Behavioural and experiential variations in ‘personal space’: A self-categorization account

1. Behavioural and experiential variations in ‘personal space’: A self-categorization account David Novelli University of Sussex John Drury University of Sussex Stephen Reicher University of St Andrews Carly Fenn University of Sussex Symposium: The positive crowd: Psychological and social dimensions. 15th General Meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Opatija, Croatia, June 10-14th 2008

2. Crowding 1: the negatives • Focus has been almost exclusively on the potential for negative consequences. • Animal studies: high levels of stress, abnormal sexual activity, increased aggression, & cannibalism (Calhoun, 1962, 1976). • Prison studies: high blood pressure, increased displays of negative affect, & higher death rates for inmates in crowded dorms (Paulus, Cox, McCain, & Chandler, 1975; Paulus, McCain, & Cox, 1978). • Lab studies:participants’ cognitive capabilities (Worchel & Teddlie, 1976), and social relations (Griffith & Veitch, 1971) deteriorated when exposed to ‘crowding’. • Link between urban overcrowding and increased stress and aggression (Leyhausen, 1965).

3. Crowding 2: the positives • However, review articles suggested that the experimental findings and definitions of crowding were inconsistent: • “…it should be determined whether or not some individuals may seek, even prefer, crowded situations.” (Lawrence, 1974, p. 718) • “Crowding may be pleasurable as well as painful. Some people thrill to the excitement of the crowded city. Other things being equal, a large crowd is a good indication at the theatre, stadium, beach, or party.” (Proshansky, Ittleson, & Rivlin, 1976, p. 179). • Examples of collective joy evident throughout history: religious rituals, carnivals, festivals, concerts, nightclubs, raves, and sporting events (Ehrenreich, 2007) • Neville & Reicher (2008): Participants pleased to experience close proximity in crowds when social identity is salient. • Lack of quantitative evidence

4. Personal space approach to crowding • Personal space: • “…an area with invisible boundaries surrounding a person’s body into which intruders may not come.” (Sommer, 1969, p. 26) • Intrusions into a person’s accepted area of ‘personal space’ can influence whether they have a negative experience of crowding (e.g. Evans & Wener, 2007) • How big is a personal space zone? • Some variables which can influence personal space: • Culture (Hall, 1966). • Location (Cochran, Hale, & Hissam, 1984). • Gender role (Uzzell & Horne, 2006). • These variables simply provide a list, rather than a theory of variability in personal space. Intra-individual variation is left largely unexplained.

5. Crowding on the underground V

6. SCT approach to personal space/crowding • - Whether a personal or social identity is salient in a particular context will determine whether relationships with others are perceived to be interpersonal, intra-group, or inter-group. • - When interacting with in-group member/s, they will be perceived as an extension of the self. When interactions are inter-group, others will be distinct from the self. • - Therefore, less personal space should be required when contexts are intra-group, rather than inter-group. Close proximity should be experienced more positively in intra-group contexts.

7. Minimal group identity • Participants told past researchers identified two distinct cognitive categories – dot ‘over-estimators’ and dot ‘under-estimators’. • Told that we were interested in the communication styles of category members when interacting with members of same or different category. • Participants asked to estimate the number of dots in a series of patterns – then randomly assigned to over/under estimator condition.

8. Study 1 • Hypotheses: • Significantly less personal space required when an anticipated interaction is intra-group, rather than inter-group. • No difference between ‘under-estimators’’ and ‘over-estimators’’ personal space. • Participants: Female undergraduate students from the University of Sussex (n = 80) invited to participate in a ‘communication study’.

9. Study 1 – procedure (a) • Participants arrived at lab and were informed that they would be having a discussion with another participant. Told ‘other’ had already started the experiment in one of two cubicles. • Participants asked to sit in second cubicle and briefed about ‘cognitive categories’. • Having completed computer-based estimation tasks, participants informed ‘other’ participant had gone to look for her lost phone but would hopefully return shortly. • Participants assigned to category (half ‘over-estimators’, half ‘under-estimators’). • Participants informed of ‘other’s’ group membership.

10. Study 1 – procedure (b) • Experimenter led participant through to ‘discussion’ room. • Informed participant that ‘other’ participant had set herself up before rushing off to find her phone • Participant asked to go into ‘discussion’ room, take a chair, and set herself up however she felt most comfortable. • ‘Other’ participant’s chair was set up in room with a jacket, bag and bottle of water. • Experimenter left lab, waited outside for several minutes, then re-entered to reveal true nature of the study and to measure the distance between the chairs.

11. Study 1 Results • Intra-group participants sought significantly less personal space than inter-group participants (F (1, 76) = 7.06, p = .010). • - There was not a significant effect of the participants’ identification as a dot ‘over’ or ‘under-estimator’ on their personal space (F(1, 72) = 0.29, p = NS).

12. Study 2 Investigating the experientialdimension of ‘personal space’. Proximity and group context were used as independent variables. Hypothesis: Participants interacting with an ingroup confederate will have a more positive experience than those interacting with an outgroup confederate, especially when interaction distance is ‘close’. Participants: Female sixth-form students (n = 60)

13. Study 2 – procedure (a) • Participants given cover story about dot ‘over-estimators’ and ‘under-estimators’. • Told that they will be taking part in an interview-style role-play so that their interaction style can be observed. • Interview is actually with a confederate. • Participants assigned to category and told of confederate’s category membership.

14. Study 2 – procedure (b) • Participant asked to take a seat in ‘interview’ room, in which the confederate was already seated. • Participant’s chair was either ‘close’ to (34 inches), or ‘far away’ from (54 inches) confederate’s chair. • Participant always assigned to role of ‘interviewee’. • Following interview, participant (and confederate) completed questionnaire, which included ‘experience’ items.

15. Study 2 Results • - Significant main effect of distance on ‘experience’ (F (1, 56) = 14.05, p < .001) • Significant main effect of categorization on ‘experience’ (F (1, 56) = 10.76, p = .002) • - IMPORTANT: Mean ‘experience’ score for the the inter-group ‘near’ condition was not above the mid-point of the scale. It was for all three of the other conditions (to a significant degree).

16. Conclusion • Findings from two studies support a self-categorization approach to personal space. • - Behavioural and experiential dimensions of personal space dependant on perceived group membership of self and other. • These findings offer quantitative support to the qualitative evidence provided in the previous presentation (Neville & Reicher, 2008) • For the first time, we have a possible unifying theory for personal space, and hence for crowding behaviour/experience variability.

17. References Calhoun, J. B. (1962). Population density and social pathology. Scientific American, 206, 139-148. Calhoun, J. B. (1976). The role of space in animal sociology. In: H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (eds.), Environmental psychology. People and their physical settings, pp. 181-189. USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Cochran, C. D., Hale, W. D., & Hissam, C. P. (1984). Personal space requirements in indoor versus outdoor locations. The Journal of Psychology, 117, 121-123. Ehrenreich, B. (2007). Dancing in the Streets. A History of Collective Joy. London: Granta Books. Evans, G. W., & Wener, W. E. (2007). Crowding and personal space invasion on the train: Please don’t make me sit in the middle. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 90-94. Griffith, W., & Veitch, R. (1971). Hot and crowded: Influences of population density and temperature on interpersonal affective behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 92-98. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday. Lawrence, J. E. S. (1974). Science and sentiment: Overview of research on crowding and human behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 712-720. Leyhausen, P. (1965). The sane community – A density problem? Discovery, 26, 27-33. Neville, F., & Reicher, S. (2008). Positive collective experience: An exploratory study of antecedents and consequences. Paper presented to the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology. Opatija, Croatia. Paulus, P., Cox, V., McCain, G., & Chandler, J. (1975). Some effects of crowding in a prison environment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 86-91. Paulus, P. B., McCain, G., & Cox, V. C. (1978). Death rates, psychiatric commitments, blood pressure, and perceived crowding as a function of institutional crowding. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 107-116. Proshansky, H. M., Ittleson, W. H., & Rivlin, L. G. (1976). Freedom of choice and behavior in a physical setting. In H. M. Proshansky et al. (Eds.), Environmental psychology: People and their physical settings. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall. Uzzell, D., & Horne, N. (2006). The influence of biological sex, sexuality and gender role on interpersonal distance. British Journal of Social psychology, 45, 579-597. Worchel, S., & Teddlie, L. (1976). The experience of crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 30-40.