Personality Characteristics Related to Cross-Situational Consistency of Interpersonal Distance

Long, Gary T.; Calhoun, Lawrence G.; Selby, James W.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4103_8

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Long, Calhoun, and Selby (1976) investigated the relations between neuroticism and psychoticism and consistency in selection of interpersonal distance based on multiple-regression analysis. They found that “Neuroticism was the strongest predictor of consistency, being negatively related to interpersonal distance setting across situations” (Harper, et al , 1978, p. 266).…”

Section: Attachment and Proxemicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meanings of Hugging: From Greeting Behavior to Touching Implications

Forsell¹,

Åström²

2012

Comprehensive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim and focus of this article is to present some circumstances under which hugging occurs, as well as to describe its development from a focus on greeting behavior to therapeutic effects, reflected in emotional, physiological, and biochemical alterations. The sensation of a hug for a single person also can be evoked with electrical brain stimulation. The purpose of this article is to clarify understanding of the circumstances under which this type of behavior presents itself in Western culture. Based on published literature as well as personal observation, the article points to the fact that hugging is not only a part of greeting behavior, but also has its place as a display of empathy and/or gratitude. The importance of hugging from childhood to adulthood is discussed and clarified. The psychological and physiological ramifications of this behavior are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Attachment and Proxemicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meanings of Hugging: From Greeting Behavior to Touching Implications

Forsell¹,

Åström²

2012

Comprehensive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Long (1984) measured self-reported anxiety and preferred IPD (using a stop-distance technique where the subject indicated the distance at which they would prefer an approaching person to stop) and found that the level of situational setting anxiety was a better predictor of IPD than the self-reported anxiety level. Long, Calhoun and Selby (1977) also used high and low anxiety settings to examine the consistency of personality characteristic influences on seating distance preferences at tables. They found that neuroticism consistently predicted a preference for higher IPDs across the settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Environment of Public Transport

Thomas¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Crowding is identified both internationally and in New Zealand as a key issue in public transport. Unfortunately, the concerns of public transport providers are focussed on economic imperative rather than a concern for the actual experiences of patrons. The social needs of public transport passengers are neglected, both in practice and in research. This research examines the delicate balance between the need for privacy and the need for social interaction in the setting of public transport. These needs are examined through naturalistic observation of 1703 passengers' behaviours, such as seat selection, activity use, and conversation on buses and trains. This was followed by a survey-based Exploratory study examining a range of individual difference variables. Based on the findings of this Exploratory study measures were identified for use in a series of subsequent surveys of public and private transport users. Specifically, questionnaires measuring the attitudes and self-reported behaviour of train (N = 319), car (N = 305) and bus commuters (N = 216). Results suggest that the seating layout of public transport forces people into an intimate distance with strangers, causing social discomfort. Hall's (1966) proxemic theory suggests that these intimate distances are typically reserved for people with closer relations. People compensate by adapting to this close yet impersonal social situation. There is evidence that interactive strategies such as talking and positive body language with other passengers reduces the level of social discomfort, whereas defensive strategies do not reduce discomfort, but do form a negative relationship with social interaction which helps perpetuate a socially stagnant atmosphere. Discomfort from close interpersonal distance and less positive attitudes towards other passengers, while not as important as instrumental variables (such as longer trip durations), are still potential barriers to public transport patronage and should be given greater attention. In conclusion, interactive behaviours are determined to be necessary to reduce social discomfort in public transport. Festinger and colleague's (1950) passive contact theory (PCT) is interrupted in the public transport setting, and it is posited that pro-social behaviours, such as smiling, and acknowledging other passengers with greetings are a precondition for successful interpersonal interaction.</p>

show abstract