviewer was already seated at the f:lr end of the room. She asked the subject to “pull up a chair,” motioning to 11~~7 swivel chair placed at the desk. After the subject was seated. the intervielver described the “purpose” of the study as an attempt at determining student cxperiences in and opinions toward their courses in collexe. Ten brief qllestions \vrr<’ asked of each subject, after which the interviewer told the subject that other concerns would be covered next week. In order to additionally justify the second interview, the subject was given an information sheet, regarding course expcri(AncPc and impressions for the current semester, which was to be returned next week.
STABILITY
OF
IMMEDIACY
BEHAVIORS
105
The same format was followed for seating the subject in the second session. Eight questions were included in the second interview, after which the interviewer requested the subject to complete ratings of feeling at ease during the interview, pleasantness of the interview, warmth of the interviewer, and willingness to participate in another similar study. Immediacy measures. The same procedures used in Study I were employed in this study for the observation of the immediacy behaviors. The only exception was a change to a seven-point rating scale for lean in an attempt to make finer discriminations of leaning behavior. RESULTS
The reliability of the rater along the recorded dimensions was adequately demonstrated. For 12 sessionsobserved by both the rater and another judge, reliabilities of T = .99 and T = .79 were found for the Y and X components, respectively, of total distance from the interviewer. The reliability coefficient for leaning was r = .72, while that for eye contact duration was T = .95. The stability coefficients for the immediacy behaviors in Study II are those underscored in parentheses in Table 1. It is clear that the values are very similar to those found in Study I. Thus, there appeared to be little or no loss in stability when moving from a 25-min to a l-week interval, The correlations within each of the sessionsbetween the pairs of immediacy behaviors were also similar to those in Study I. In particular the correlation between eye contact and distance in the first session, r(24) = .62, p < .Ol, indicated, as in the first study, that increased distance was related to greater eye contact. Unlike Study I, the correlations between eye contact and distance were positive for the subjects partitioned into close (r = .30) and far (T = .53) groups, although those values are not significant with such small samples. The overall relationship between distance and eye contact in the second session was not significant, r(24) = .20, p > .lO. The correlations between chair orientation and distance were significant in the first, I-( 24) = -.64, p < .Ol, and second, ~(24) = .57, p < .Ol, sessions, indicating that closer approaches were made at angles increasingly divergent from a directly confronting approach. Leaning behavior was not significantly correlated with any of the other behaviors in either session. It is interesting to note that, again, there was a bimodal distribution of approaches, although it is not quite as distinct as that in Study I. Figure 1 indicates that the pattern of approches in Study II was quite similar to that of Study I. In the former case, a range of 7.1-9.0 ft was never used in any of the two approaches by each of the 26 subjects. The entry at 8.25 represents the average distance of the one subject who approached once on each side of the vacant interval Attempts at dis-
106
MILES
L.
PAlTERSON
criminating between the 13 subjects in the close range (3.75-6.00 ft) and the 12 subjects in the far range (9.75-14.25 ft) on the basis of the ratings taken at the end of the second session indicated that the closer subjects rated themselves more at case, t( 23) = 3.84, p < .Ol, and rated the interviewer warmer, t(23) = 2.31, p < .05, than did the far subjects. Analyses of variance performed on each of the immediacy measures indicated no sessions effect, and only one instance of an effect of ses of subjects. Female subjects exhibited more eye contact than did malt subjects, F( 1,24) = 8.23, p < .Ol, 43.1% vs 30.5%. This result was consistent with the tendency noted in Study I for greater eye contact at~~ong same sex than opposite sex pairs. That is, the females in Study II showed greater eye contact with the female interviewer than did the m&s. lxSCUSSION
The results of the two studies, sampling intervals of 25 min and I week, indicated that the immediacy behaviors of approach distance. eycl contact, approach orientation, and lean were highly consistent over tinw. In fact, the stability coefficients for each of the immediacy behaviors remained essentially unchanged when the intersession interval incrcascd from 25 min to 1 week. It would be useful to gain further information on the time course of the stabilities of the immediacy behaviors, but at this point, it may be more important to sample different settings and difhrtnt interviewers. Some indirect information on the effect of a diffcrcnt interviewer can be inferred from an examination of the effect of dyad SL~Xtype in the current studies. That is, differences due to the sex of slrbjectsex of interviewer interaction indicating that same sex and opposite s(‘x pairs behave differently would suggest that the stability of the immc~diacy behaviors is conditional. The only dimension for which the xx of subject-sex of interviewer interaction was apparently critical 1r.a~ that of eye contact. On the basis of the present data, there was tentative rvidencc that eye contact was greater in same sex than opposite sex pairs. which is consistent with results cited by Argyle and Dean ( 196Fj), HOUcvcr, the evidence from the second study only, which employed a fcmalc interviewer, is also consistent with an alterrrative finding that fcrnak~s exhibit greater eye contact than males (Exline, 196:3; Esline. Grav. & Schuette, 1965). None of the other immediacy behaviors was a&c&l 1)) the sex of the subject, sex of the interviewer, or the intcractiou c)f the two. A particularly interesting result across the two studies was the bimodal distribution of approach distances. In both studies, subjects avoicktl a middle range approach, choosing to sit relatively close or relativrly distant. There was evidence, based on test scores and self-ratings. that the
STABILITY
OF
IMMEDIACY
BEHAVIORS
107
more distant subjects were more anxious than those who approached closely. Social anxiety might effect approaches by leading one to avoid closeness with others, or alternatively, it might indirectly have its effect by making a person more inhibited in manipulating the environment, e.g., chair placement, and thereby result in a person remaining more distant. It is also possible that the relationship between anxiety and interaction distance is not a unidirectional one. Socially anxious persons may remain more distant, but independent of that, remaining distant in itself may create anxiety, especially if it is viewed as unusual. The possibility that distant approaches may cause anxiety should be considered, particularly if the assessment of the subject occurs after the interaction. A number of studies have indicated that compensatory relationships exist between immediacy dimensions to permit decreasing intimacy along one dimension as a result of increasing intimacy on a different one, and vice versa (Argyle & Dean, 1965; Felipe & Sommer, 1966; Goldberg, Kiesler, & Collins, 1969; Patterson, Mullens, & Romano, 1971; Patterson & Sechrest, 1970). In all of those studies, the distance between the subject and the experimenter was manipulated by the experimenter with the typical result that the behavior along some other dimension changed reciprocally. For example, a decrease in eye contact or directness of body orientation might follow an increase in overall immediacy caused by the experimenter’s close approach to the subject, In that way the reduction in eye contact or in confronting orientations can apparently compensate for increased proximity. While the most desirable means for investigating compensation is through the experimental manipulation of one of the immediacy behaviors, the correlational evidence from the present studies is useful for consideration. Generally the results supported the hypothesized compensatory relationships. As approaches became closer, eye contact decreased and the orientation of the approaches became less directly confronting, Thus, the increased intimacy of closer approaches was apparently balanced by reductions both in eye contact and in directness of orientation. It should be noted that the positive relationship between distance and eye contact was not generally found within close and distant approach ranges in the two studies. This brings into consideration whether or not the compensatory process, as suggested by Argyle and Dean ( 1965), is a continuous function or one operating across fairly discrete levels. It may be likely that compensatory reactions are unnecessary for small variations in one of the immediacy behaviors, Thus, a comfortable level of immediacy may not be a discrete point, but rather a range throughout which compensation would not be required. One final concern, worthy of mention, is the large difference in percentage of eye contact found between the two sessions of the first study,
108
MILES
L.
PATTERSON
but not in the second study. That difference in eye contact was probably due to different divisions of talking and listening between the intcrviewer and subject over the two sessions of the first study. That is, the fewer, but more open-ended questions of the second interview, npparently required more talking on the part of the subject than did the brief. but more numerous questions of the first interview. Increased eye contact has been found to result from listeuing as compared to talking (Zxline, Gray, & Schuette, 1965). No difference was indicated bet\vcen the two sessions of the second study in which the number and &pc* of questions were similar. In conclusion, the findings of these investigations indicate considerablc~ stability over time for the immediacy dimensions of approach distanccl. eye contact, approach orientation, and lean. Althorrgh more must bt known about the situational influences on the immediacy behaviors ovt’i time, it appears that individuals do exhibit temporally consistent patterns in their immediacy behaviors. In addition, the present data indicatetl general support for the process of compensation among the immcdiac! behaviors. REFERENCES ARGYLE, hl., & DEAN, J. Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965. 28, 289-304. HEUIXG, A. W. The Pittsburgh scales of social extraversion-introversion and emotionality. Journal of Psychology, 1962, 53, 199-209. CHOWNE, D. P., & MARLOWE, 1). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 349-354. hiXCAS, S. D., JR. Nonverbal communication. Ps~ychoZo~icaZ BuZZetitl, 1969. 72, 118-137. EXLINE, R. V. Explorations in the process of person perception: Visual interaction in relation to competition, sex, and need for affiliation. Journal of Personu/ir~~, 19G3, 31, l-20. EXLINE, R. V., GRAY, D., & SCHUETTE, D. Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. Jour~tnl of PersonaZit~~ arrtl Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 201-209. FELIPE, N., & SOMMER, R. Invasions of personal space. Socicll Problems, 1966. 14. 206-214. GOLDBERG, G. N., KIESLER, C. A.. & COLLINS, B. E. Visiral behavior and f:lct,-toface distance during interaction. Sociomehy, 1969, 32, -43-53. JACKSON, D. N. Personality Tesearch form. London, Canada, 1964. KENDON, A., & COOK, M. Consistency of gaze patterns in social interaction. Rrifi,lt Journal of Psychology, 1969, 60, 481494. LIBBY, W. L.. JR. Eye contact and direction of looking as stable individiral (liffermces. JournaZ of ExperimentuZ Research in PersonaZity, 1970, 4, 303-312. MEHFABIAN, A. Significance of posture and position in the communication oi attitude and status relationships, Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 359-372. i a)
STABILJTY
OF
IMMEDIACY
BEHAVIORS
109
A. Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1969, 1, 203-207. (b) PATTERSON, M. L. Spatial factors in social interactions. Humun ReZutim, 1968, 21, 351361. PATTERSON, M. L., MULLENS, S., & ROMANO, J. Compensatory reactions to spatial intrusion. So&m&y, 1971, 34, 114-121. PATTERSON, M. L., & SECHREST, L. B. Interpersonal distance and impression formation. Journal of Person&y, 1970, 38, 161-166. Powxns, J. Physical distance: A nonreactive measure of social distance among Mexican mental patients. Unpublished master’s thesis, Northwestern University, 1967. SOMMER, R. Small group ecology. PsychoZogicaZ Bulletin, 1967, 67, 145-152. WATSON, D., & FRZEND, R. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. I~nzaE of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 448-457. MEHRABUN,
(Received
March 28, 1972)
OF
EXPERIMENTAL
Stability
of
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Nonverbal
9, 97-109
Immediacy
(1973)
Behaviors1
MILES L. PATTERSON~ Uniz;ersity of Missouri-St. Louis The stability of the immediacy behaviors of approach distance, eye contact, approach orientation, and body lean was examined across two interviews over a 25 min and a l-week interval. Stability coefficients were similarly high between the sessions for each interval. General support was found for the presence of compensatory relationships between approach distance and eye contact and between approach distance and approach orientation. A bimodal distribution of approach distances, found in both studies, included a substantial intermediate range which was not used by any of the subjects. Evidence from personality data and self-ratings suggested that subjects who remained more distant were more anxious than those who approached closer.
The study of nonverbal social behavior has increased rapidly in the last few years. In that time three review papers have outlined much of the research on nonverbal social behavior (Duncan, 1969; Sommer, 1967; Patterson, 1968). Although the specific influences of nonverbal behaviors are quite complex, it seems clear that a variety of behaviors must be weighed to determine the total impression communicated in any situation. In fact, Argyle and Dean (1965) have suggested a composite label of “intimacy” to refer to the cumulative effect of distance, eye contact, smiling, and other behaviors. The term “immediacy” has been used by Mehrabian (1969b) to refer to a similar, but more specifically defined, range of nonverbal behaviors, in&ding touching, distance, eye contact, body lean, and body orientation. The communicative function of the immediacy behaviors appears to be more general and less dependent on verbal messages than other behaviors such as facial expressions and gestures. In fact, Mehrabian (1969a) concluded that the immediacy behaviors, more than other nonverbal behaviors, were critical in communicating interpersonal attitudes. The immediacy behaviors are also important because of their rele1 This study was supported by a summer Grant from the University of Missouri. Reprints may be obtained by writing the author at the Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri 63121. ‘The author expresses special thanks to Justine Maier, John Olsen, Peggy Seaver, Harlan Harber, and Karen Peterman for their assistance in collecting the data. 97 Copyright All rights
@ 1973 by AcademicPress,Inc. of reproduction
in any
form
reserved.
98
MILES
L.
PAlTERSON
Vance for a hypothesis advanced by Argyle and Dean (1965). These authors suggested that the expression of intimacy through a variety of behaviors, including the immediacy behaviors, reaches a clynanric equilibrium in a social interaction. If this equilibrium is disturbed through the action of one of the parties or through situational COIP straints, some compensatory reactions are required to regain thtx equilibrium. For example, if two strangers were forced b,. the situation to sit much closer to one another than they would prefer, compensator); reactions might occur which would lessen the effect of their close proximity to one another. In this case the strangers might orient thrnlselves away from one another and avoid the opportunity for eye contact. Although the investigation of such compensatory behaviors is a rchtively recent concern, there exists a substantial numlwr of stlldicls supporting the compensatory process.” In spite of the expanding research on immediacy behaviors there lras been little information on the intra-individual stability of these Iwhaviors over time. This problem has a direct bearing on the studies involving not only the compensatory process, but also on anv work r+ lating the immediacy behaviors to other dimensions, e.g., personalit) characteristics. Specifically, the concern is whether or not the immedincv behaviors are consistently expressed by an individual over time. JIG as coefficients of internal consistency set an upper limit on tlw relationship between two distinct measures, the degree of stability of tht in)mediacy behaviors sets an upper limit on possible criterion group clifferences. One of the few studies on the stability of the immcdiac!~ behaviors found a correlation of P = .81 bctwecn two meastIres of spatial approach taken on a sample of 30 hiexican psychotics ( Powers. 1967). Libby (1970) reported coefficients of r = .‘E and r = .?I l,? two raters scoring presence or absence of eye contact over ocld and even questions in a structured interview. Because those obscr\Tations were within the same session, the coefficients might morca accaratcl!~ be labeled indicators of internal consistency rather than stability WYI time. In another study examining the consistency of eye gaze within ;I single interaction session, the identity of the subject accounted for :I substantial proportion of the variance in guing behavior (Kcndon & Cook, 1969). This indicated that thr gaze patterns were consistflIt characteristics of the subjects, at least over a short period of tinlc,. The primary purpose of the present investigation \vas to gather further information on the stability of inmwdiacy bchaliors, spccific:llly approach distance and orientation, eye contact, and body lean. 111 a(ldi” Patterson, hl. L. manuscript, University
Compensation of Missouri-St.
in nonverbal inlmtdiaq Louis, 1972.
lwhnvio~s.
I’npu),lis)lt,d
STABILITY
OF
IMMEDIACY
BEHAVIORS
99
tion, three other problems were examined: (a) compensatory relationships between the immediacy behaviors, (b) the effect of sex of subject and sex of interviewer on the immediacy behaviors and (c) the relationship between personality variables and immediacy behaviors. STUDY
I
Method Subjects and assistants. The subjects in the experiment were 36 males and 36 females recruited from the introductory psychology classes at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. A total of six assistants were involved in this study. One female assistant served as the experimenter, checking on the other assistants and ushering the subjects to and from the experimental room. One male assistant served as the rater of the subjects’ behaviors throughout the experiment. Two males and two females served as interviewers. Each interviewer completed two or three practice sessions prior to the start of the study. An equal number of male and female subjects were interviewed across sex of interviewer, although scheduling difficulties prevented each interviewer from seeing an equal number of subjects. Design. Sex of subject and sex of interviewer were factorially combined in a repeated measures design involving the two interview sessions, resulting in 18 subjects in each of the conditions. Experimental setting. The interviews took place in a 10.5 X 20 ft room having one-way viewing mirrors on two walls. At one end of the room near the doorway was a desk at which the interviewer was working as the subject entered the room. At the opposite end of the room, directly below a viewing mirror, was the chair to which the interviewer moved before starting his questions. The distance between the two chairs at the start of the interviews was approx 17 ft. Instead of a desk the interviewer merely had a small stool next to his chair for his materials. This allowed the subject to come as close as he wanted without any object intervening. Distance from the interviewer was estimated from the middle of the interviewer’s chair to the axis on the base of the subject’s swivel chair. Small pieces of tape were placed at regular intervals along the base of the walls which allowed the rater to estimate the subject’s position by a system of rectangular coordinates. The subject’s position was estimated to one-half tile length on both coordinates. Procedure. Each subject was met outside of the interview room by the experimenter and ushered into the room. The interviewer was seated at the desk near the door and appeared to be working as the subject entered. The interviewer rose, and indicated that his materials were at the far end of the room. While he walked to his seat there, he invited the subject to “pull up a chair,” referring to the swivel chair near the desk. When the subject war seated, the interviewer briefly described the “purpose” of the experiment. The subject was told that the study was an attempt to find the influence of childhood experience on personality development. Several brief questions relating to early experience were asked of each subject, after which he was led to another room where he took a personality questionnaire. Upon completion of the questionnaire, he was ushered back to the room, and asked three questions regarding his impression of the personality inventory, and one question requesting a self-description. The second interview ended with the subject rating himself on the personality dimensions of social anxiety, extraversion, and dominance. The
109
MILES
L.
PATTERSON
subject also rated the enjoyability of the experiment and how much at ease ht. felt during the experiment. Immediacy measures. Approach distance was determined by the rater 1,~ identifying the two coordinates, beneath the axis of the subject’s chair, within the closest one-half tile. The actual distance was computed by calculating the length of the hypotenuse of the right triangle formed by the two coordinate lengths. The approach orientation was simply the number of degrees from a directly confrontine approach. Less direct approaches were therefore indicated by larger angles. The rater estimated lean of the subject on a five-point scale. The duration of interviewer-directed eye contact was measured between fised points in the interview\. which allowed the rater to obtain the other measures outside of that period. Approach distances and two of the three lean ratings were determined at the start of each interview while the interviewer was making the introductory cornmerits. In addition to the lean rating at the start of each session, another rating was completed during the last question of the first interview. The mcasuremcnt trf interviewer-directed eye contact began following introductory comments in each session and lasted until the start of the last question. During these questions the interviewer maintained a high, though not continuous, level of subject-directed eye contact, except when briefly writing the subject’s replies. It should he m)tcd that the rater’s position behind the intervie\vrr did not allow measl~rclnrlrt of mutual eye contact, but only the subject’s component of eye contact. Personality measures. Several scales selected for their potential relevance to social behavior were administered to each subject between the two interview sessions. The scales used were those of affiliation and dominance from Jackson’s ( 1964) Personality Research Form, social extraversion (Rrndig, 196’7 ), social anxiety (Watson & Friend, 1969)) and social desirability ( Cro\vnc: & hlarlowe. I 9136). RESULTS
Before examining the substantive results, it is important to establish the reliability of the rater along the recorded dimensions. In prelimiuar! tests involving 14 estimates of distance by the rater and another judge, an interrater reliability, r = .99, was found for both of the components of distance estimates, i.e., for both the X and Y coordinates of seating. The correlation between lean ratings by the same two iudividuals for 20 estimates of lean was T = .94. The same judge observed 14 scssior\s during the course of the experiment, and independently timed interviewer-directed eye contact with the rater. The correlation between the two estimates for duration of eye contact was r = 41. ,4s a protection against the inflation of the stability coefficients due to rntcr bias OII the purpose of the experiment, no specific information was given regarding the concern about stability. When quizzed after the study was completed, the rater assumed that the two observations were merely going to bc related to the personality data. The results regarding the stability coefficients for the immcdiac! dimensions and their reIationships to one another are included ill Table 1. The values for Study I are the correlations without parentheses. The
2 2
1 2
1
a Correlations
Lean 3 Lean 4 Orient 2
Lean Lean Orient Session Dist SEC2
Session I Dist 1 %ECl
without
-
parentheses
-
.96 (.97)
.09 (.14) .03 (- .06) - .44 (- .64)
.52 (.62) (.28) (.04) (-.32)
are from
--
.65 (.57)
-.13 -.16 -.37
%ECl
Dist
1
WITHIN
CORRELATIONS
Study
1
I. Those
.67 -- (.51) (.35) -
.77 (.64) .02 (-.02)
Lean
1
BETWEEN
Session
AND
2
1
in parentheses
--.58 (.64) C.59) -
.14 (.31)
Lean
IMMEDIACY
TABLE
1
are from
.90 -- (.90)
Orient
DIMENSIONS
2
Two
Study
II.
.04 (.05) (.OO) -.43 (-.57)
.3S (.20)
Dist
OVER
-.13
-.14
9”EC2
(.02)
(.31)
Session
INTERVALS~
2 3
C.80) .13 (.13)
Lean
(.13)
Lean
4
$ s 0 ZF
is
B B s a
g
2
2 m E
MILES
102
L.
PATTERSON
underlined correlations represent the stabilities of two independent measures within each of the immediacy dimensions. The stability of spatial approach, T = .96, and approach orientation, r = .90, men‘ surprisingly high, while the stability coefficients of eye contact and lcau were not so extreme. The stability coefficient for eye contact \\~ts T = .65, while the coefficients between the three lean measures ranged from T = .58 to r = .77. The correlation between percentage of eye contact and approach distance in the first interview, r( 70) = .52, p < .Ol, and in the second interview, T( 70) = .38, p < .Ol, indicated that as the distance betwecllr the subject and the interviewer became greater the percentage of eye contact iucreased. It should be noted that this relationship between cayc contact and approach was not significant within each of the ranges i11 the bimodal approach distribution. The two distinct approach ranges can be clearly seen in Fig. 1. In considering all 14-1 approaches. t\vt) 1,~. each subject, no subject ever sat between 9-13 ft. The single entry at the 9 ft average distance identifies the only subject who ovorlappcd the two distinct ranges, 2-8.5 ft and 13.5-17 ft, in his approaches. ‘I%(~ correlations between approach distance and orientation in the first session, ~(70) = -44, p < .Ol, and in the second session, r( 70) = -.43, p < .Ol, indicated that as subjects approached more closely, a less direct orientation was selected, Some caution is needed ilr illtc,r-
I
I!
1. Percentage
STUDY
1
.-.a
STUDY
2
;;ti
I
DISTANCE
FIG.
-
of distribution
ift
il
!
,
of average
approach
distances.
STABILITY
OF
IMMEDIACY
103
BEHAVIORS
preting the relationship between distance and orientation because of the naturally limiting structure of the room. The closer a subject approaches, the greater the divergence possible in number of degrees from a directly confronting approach. Eye contact and approach orientation were negatively correlated in the first interview, T( 70) = -.37, p < .Ol, but not in the second ~(70) = -.13, p > .lO. Amount of lean was not significantly related to any of the other immediacy behaviors. Because the bimodal approach ranges were very distinct, potential correlates of this difference were examined in the personality scores and self-ratings of the two groups of subjects. Two marginal, but related differences were found. The subjects in the close range tended to rate themselves as more at ease than those in the distant range, 2.91 vs 2.61 on a five point scale, t( 69) = 1.72, p < .lO. Additionally, the distant subjects tended to score higher on social anxiety than did the closer subjects, t( 69) = 1.71, p < JO. Analyses of variance with repeated measures were computed for each of the immediacy variables to determine if sex of interviewer or sex of subject had any effect on the nonverbal behavior. In none of the analyses did the sex of subject, sex of interviewer, or sex of subject X sex of interviewer interaction reach the standard significance level ( p < .OS). One tendency was noted for greater eye contact in same sex pairs than in opposite sex pairs, F( 1,68) = 2.39, p < .15. The mean immediacy behaviors for Study I are presented in the left half of Table 2. One clearly reliable difference was found in percentage of eye contact across the two interviews. Interviewer-directed eye contact in the first session was 43.7% while it was only 32.0% in the second session, F( 1,68) = 133.69, p < .OOl.
MEAN
TABLE IMMEDIACY
Session Approach distance y0 Eye contact Leans Orient,atior+
(ft)
7.7 43.7 2.7 24.4
2 BEHAVIORS
Study
I
Study
1
Session 7.5 32.0 2.6 24.8
2
Session 8.9 37.1 4.2 15.2
1
II Session
2
8.4 36.8 4.1 14.0
0 Lean in Study I was scored on a B-point scale, while in Study II a 7-point scale was used. In both cases the higher numbers indicate more forward lean. b Orientation was scored in degrees from a directly confronting approach, i.e., the larger the values, the less directly confronting the chair placement.
104
MILES
12. I’ATTEHSOX
Correlations were computed between the average immediacy behaviors and the personality dimensions of affiliation, social anxiety, cxtraversion, dominance, and social desirability. One correlation, that bctween social desirability and orientation, ~(70) = .32, p < .Ol, indicated that those higher on social desirability approached less directly thalr those low on social desirability. The only other correlation which npproached significance was that between approach distance and social anxiety scores. That correlation, T( 70) = .21, p < .lO, merely reflcctcd the earlier difference between the close and distant: subjects on socinl anxiety scores. Care is needed in the interprekltion of these relationships because only 2 out of 20 correlations exceeded p < .lO. In general, the coefficients of stability for the immediacy hchaviors indicated that these behaviors were quite stable, but it should bc noted that the very short interval between sessionsmight have contribntcbd to the correlations found. Consequently. a second study was undc~rtaken specifically to examine the stability of the immedincv behaviors O\W ;I much longer interval. STUDY
II
Method Subjects and msistants. The subjects in this study were 13 males and 13 females recruited from the introductory psychology classes at the ITniversity of MissouriSt. Louis. Each subject appeared in two sessions separated by a l-week interval. Three assistants, none of whom served in the first study, took part in this stlldy. In addition to the experimenter and the rater, only one female interviewer was employed. This change was made because there were no clear sex of inter\+\vcxr effects found in the first study. Experimental setting. The interviews took place in the same room as Stud>- I. Two minor changes were made in the setting. First, the interviewer’s chair was moved about 1.5 ft from the wall so that the rater could better judge the lines of the subject’s gaze relative to the interviewer’s face. Second, the desk at which tlbe subject’s chair was placed was moved 1.5 ft closer, resulting in a separation of npprox 14 ft between the chairs. This alteration was undertaken to determine if lessening the initial distance would affect the bimodal approach ranges found in Study I. Procedure. Each subject was met outside of the interview room by the (s\-pcr-imenter and directed into the room. The interviewer was already seated at the f:lr end of the room. She asked the subject to “pull up a chair,” motioning to 11~~7 swivel chair placed at the desk. After the subject was seated. the intervielver described the “purpose” of the study as an attempt at determining student cxperiences in and opinions toward their courses in collexe. Ten brief qllestions \vrr<’ asked of each subject, after which the interviewer told the subject that other concerns would be covered next week. In order to additionally justify the second interview, the subject was given an information sheet, regarding course expcri(AncPc and impressions for the current semester, which was to be returned next week.
STABILITY
OF
IMMEDIACY
BEHAVIORS
105
The same format was followed for seating the subject in the second session. Eight questions were included in the second interview, after which the interviewer requested the subject to complete ratings of feeling at ease during the interview, pleasantness of the interview, warmth of the interviewer, and willingness to participate in another similar study. Immediacy measures. The same procedures used in Study I were employed in this study for the observation of the immediacy behaviors. The only exception was a change to a seven-point rating scale for lean in an attempt to make finer discriminations of leaning behavior. RESULTS
The reliability of the rater along the recorded dimensions was adequately demonstrated. For 12 sessionsobserved by both the rater and another judge, reliabilities of T = .99 and T = .79 were found for the Y and X components, respectively, of total distance from the interviewer. The reliability coefficient for leaning was r = .72, while that for eye contact duration was T = .95. The stability coefficients for the immediacy behaviors in Study II are those underscored in parentheses in Table 1. It is clear that the values are very similar to those found in Study I. Thus, there appeared to be little or no loss in stability when moving from a 25-min to a l-week interval, The correlations within each of the sessionsbetween the pairs of immediacy behaviors were also similar to those in Study I. In particular the correlation between eye contact and distance in the first session, r(24) = .62, p < .Ol, indicated, as in the first study, that increased distance was related to greater eye contact. Unlike Study I, the correlations between eye contact and distance were positive for the subjects partitioned into close (r = .30) and far (T = .53) groups, although those values are not significant with such small samples. The overall relationship between distance and eye contact in the second session was not significant, r(24) = .20, p > .lO. The correlations between chair orientation and distance were significant in the first, I-( 24) = -.64, p < .Ol, and second, ~(24) = .57, p < .Ol, sessions, indicating that closer approaches were made at angles increasingly divergent from a directly confronting approach. Leaning behavior was not significantly correlated with any of the other behaviors in either session. It is interesting to note that, again, there was a bimodal distribution of approaches, although it is not quite as distinct as that in Study I. Figure 1 indicates that the pattern of approches in Study II was quite similar to that of Study I. In the former case, a range of 7.1-9.0 ft was never used in any of the two approaches by each of the 26 subjects. The entry at 8.25 represents the average distance of the one subject who approached once on each side of the vacant interval Attempts at dis-
106
MILES
L.
PAlTERSON
criminating between the 13 subjects in the close range (3.75-6.00 ft) and the 12 subjects in the far range (9.75-14.25 ft) on the basis of the ratings taken at the end of the second session indicated that the closer subjects rated themselves more at case, t( 23) = 3.84, p < .Ol, and rated the interviewer warmer, t(23) = 2.31, p < .05, than did the far subjects. Analyses of variance performed on each of the immediacy measures indicated no sessions effect, and only one instance of an effect of ses of subjects. Female subjects exhibited more eye contact than did malt subjects, F( 1,24) = 8.23, p < .Ol, 43.1% vs 30.5%. This result was consistent with the tendency noted in Study I for greater eye contact at~~ong same sex than opposite sex pairs. That is, the females in Study II showed greater eye contact with the female interviewer than did the m&s. lxSCUSSION
The results of the two studies, sampling intervals of 25 min and I week, indicated that the immediacy behaviors of approach distance. eycl contact, approach orientation, and lean were highly consistent over tinw. In fact, the stability coefficients for each of the immediacy behaviors remained essentially unchanged when the intersession interval incrcascd from 25 min to 1 week. It would be useful to gain further information on the time course of the stabilities of the immediacy behaviors, but at this point, it may be more important to sample different settings and difhrtnt interviewers. Some indirect information on the effect of a diffcrcnt interviewer can be inferred from an examination of the effect of dyad SL~Xtype in the current studies. That is, differences due to the sex of slrbjectsex of interviewer interaction indicating that same sex and opposite s(‘x pairs behave differently would suggest that the stability of the immc~diacy behaviors is conditional. The only dimension for which the xx of subject-sex of interviewer interaction was apparently critical 1r.a~ that of eye contact. On the basis of the present data, there was tentative rvidencc that eye contact was greater in same sex than opposite sex pairs. which is consistent with results cited by Argyle and Dean ( 196Fj), HOUcvcr, the evidence from the second study only, which employed a fcmalc interviewer, is also consistent with an alterrrative finding that fcrnak~s exhibit greater eye contact than males (Exline, 196:3; Esline. Grav. & Schuette, 1965). None of the other immediacy behaviors was a&c&l 1)) the sex of the subject, sex of the interviewer, or the intcractiou c)f the two. A particularly interesting result across the two studies was the bimodal distribution of approach distances. In both studies, subjects avoicktl a middle range approach, choosing to sit relatively close or relativrly distant. There was evidence, based on test scores and self-ratings. that the
STABILITY
OF
IMMEDIACY
BEHAVIORS
107
more distant subjects were more anxious than those who approached closely. Social anxiety might effect approaches by leading one to avoid closeness with others, or alternatively, it might indirectly have its effect by making a person more inhibited in manipulating the environment, e.g., chair placement, and thereby result in a person remaining more distant. It is also possible that the relationship between anxiety and interaction distance is not a unidirectional one. Socially anxious persons may remain more distant, but independent of that, remaining distant in itself may create anxiety, especially if it is viewed as unusual. The possibility that distant approaches may cause anxiety should be considered, particularly if the assessment of the subject occurs after the interaction. A number of studies have indicated that compensatory relationships exist between immediacy dimensions to permit decreasing intimacy along one dimension as a result of increasing intimacy on a different one, and vice versa (Argyle & Dean, 1965; Felipe & Sommer, 1966; Goldberg, Kiesler, & Collins, 1969; Patterson, Mullens, & Romano, 1971; Patterson & Sechrest, 1970). In all of those studies, the distance between the subject and the experimenter was manipulated by the experimenter with the typical result that the behavior along some other dimension changed reciprocally. For example, a decrease in eye contact or directness of body orientation might follow an increase in overall immediacy caused by the experimenter’s close approach to the subject, In that way the reduction in eye contact or in confronting orientations can apparently compensate for increased proximity. While the most desirable means for investigating compensation is through the experimental manipulation of one of the immediacy behaviors, the correlational evidence from the present studies is useful for consideration. Generally the results supported the hypothesized compensatory relationships. As approaches became closer, eye contact decreased and the orientation of the approaches became less directly confronting, Thus, the increased intimacy of closer approaches was apparently balanced by reductions both in eye contact and in directness of orientation. It should be noted that the positive relationship between distance and eye contact was not generally found within close and distant approach ranges in the two studies. This brings into consideration whether or not the compensatory process, as suggested by Argyle and Dean ( 1965), is a continuous function or one operating across fairly discrete levels. It may be likely that compensatory reactions are unnecessary for small variations in one of the immediacy behaviors, Thus, a comfortable level of immediacy may not be a discrete point, but rather a range throughout which compensation would not be required. One final concern, worthy of mention, is the large difference in percentage of eye contact found between the two sessions of the first study,
108
MILES
L.
PATTERSON
but not in the second study. That difference in eye contact was probably due to different divisions of talking and listening between the intcrviewer and subject over the two sessions of the first study. That is, the fewer, but more open-ended questions of the second interview, npparently required more talking on the part of the subject than did the brief. but more numerous questions of the first interview. Increased eye contact has been found to result from listeuing as compared to talking (Zxline, Gray, & Schuette, 1965). No difference was indicated bet\vcen the two sessions of the second study in which the number and &pc* of questions were similar. In conclusion, the findings of these investigations indicate considerablc~ stability over time for the immediacy dimensions of approach distanccl. eye contact, approach orientation, and lean. Althorrgh more must bt known about the situational influences on the immediacy behaviors ovt’i time, it appears that individuals do exhibit temporally consistent patterns in their immediacy behaviors. In addition, the present data indicatetl general support for the process of compensation among the immcdiac! behaviors. REFERENCES ARGYLE, hl., & DEAN, J. Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965. 28, 289-304. HEUIXG, A. W. The Pittsburgh scales of social extraversion-introversion and emotionality. Journal of Psychology, 1962, 53, 199-209. CHOWNE, D. P., & MARLOWE, 1). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 349-354. hiXCAS, S. D., JR. Nonverbal communication. Ps~ychoZo~icaZ BuZZetitl, 1969. 72, 118-137. EXLINE, R. V. Explorations in the process of person perception: Visual interaction in relation to competition, sex, and need for affiliation. Journal of Personu/ir~~, 19G3, 31, l-20. EXLINE, R. V., GRAY, D., & SCHUETTE, D. Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent. Jour~tnl of PersonaZit~~ arrtl Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 201-209. FELIPE, N., & SOMMER, R. Invasions of personal space. Socicll Problems, 1966. 14. 206-214. GOLDBERG, G. N., KIESLER, C. A.. & COLLINS, B. E. Visiral behavior and f:lct,-toface distance during interaction. Sociomehy, 1969, 32, -43-53. JACKSON, D. N. Personality Tesearch form. London, Canada, 1964. KENDON, A., & COOK, M. Consistency of gaze patterns in social interaction. Rrifi,lt Journal of Psychology, 1969, 60, 481494. LIBBY, W. L.. JR. Eye contact and direction of looking as stable individiral (liffermces. JournaZ of ExperimentuZ Research in PersonaZity, 1970, 4, 303-312. MEHFABIAN, A. Significance of posture and position in the communication oi attitude and status relationships, Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 359-372. i a)
STABILJTY
OF
IMMEDIACY
BEHAVIORS
109
A. Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1969, 1, 203-207. (b) PATTERSON, M. L. Spatial factors in social interactions. Humun ReZutim, 1968, 21, 351361. PATTERSON, M. L., MULLENS, S., & ROMANO, J. Compensatory reactions to spatial intrusion. So&m&y, 1971, 34, 114-121. PATTERSON, M. L., & SECHREST, L. B. Interpersonal distance and impression formation. Journal of Person&y, 1970, 38, 161-166. Powxns, J. Physical distance: A nonreactive measure of social distance among Mexican mental patients. Unpublished master’s thesis, Northwestern University, 1967. SOMMER, R. Small group ecology. PsychoZogicaZ Bulletin, 1967, 67, 145-152. WATSON, D., & FRZEND, R. Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. I~nzaE of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 448-457. MEHRABUN,
(Received
March 28, 1972)