The personal distance effect as a function of esthetic stimulus, anxiety and sex

Abstract

PROBLEM Smith@) has defined the personal distance effect as the actual distance a person will place between himself and an object of positive or negative valence. Changing the projected size of pleasant and unpleasant facial expressions to simulate various distances, and using Ss varying in degrees of personal adjustment, Smith found that pleasant faces are preferred closer in distance to the viewer, i.e., larger in size, than unpleasant ones, and that this tendency is more pronounced in persons of higher personal adjustment.The present study was an application of the personal distance effect to the field of esthetics, using Ss differing in degrees of manifest anxiety. Since high-anxious individuals tend to project threat into environmental stimuli ('-2 ) , it was predicted that such persons would demonstrate greater personal distance effects than would low-anxious persons, and furthermore, would evaluate the stimuli objects relatively less esthetically pleasing than would low-anxious individuals. METHODFourteen slide photographs of sculptured heads and face masks of different cultures served as stimuli. African, Indian, Aztec, Roman, Japanese, and Egyptian art were represented. Of these, three slides were previously selected on an a priori basis as "pleasant" and three as "unpleasant", in terms of facial expressions and the artist's intent in portraying the character of the individual sculptured. The three pleasant works were of Aztec, Egyptian and Roman origin, and the three unpleasant from African, Japanese and Aztec cultures.By means of a zoom lens and sliding track, the projected image of a slide picture could be varied seven sizes, from the smallest screen image of 15" x 22", simulating the greatest personal distance effect, and the largest screen setting of 36" x 53", simulating the smallest personal distance effect. Brightness levels a t different settings were equated by use of a variac. S sat seven feet from the screen.The fourteen slides were presented in alternate increasing and decreasing size series. After viewing the seven settings for a particular picture, S was asked to select the setting most esthetically pleasing. On completion of this phase of the experiment, the slides were again presented for purposes of subject evaluation on a 7-point "Pleasant-Unpleasant" rating scale. The slides a t this time were projected but once at the middle size setting.Twenty low-anxious (LA) and 20 high-anxious (HA) college students, each group respectively composed of ten male and ten female Ss, were selected on the basis of a scale of manifest anxiety(3i to serve as Ss. LA scores ranged from 0-6; HA scores were 18 or greater. RESULTS. A Liiidquist ( 4 ) Type I11 analysis of variance on size setling preferences indicated that all Ss tended to select larger projected images (smaller personal distance effect) for the pleasant slides than for unpleasant ones (.005 > p > .001). A similar analysis of variance for the esthetic ratings indicated the pleasant slides to be significantly more pleasing than the unpleasant o...

Self-knowledge and social desirability of personality traits

“…From the standpoint of speci®city, as argued above, people should exhibit valid self-descriptions in these two dimensions. In addition, we assume that introversion (Hendrick and Brown, 1971;Star, 1962) and high anxiety (Hammes, 1964;Smith, 1954), in a way similar to maladjustment (Bleda, 1974), are non-desirable traits while extraversion and low anxiety are desirable ones. The latter assumption raises the question of the role played by desirability in the two dimensions; more precisely, the question is: how is desirability related to the speci®c characteristics of the two dimensions?…”

Personal space: An evaluative and orienting overview.

“…Other miscellaneous techniques used to measure personal space include the positioning of miniature figures or live actors (Little, 1965), preference judgments for photographs depicting differing spacings (Haase, 1970), and the preferential size of projected faces (Hammes, 1964;Smith, 1953Smith, , 1954b.…”

Aesthetic Preferences of Schizophrenics

“…Recent research (DuPerez, 1964;Hammer, 1961;Hammes, 1964;HusniPalacios & Palacios, 1964;Johnson & Knapp, 1963;Knapp, 1962;Knapp 8: Wulff, 1963) has indicated that the aeschetic preferences of a person are often associated with important characteristics of that person. Research done at the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research at the University of California, has indicated that personality differences are associated with preferences for simple vs complex paintings or figure drawings (Barron, 1963).…”