Proxemics

Proxemics is the study of human use of space and the effects that population density has on behaviour,
communication, and social interaction.[1]

Proxemics is one among several subcategories in the study of nonverbal communication, including
haptics (touch), kinesics (body movement), vocalics (paralanguage), and chronemics (structure of
time).[2]

Edward T. Hall, the cultural anthropologist who coined the term in 1963, defined proxemics as "the
interrelated observations and theories of humans use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture".[3]
In his foundational work on proxemics, The Hidden Dimension, Hall emphasized the impact of proxemic
behavior (the use of space) on interpersonal communication. According to Hall, the study of proxemics is
valuable in evaluating not only the way people interact with others in daily life, but also "the organization
of space in [their] houses and buildings, and ultimately the layout of [their] towns".[4] Proxemics remains
a hidden component of interpersonal communication that is uncovered through observation and strongly
influenced by culture.

Contents
Human distances
Interpersonal distance
Horizontal
Vertical
Biometrics
Neuropsychology
Organization of space in territories
Cultural factors
Adaptation
Applied research
Advertising
Cinema
Cyberbullying
Virtual environments
See also
References
Further reading

Human distances
Interpersonal distance
Hall described the interpersonal distances of man (the relative distances between people) in four distinct
zones: (1) intimate space, (2) personal space, (3) social space, and (4) public space.

Horizontal
Intimate distance for embracing, touching or
whispering
Close phase – less than one inch (one to two cm)
Far phase – 6 to 18 inches (15 to 46 cm)
Personal distance for interactions among good friends
or family
Close phase – 1.5 to 2.5 feet (46 to 76 cm)
Far phase – 2.5 to 4 feet (76 to 122 cm)
Social distance for interactions among acquaintances
Close phase – 4 to 7 feet (1.2 to 2.1 m) A chart depicting Edward T. Hall's
Far phase – 7 to 12 feet (2.1 to 3.7 m) interpersonal distances of man,
showing radius in feet and meters
Public distance used for public speaking
Close phase – 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 m)
Far phase – 25 feet (7.6 m) or more.
The distance surrounding a person forms a space. The space within intimate distance and personal
distance is called personal space. The space within social distance and out of personal distance is called
social space. And the space within public distance is called public space.

Personal space is the region surrounding a person which they regard as psychologically theirs. Most
people value their personal space and feel discomfort, anger, or anxiety when their personal space is
encroached.[5] Permitting a person to enter personal space and entering somebody else's personal space
are indicators of perception of those people's relationship. An intimate zone is reserved for close friends,
lovers, children and close family members. Another zone is used for conversations with friends, to chat
with associates, and in group discussions. A further zone is reserved for strangers, newly formed groups,
and new acquaintances. A fourth zone is used for speeches, lectures, and theater; essentially, public
distance is that range reserved for larger audiences.[6]

Entering somebody's personal space is normally an indication of familiarity and sometimes intimacy.
However, in modern society, especially in crowded urban communities, it can be difficult to maintain
personal space, for example when in a crowded train, elevator or street. Many people find such physical
proximity to be psychologically disturbing and uncomfortable,[5] though it is accepted as a fact of
modern life. In an impersonal, crowded situation, eye contact tends to be avoided. Even in a crowded
place, preserving personal space is important, and intimate and sexual contact, such as frotteurism and
groping, is unacceptable physical contact.

The amygdala is suspected of processing people's strong reactions to personal space violations since
these are absent in those in which it is damaged and it is activated when people are physically close.[7]
Research links the amygdala with emotional reactions to proximity to other people. First, it is activated
by such proximity, and second, in those with complete bilateral damage to their amygdala, such as patient
S.M., lack a sense of personal space boundary.[7] As the researchers have noted: "Our findings suggest
that the amygdala may mediate the repulsive force that helps to maintain a minimum distance between
people. Further, our findings are consistent with those in monkeys with bilateral amygdala lesions, who
stay within closer proximity to other monkeys or people, an effect we suggest arises from the absence of
strong emotional responses to personal space violation."[7]

A person's personal space is carried with them everywhere they go. It is the most inviolate form of
territory.[8] Body spacing and posture, according to Hall, are unintentional reactions to sensory
fluctuations or shifts, such as subtle changes in the sound and pitch of a person's voice. Social distance
between people is reliably correlated with physical distance, as are intimate and personal distance,
according to the delineations below. Hall did not mean for these measurements to be strict guidelines that
translate precisely to human behavior, but rather a system for gauging the effect of distance on
communication and how the effect varies between cultures and other environmental factors.

Vertical
The distances mentioned above are horizontal distance. There is also vertical distance that communicates
something between people. In this case, however, vertical distance is often understood to convey the
degree of dominance or sub-ordinance in a relationship. Looking up at or down on another person can be
taken literally in many cases, with the higher person asserting greater status.[9]

Teachers, and especially those who work with small children, should realize that students will interact
more comfortably with a teacher when they are in same vertical plane. Used in this way, an
understanding of vertical distance can become a tool for improved teacher-student communication. On
the other hand, a disciplinarian might put this information to use in order to gain psychological advantage
over an unruly student.[9]

Biometrics
Hall used biometric concepts to categorize, explain, and explore the ways people connect in space. These
variations in positioning are impacted by a variety of nonverbal communicative factors, listed below.

Kinesthetic factors: This category deals with how closely the participants are to touching,
from being completely outside of body-contact distance to being in physical contact, which
parts of the body are in contact, and body part positioning.
Haptic code: This behavioral category concerns how participants are touching one another,
such as caressing, holding, feeling, prolonged holding, spot touching, pressing against,
accidental brushing, or not touching at all.
Visual code: This category denotes the amount of eye contact between participants. Four
sub-categories are defined, ranging from eye-to-eye contact to no eye contact at all.
Thermal code: This category denotes the amount of body heat that each participant
perceives from another. Four sub-categories are defined: conducted heat detected, radiant
heat detected, heat probably detected, and no detection of heat.
Olfactory code: This category deals in the kind and degree of odor detected by each
participant from the other.
Voice loudness: This category deals in the vocal effort used in speech. Seven sub-
categories are defined: silent, very soft, soft, normal, normal+, loud, and very loud.

Neuropsychology
Whereas Hall's work uses human interactions to demonstrate spatial variation in proxemics, the field of
neuropsychology describes personal space in terms of the kinds of "nearness" to an individual body.

Extrapersonal space: The space that occurs outside the reach of an individual.
Peripersonal space: The space within reach of any limb of an individual. Thus, to be
"within arm's length" is to be within one's peripersonal space.
Pericutaneous space: The space just outside our bodies but which might be near to
touching it. Visual-tactile perceptive fields overlap in processing this space. For example, an
individual might see a feather as not touching their skin but still experience the sensation of
being tickled when it hovers just above their hand. Other examples include the blowing of
wind, gusts of air, and the passage of heat.[10]
Previc[11] further subdivides extrapersonal space into focal-extrapersonal space, action-extrapersonal
space, and ambient-extrapersonal space. Focal-extrapersonal space is located in the lateral temporo-
frontal pathways at the center of our vision, is retinotopically centered and tied to the position of our
eyes, and is involved in object search and recognition. Action-extrapersonal-space is located in the
medial temporo-frontal pathways, spans the entire space, and is head-centered and involved in orientation
and locomotion in topographical space. Action-extrapersonal space provides the "presence" of our world.
Ambient-extrapersonal space initially courses through the peripheral parieto-occipital visual pathways
before joining up with vestibular and other body senses to control posture and orientation in earth-
fixed/gravitational space. Numerous studies involving peripersonal and extrapersonal neglect have shown
that peripersonal space is located dorsally in the parietal lobe whereas extrapersonal space is housed
ventrally in the temporal lobe.

Organization of space in territories

While personal space describes the immediate space surrounding
a person, territory refers to the area which a person may "lay
claim to" and defend against others.[2] There are four forms of
human territory in proxemic theory. They are:

Public territory: a place where one may freely enter.

This type of territory is rarely in the constant control of
just one person. However, people might come to
temporarily own areas of public territory. Two people not affecting each other's
Interactional territory: a place where people personal space
congregate informally
Home territory: a place where people continuously
have control over their individual territory
Body territory: the space immediately surrounding us
These different levels of territory, in addition to factors involving
personal space, suggest ways for us to communicate and produce
expectations of appropriate behavior.[12]

In addition to spatial territories, the interpersonal territories

between conversants can be determined by "socio-petal socio- Reaction of two people whose
fugal axis",[13] or the "angle formed by the axis of the regions of personal space are in
conversants' shoulders".[2] Hall has also studied combinations of conflict
postures between dyads (two people) including lying prone,
sitting, or standing.
Cultural factors
Personal space is highly variable, due to cultural differences and personal preferences. On average,
preferences vary significantly between countries. A 2017 study[14] found that personal space preferences
with respect to strangers ranged between more than 120 cm in Romania, Hungary and Saudi Arabia, and
less than 90 cm in Argentina, Peru, Ukraine and Bulgaria.

The cultural practices of the United States show considerable similarities to those in northern and central
European regions, such as Germany, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom. Greeting rituals tend to be
the same in Europe and in the United States, consisting of minimal body contact—often confined to a
simple handshake. The main cultural difference in proxemics is that residents of the United States like to
keep more open space between themselves and their conversation partners (roughly 4 feet (1.2 m)
compared to 2 to 3 feet (0.6–0.9 m) in Europe).[15] European cultural history has seen a change in
personal space since Roman times, along with the boundaries of public and private space. This topic has
been explored in A History of Private Life (2001), under the general editorship of Philippe Ariès and
Georges Duby.[16] On the other hand, those living in densely populated places likely have lower
expectations of personal space. Residents of India or Japan tend to have a smaller personal space than
those in the Mongolian steppe, both in regard to home and individual spaces. Different expectations of
personal space can lead to difficulties in intercultural communication.[5]

Hall notes that different culture types maintain different standards of personal space. Realizing and
recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate
discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand-offish") or too small
(intrusive).

Adaptation
People make exceptions to and modify their space requirements. A number of relationships may allow
for personal space to be modified, including familial ties, romantic partners, friendships and close
acquaintances, where there is a greater degree of trust and personal knowledge. Personal space is affected
by a person's position in society, with more affluent individuals expecting a larger personal space.[17]
Personal space also varies by gender and age. Males typically use more personal space than females, and
personal space has a positive relation to age (people use more as they get older). Most people have a fully
developed (adult) sense of personal space by age twelve.[18]

Under circumstances where normal space requirements cannot be met, such as in public transit or
elevators, personal space requirements are modified accordingly. According to the psychologist Robert
Sommer, one method of dealing with violated personal space is dehumanization. He argues that on the
subway, crowded people often imagine those intruding on their personal space as inanimate. Behavior is
another method: a person attempting to talk to someone can often cause situations where one person
steps forward to enter what they perceive as a conversational distance, and the person they are talking to
can step back to restore their personal space.[17]

Implementing appropriate proxemic cues has been shown to improve success in monitored behavioral
situations like psychotherapy by increasing patient trust for the therapist (see active listening).[19]
Instructional situations have likewise seen increased success in student performance by lessening the
actual or perceived distance between the student and the educator (perceived distance is manipulated in
the case of instructional videoconferencing, using technological tricks such as angling the frame and
adjusting the zoom).[20] Studies have shown that proxemic behavior is also affected when dealing with
stigmatized minorities within a population. For example, those who do not have experience dealing with
disabled persons tend to create more distance during encounters because they are uncomfortable. Others
may judge that the disabled person needs to have an increase of touch, volume, or proximity.[21]

Applied research
The theory of proxemics is often considered in relation to the impact of technology on human
relationships. While physical proximity cannot be achieved when people are connected virtually,
perceived proximity can be attempted, and several studies have shown that it is a crucial indicator in the
effectiveness of virtual communication technologies.[22][23][24][25] These studies suggest that various
individual and situational factors influence how close we feel to another person, regardless of distance.
The mere-exposure effect originally referred to the tendency of a person to positively favor those who
they have been physically exposed to most often.[26] However, recent research has extended this effect to
virtual communication. This work suggests that the more someone communicates virtually with another
person, the more he is able to envision that person's appearance and workspace, therefore fostering a
sense of personal connection.[22] Increased communication has also been seen to foster common ground,
or the feeling of identification with another, which leads to positive attributions about that person. Some
studies emphasize the importance of shared physical territory in achieving common ground,[27] while
others find that common ground can be achieved virtually, by communicating often.[22]

Much research in the fields of communication, psychology, and sociology, especially under the category
of organizational behavior, has shown that physical proximity enhances peoples' ability to work together.
Face-to-face interaction is often used as a tool to maintain the culture, authority, and norms of an
organization or workplace.[28][29] An extensive body of research has been written about how proximity is
affected by the use of new communication technologies. The importance of physical proximity in co-
workers is often emphasized.

Advertising
Part of Facebook's earning comes from on-site advertising. During these years, Facebook has offered
companies the ability to post and present content in a timeline format on their free brand or business
page. By doing so, companies can deliver a more comprehensive promotional message and increase
audience engagement. If a user "likes" a brand page, corporate content posted on the brand page will
appear in the user's news feed. Many users felt angry about the overly implanted ads that showed up in
their Facebook timeline.

Users that consider Facebook advertising "annoying" and "intrusive" may do so because companies are
invading their social domain (territory) with targeted, paid-for, corporate communications. Those that
"hate" receiving targeted messages on their social media profiles could be experiencing frustration.[30] It
is likely that these users are devoting effort to the creation and maintenance of boundaries around their
social role, only to have advertisers break through these boundaries with promotional content.

Cinema
Proxemics is an essential component of cinematic mise-en-scène, the placement of characters, props and
scenery within a frame, creating visual weight and movement.[31] There are two aspects to the
consideration of proxemics in this context, the first being character proxemics, which addresses such
questions as: How much space is there between the characters? What is suggested by characters who are
close to (or, conversely, far away from) each other? Do distances change as the film progresses? and, Do
distances depend on the film's other content?[32] The other consideration is camera proxemics, which
answers the single question: How far away is the camera from the characters/action?[33] Analysis of
camera proxemics typically relates Hall's system of proxemic patterns to the camera angle used to create
a specific shot, with the long shot or extreme long shot becoming the public proxemic, a full shot
(sometimes called a figure shot, complete view, or medium long shot) becoming the social proxemic, the
medium shot becoming the personal proxemic, and the close up or extreme close up becoming the
intimate proxemic.[34]

A long shot—the A full shot—the A medium shot—the A close-up—the

public proxemic social proxemic personal proxemic intimate proxemic

Film analyst Louis Giannetti has maintained that, in general, the greater the distance between the camera
and the subject (in other words, the public proxemic), the more emotionally neutral the audience remains,
whereas the closer the camera is to a character, the greater the audience's emotional attachment to that
character.[35] Or, as actor/director Charlie Chaplin put it: "Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a
comedy in long shot."[36]

Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying is a communication phenomenon in which a bully utilizes electronic media in order to
harass peers. Adolescents favor texting or computer-mediated communication as an alternative to the
more directly combative face-to-face interactions because it takes advantage of evading imposed social
norms such as "school rules", which are likely to be especially repressive of aggression involving
females.[37] Online bullying has a lot in common with bullying in school: Both behaviors include
harassment, humiliation, teasing, and aggression. Cyberbullying presents unique challenges in the sense
that the perpetrator can attempt to be anonymous, and attacks can happen at any time of day or night.[38]

The main factor that encourages cyberbullying is the fact that a cyberbully can hide behind the shield of
online anonymity. In other words, social media magnifies the face-to-face social space into a virtual
space where a cyberbully can say anything about the victims without the pressure of facing them.

Virtual environments
Bailenson, Blascovich, Beall, and Loomis conducted an experiment in 2001, testing Argyle and Dean's
(1965) equilibrium theory's speculation of an inverse relationship between mutual gaze, a nonverbal cue
signaling intimacy, and interpersonal distance. Participants were immersed in a 3D virtual room in which
a virtual human representation (that is, an embodied agent) stood.[39] The focus of this study is on the
subtle nonverbal exchanges that occur between a person and an embodied agent. Participants in the study
clearly did not treat the agent as a mere animation. On the contrary, the results suggest that, in virtual
environments, people were influenced by the 3D model and respected personal space of the humanoid
representation. The result of the experiment also indicated that women are more affected by the gaze
behaviors of the agent and adjust their personal space more accordingly than do men. However, men do
subjectively assign gaze behavior to the agent, and their proxemic behavior reflects this perception.
Furthermore, both men and women demonstrate less variance in their proxemic behavior when the agent
displays mutual gaze behavior than when the agent does not.

Other researchers have established that proxemics can be a valuable tool for measuring the behavioral
realism of an agent or an avatar. People tend to perceive nonverbal gestures on an implicit level, and
degree of personal space appears to be an accurate way to measure people's perception of social presence
and realism in virtual environments. Nick Yee in his PhD thesis at Stanford discovered that real world
proxemic distances also were applied in the virtual world of Second Life.[40] Other studies demonstrate
that implicit behavioral measures such as body posture can be a reliable measure of the user's sense of
presence in virtual environments. Similarly, personal space may be a more reliable measure of social
presence than a typical ratings survey in immersive virtual environments.

See also
Body language
Comfort zone
Personal boundaries – Guidelines, rules or limits that a person creates to identify
reasonable, safe and permissible ways for other people to behave towards them and how
they will respond when someone passes those limits.
Proxemic communication strategies
Shyness
Spatial empathy

References
1. "Proxemics" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proxemics). Dictionary.com. Retrieved
November 14, 2015.
2. Moore, Nina (2010). Nonverbal Communication:Studies and Applications. New York: Oxford
University Press.
3. Hall, Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-385-08476-5.
4. Hall, Edward T. (October 1963). "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior".
American Anthropologist. 65 (5): 1003–1026. doi:10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020 (https://d
oi.org/10.1525%2Faa.1963.65.5.02a00020).
5. Hall, Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-385-08476-5.
6. Engleberg, Isa N. (2006). Working in Groups: Communication Principles and Strategies. My
Communication Kit Series. pp. 140–141.
7. Kennedy DP, Gläscher J, Tyszka JM, Adolphs R (2009). "Personal space regulation by the
human amygdala" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753689). Nat. Neurosci.
12 (10): 1226–1227. doi:10.1038/nn.2381 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnn.2381).
PMC 2753689 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753689). PMID 19718035
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19718035).
8. Richmond, Virginia (2008). Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations. Boston:
Pearson/A and B. p. 130. ISBN 9780205042302.
 9. "Proxemics" (http://www.creducation.org/resources/nonverbal_communication/proxemics.ht
ml). www.creducation.org. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
10. Elias, L.J., M.S., Saucier (2006). Neuropsychology: Clinical and Experimental Foundations.
Boston; MA: Pearson Education Inc. ISBN 978-0-205-34361-4.
11. Previc, F.H. (1998). "The neuropsychology of 3D space". Psychol. Bull. 124 (2): 123–164.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.123 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.124.2.123).
PMID 9747184 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9747184).
12. Lyman, S.M.; Scott, M.B. (1967). "Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension". Social
Problems. 15 (2): 236–249. doi:10.1525/sp.1967.15.2.03a00090 (https://doi.org/10.1525%2
Fsp.1967.15.2.03a00090).
13. Sommer, Robert (May 1967). "Sociofugal Space". American Journal of Sociology. 27 (6):
654–660.
14. Sorokowska, Agnieszka; Sorokowski, Piotr; Hilpert, Peter (22 March 2017). "Preferred
Interpersonal Distances: A Global Comparison" (http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/100226/7/WRAP
-preferred-interpersonal-distances-global-comparison-Realo-2017.pdf) (PDF). Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology. 48 (4): 577–592. doi:10.1177/0022022117698039 (https://doi.or
g/10.1177%2F0022022117698039). ISSN 0022-0221 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-0
221).
15. "Edward Hall, the hidden dimension online abstract" (http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/1
3). Retrieved 2006-12-14.
16. Histoire de la vie privée (2001), editors Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby; le Grand livre du
mois. ISBN 978-2020364171. Published in English as A History of Private Life by the
Belknap Press. ISBN 978-0674399747.
17. Alessandra, Tony (2000-02-01). Charisma: Seven Keys to Developing the Magnetism that
Leads to Success. New York: Business Plus. pp. 165–192. ISBN 9780446675987.
18. Aiello, John R., Aiello, Tyra De Carlo (July 1974). "The Development of Personal Space:
Proxemic Behavior of Children 6 through 16". Human Ecology. 2 (3): 177–189.
doi:10.1007/bf01531420 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf01531420). JSTOR 4602298 (https://
www.jstor.org/stable/4602298).
19. Kelly, Francis D. (1972). "Communicational Significance of Therapist Proxemic Cues" (htt
p://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.18.0b/ovidweb.cgi?WebLinkFrameset=1&S=CAKDFPEMMDDD
GADLNCJKGDIBOBLNAA00&returnUrl=ovidweb.cgi%3fMain%2bSearch%2bPage%3d1%
26S%3dCAKDFPEMMDDDGADLNCJKGDIBOBLNAA00&directlink=http%3a%2f%2fgraphi
cs.tx.ovid.com%2fovftpdfs%2fFPDDNCIBGDDLMD00%2ffs046%2fovft%2flive%2fgv023%2
f00004730%2f00004730-197210000-00033.pdf&filename=Communicational+significance+
of+therapist+proxemic+cues.&navigation_links=NavLinks.S.sh.18.1&link_from=S.sh.18%7c
1&pdf_key=FPDDNCIBGDDLMD00&pdf_index=/fs046/ovft/live/gv023/00004730/00004730-
197210000-00033&D=ovft&link_set=S.sh.18%7C1%7Csl_10%7CresultSet%7CS.sh.18.1
9%7C0). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 39 (2): 345. doi:10.1037/h0033423
(https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0033423). PMID 5075888 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm
ed/5075888).
20. Ellis, Michael E. (1992-04-30). "Perceived Proxemic Distance and Instructional
Videoconferencing: Impact on Student Performance and Attitude" (http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED
354558).
21. Olsen, Carol J. (1989). Proxemic Behavior of the Nonhandicapped Toward the Visually
Impaired. University of Nebraska at Omaha: Proquest Dissertations Publishing.
ProQuest 1696286801 (https://search.proquest.com/docview/1696286801).
22. O'Leary, Michael Boyer; Wilson, Jeanne M; Metiu, Anca; Jett, Quintus R (2008). "Perceived
Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close". Organization Studies.
29 (7): 979–1002. doi:10.1177/0170840607083105 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F017084060
7083105).
23. Monge, Peter R; Kirste, Kenneth K (1980). "Measuring Proximity in Human Organization".
Social Psychology Quarterly. 43 (1): 110–115. doi:10.2307/3033753 (https://doi.org/10.230
7%2F3033753). JSTOR 3033753 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3033753).
24. Monge, Peter R; Rothman, Lynda White; Eisenberg, Eric M; Miller, Katherine I; Kirste,
Kenneth K (1985). "The Dynamics of Organizational Proximity". Management Science. 31
(9): 1129–1141. doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1129 (https://doi.org/10.1287%2Fmnsc.31.9.1129).
25. Olson, Gary M; Olson, Judith S (2000). "Distance Matters". Human Computer Interaction.
15 (2–3): 139–178. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1523_4 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs153270
51hci1523_4).
26. Zajonc, R.B. (1968). "Attitudinal Effect of Mere Exposure". Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 9 (2, Pt.2): 2–17. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.453.9341 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/view
doc/summary?doi=10.1.1.453.9341). doi:10.1037/h0025848 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0
025848).
27. Hinds, Pamela; Kiesler, Sara (2002). Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Levitt, B; J.G. March (1988). "Organizational Learning". Annual Review of Sociology. 14:
319–340. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.14.1.319 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.soc.14.1.3
19).
29. Nelson, R. R. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
30. Cohen, D. (February 23, 2012). "Brands, maintain a Facebook page, but don't bother me" (h
ttp://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-page-consumers-2012-02).
31. "Cinematography – Proxemics" (http://www.esfmedia.com/page/Cinematography+-+Proxem
ics). Film and Media Studies in ESF. South Island School. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
32. "Mise en scene" (http://filmstudies.uncc.edu/sites/filmstudies.uncc.edu/files/media/mise_en_
scene.pdf) (PDF). Film Studies. University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Retrieved
28 October 2012.
33. "Shot and Camera Proxemics" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120428184521/http://www.co
d.edu/people/faculty/pruter/film/scproxemics.htm). The Fifteen Points of Mise-en-scene.
College of DuPage. Archived from the original (http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/pruter/fil
m/scproxemics.htm) on 28 April 2012. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
34. "Cinematography Part II: MISE-EN-SCENE: Orchestrating the Frame" (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20130413103352/http://courses.csusm.edu/fmst300bc/mise.html). California State
University San Marcos. Archived from the original (http://courses.csusm.edu/fmst300bc/mis
e.html) on 13 April 2013. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
35. Giannetti, Louis (1990). Understanding Movies, 5th edition (https://archive.org/details/under
standingmov00gian_1). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-13-945585-
8.
36. Roud, Richard (28 December 1977). "The Baggy-Trousered Philanthropist". The Guardian:
3.
37. "The Future Of Adolescent Female Cyber-Bullying: Electronic Media's Effect On Aggressive
Female Communication". Jena Ponsford. Texas State University. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
38. Landau, Elizabeth (February 27, 2013). "When bullying goes high-tech" (http://www.cnn.co
m/2013/02/27/health/cyberbullying-online-bully-victims/). CNN. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
39. Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2001). "Equilibrium theory
revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments" (https://vhil.stanford.edu/
mm/2001/bailenson-equilibrium.pdf) (PDF). Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual
Environments. 10 (6): 583–598. doi:10.1162/105474601753272844 (https://doi.org/10.116
2%2F105474601753272844).
40. Yee, Nick; et al. (2007). "Unbearable Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of
Nonverbal Social Norms in Online Virtual Environments". CyberPsychology & Behavior. 10
(1): 115–121. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.119.9840 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?d
oi=10.1.1.119.9840). doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9984 (https://doi.org/10.1089%2Fcpb.2006.998
4). PMID 17305457 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17305457).

Further reading
T. Matthew Ciolek (September 1983). "The Proxemics Lexicon: a first approximation".
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 8 (1): 55–75. doi:10.1007/BF00986330 (https://doi.org/10.10
07%2FBF00986330).
Edward T. Hall (1963). "A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behaviour". American
Anthropologist. 65 (5): 1003–1026. doi:10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020 (https://doi.org/10.1
525%2Faa.1963.65.5.02a00020).
Robert Sommer (May 1967). "Sociofugal Space". The American Journal of Sociology. 72
(6): 654–660. doi:10.1086/224402 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F224402).
Lawson, Bryan (2001). "Sociofugal and sociopetal space". The Language of Space.
Architectural Press. pp. 140–144. ISBN 978-0-7506-5246-9.
Herrera, D. A. (2010). Gaze, turn-taking and proxemics in multiparty versus dyadic
conversation across cultures (Ph.D.). The University of Texas at El Paso, United States—
Texas. ISBN 9781124175645
McArthur, J.A. (2016). Digital Proxemics: How technology shapes the ways we move. Peter
Lang. ISBN 9781454199403

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proxemics&oldid=929897737"

This page was last edited on 8 December 2019, at 23:35 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.