Influence of culture, language, and sex on conversational distance.

Abstract

Proxemic theory emphasizes cultural uses of interpersonal distance to regulate intimacy via sensory exposure. However, research has confounded cultural differences in conversational distance with sex, language, and topic. This study assessed interpersonal distance between seated conversants from each of three cultures varying in purported contact norms. Thirty-five Japanese, 31 Venezuelan foreign students (assigned to speak either their native language or English), and 39 Americans had a 5-minute conversation on a common topic with a same-sex, same-nationality confederate. Three hypotheses were tested: (a) When speaking their native languages, Japanese will sit farther apart than Venezuelans, with Americans at an intermediate distance; (b) females will sit closer than males; and (c) foreign subjects, when speaking English, will more closely approximate American conversational distance than when speaking their native languages. The hypotheses were generally confirmed. According to proxemic theory (Hall, 1966), interpersonal distance helps to regulate intimacy by controlling sensory exposure. The possibility of visual, tactile, auditory, and olfactory stimulation is enhanced at closer distances. Differences in distancing within dyads are likely to be affected by a variety of sources of preferences for intimacy, including individual history of social deprivation and reinforcement, acquain-1979. We are grateful to

Exploring Touch in Physical Education Practicum in a Touchy Latin Culture

“…Subsequent research studies have supported Hall's [14] qualitative observations that Latin Americans prefer closer social interaction distances than individuals from North America or Northern Europe (e.g., [13,[16][17][18]). Further, Freedman [19] claimed that " [w]hites in the United States, Canada and England stand far apart, Europeans stand somewhat closer and South Americans stand closer still" (p. 72).…”

Cultural differences in how an engagement-seeking robot should approach a group of people

“…Based upon observations, Hall noted that people from low-contact cultures maintain a larger personal space compared with their counterparts from high-contact cultures. Northern European cultures are considered being lowcontact, whereas Southern European, Southern American and Arab [4,5,19] cultures on the other hand are considered high-contact cultures.…”

“…Sussman & Rosenfeld [19] conducted a study in which 105 students from three different countries (Japan, U.S. and Venezuela) had a five-minute conversation with a same sex, same-nationality confederate. They found that, when they were speaking English, participants from the low-contact culture (Japan) sat further apart from each other compared to participants from a high-contact culture (Venezuelan).…”

“…An indication of whether participants were members of a highcontact or low-contact culture was assessed by measuring closeness as people from a high-contact culture have been found to sit significantly closer to each other compared with members from a low-contact culture [19]. Five items from the IPROX (iconic proximity) questionnaire were used [7].…”

“…When this buffer zone is invaded, people compensate for this intimate contact, by non-verbal or verbal compensation behaviors such as stepping away, or limiting eye contact [14]. While every human adheres to others' personal space, what individuals regard as appropriate distances in certain social situations depends on culture [e.g., [19], [7], [17]). …”