Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1969, Vol. 11, No. 2, 93-97

PERSONAL SPACE AND SELF-PROTECTION 1

MICHAEL A. DOSEY 2 AND MURRAY MEISELS
Eastern Michigan

University

Personal space is theorized to act in part as a buffer zone which serves as

protection against perceived threats to one's emotional well-being. It is
predicted that greater spatial distances will be used under stress conditions,
by .highly anxious people, and by people who perceive their body-image
boundaries as weak or unstructured. Such personality variables were assessed
by the Rorschach. Personal space was measured by having subjects approach
each other, take a seat close or far from the experimenter, and trace one
silhouette in relation to another. The stress condition involved having the
subjects' physical attractiveness called into question. Results were: a lack of
consistency between the three experimental measures of personal space; a
highly significant stress effect; and a lack of relationship between personal
space and the personality variables.

originating predominantly from environmental or intrapsychic sources, is seen to

call forth measures for self-protection. Personal space may be conceived in the sense
of a body-buffer zone (Horowitz, Duff, &
Stratton, 1964) that can be used for such
protective purposes. This applies to threats
to one's self-esteem as well as to the threat
of bodily harm. Thus, environmental or internal threats to self-esteem should produce
greater spatial distances. Leipold (1963) and
Little (1966) have reported some tendency
for spatial distances to increase under conditions of stress in the sense of reproof by
others. The present research envoked stress
as a threat to the self-concept and body image through use of peer ratings of social
competence and sexual attractiveness. Leipold's study also found a tendency for males,
but not females, who scored high on the
Taylor Manifest Anxiety scale to maintain
greater distance. In the present study Elizur's
(1949) scale of anxiety for the Rorschach
was related to personal space. Finally, Horowitz (1966) and Fisher and Cleveland (19S8)
have presented conceptual formulations which
suggest that the Rorschach variable of bodyimage boundary may be related to personal
space. A person with a weak body-image
boundary is held to "create exterior conditions which will artificially provide a substitute boundary [Fisher & Cleveland, 1958, p.
355]." Such a perception of one's body
boundary as lacking definite structure and
substance (the low barrier score) or as weak

Recently there has been increasing recognition of the significance of physical space in
social interaction. In addition to territoriality,
which connotes fixed geographic location, a
concept of the significance of distances between individuals has evolved. The concept
of "personal space" has arisen to refer to
the space immediately surrounding an individual which he feels to be personal, to belong to himself. Depending on various factors, people attempt to maintain certain
distances between themselves and others. Research studies recently reviewed by Sommer
(1967) have demonstrated the relevance of
such variables as culture, ecological setting,
the interpersonal relationship, feeling states,
and personality.
The present study attempts to extend the
research on two of the determinants of personal space: the psychological environment
(feeling state) and subjects' personality characteristics. The perception of threatening
elements in interpersonal situations, whether
1
This study is based on a thesis submitted by the
senior author to Eastern Michigan University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master
of Arts degree. Further detailed information is
available in the thesis. Thanks are expressed to
Francis M. Canter and Carol J. Guarclo for comments on a previous draft of the manuscript and
to Stephen K. Bedwell, Mary L. Smith, Janice V.
Martin, Cynthia E. LaPrad, and Ralph Kirk for
assistance during data collection and analysis.
2
Now at York University. Requests for reprints
should be sent to Michael A. Dosey, Department of
Psychology, York University, Toronto 12, Canada.

93

MICHAEL A. DOSEY AND MURRAY MEISELS

94

and permeable (the high penetration score)

should result in greater use of personal space.
From the conceptualization of personal
space as a means of protection against external threat it was predicted that more personal space would be used under conditions
of stress than nonstress. The notion that personality weaknesses may be supplemented by
spatial usage led to the predictions that
people high in anxiety or penetration or low
in barrier would use more personal space.
A further purpose of the present study was
to compare various methods that have been
employed to study personal space. The use
of spatial distance was observed in the placement of miniature silhouette figures (as
Little, 1965); in sitting near or far from the
experimenter (as Sommer, 1959; Leipold,
1963); and in the distance maintained when
approaching another person (as Horowitz et
al., 1964). In addition, two exploratory questionnaires were used. The individual consistency over the three experimental techniques
and two questionnaires provided an indication of the degree to which the indexes represented a unitary phenomenon.
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were introductory psychology students at
Eastern Michigan University who participated in
the study as part of their course requirements. They
were tested in groups of five or six subjects. Each
group was scheduled to have six members, three
men and three women, but occasionally one person
did not come. The final sample consisted of 32
groups totaling 186 subjects, 91 males and 95
females.

Personality Measures
Body-image boundary and anxiety. Both bodyimage boundary measures and anxiety were assessed
by the Rorschach. The Harrower group form of the
Rorschach was used, with the ink blots presented
by means of a slide projector. Following Fisher and
Cleveland (1958), subjects were instructed to make
three responses to Cards I, II, III, and VIII, and
two responses to the others. They were given l j
minutes to make two responses and 2 minutes for
three associations. Following the free association
period subjects marked off location and wrote additional percept-related thoughts. The scoring for the
barrier and penetration measures followed Fisher
and Cleveland (1958): scoring for anxiety followed
Elizur (1949). Agreements between two raters (the

authors) across 20 protocols were acceptable, with

correlations of .81. .89, and .84 for barrier, penetration, and anxiety, respectively,

Personal Space Measures

Approach. The first and most direct experimental
measure of the use of personal space was a modification of the technique used by Horowitz et al.
(1964). Each person in the group approached, one
at a time, the other members of the group. The
setting was a 12 X 12-foot room which had a oneway mirror on one wall. The two or three males
stood, evenly spaced, against one wall and the two
or three females stood against the opposite wall,
the one-way mirror being perpendicular to both.
After the rationales were presented to the stress and
nonstress groups (see subsequent explanation), the
instructions to all subjects were: "Walk slowly
towards the other person; when you reach him or
her, stop, and wait until I tell you to return (3
seconds) ; then return to your position." The subjects first walked to a mark 4 feet directly in front
of the object-person and thus made each approach
"head on." On the wall over the head of each person was a number from 1 to 6. In random order,
constant for all groups, the experimenter called out
the 30 approacher-approachee combinations (20
with 5 person groups). On the floor were painted
lines 1 inch apart. One or two experimental assistants observed through the one-way mirror from
the adjacent room and counted the lines (inches)
between the approaching and approached persons
during the 3-second pause. (The room was explained
to be an optical effects room used by perception
psychologists, and only one person in the sample
gave any overt indication of suspecting the purpose
of the lines.) Scoring the approach measure consisted of obtaining mean scores, in inches, of (a)
approaches to members of the same sex and (6) approaches to members of the opposite sex.
Silhouette. The second experimental situation employed a silhouette task in which each subject was
instructed to trace a figure representing himself in
relation to a printed silhouette of the opposite sex.
The distance of the traced silhouette from the
printed silhouette, in centimeters, constituted the
spatial measure. This method was adapted from that
used by Little (1965) and Guardo (1966).
Seating. The third experimental measure was similar to the method employed by Sommer (1959) and
Leipold (1963). The experimenter was seated at a
4 X 21-foot rectangular table when the subject
walked into the same 12 X 12-foot room. The table
was situated in the middle of the room with the
experimenter away from, but facing, the door. Two
other chairs at the table were an approximately
equal distance from the door. One chair was across
a corner from the experimenter, the other across
the length of the table. As the subject entered the
room the experimenter stood and invited him to be
seated. Taking the across-the-corner (near) versus
the opposite (far) chair was taken as the measure
of spatial distance.

PERSONAL SPACE AND SELF-PROTECTION

Questionnaires. The Life Situations questionnaire
consisted of a number of multiple-choice questions
pertaining to the use of space in the classroom, living quarters, recreational activities, and automobile
driving. The Body Contact questionnaire, based on
that of Jourard (1966), asked subjects to indicate
the extent of "touching" and "being touched by"
others since the age of 12. It was considered that
greater body contact should correlate with closer
spatial distances.

Procedure
Two adjacent rooms were used for the experiment. The written sections were all done in Room
A, and the sections involving spatial movement were
conducted in Room B. First, the groups were given
the Rorschach and the Life Situations questionnaire.
Next, the groups moved to Room B, where the approach situation was carried out. Subjects then returned to Room A for the silhouette task and the
Body Contact questionnaire. They were instructed
that as they finished these questionnaires they were
to bring them, one person at a time, into Room B.
While subjects were completing the tasks the table
and chairs for the seating situation were set up in
Room B. Upon entering and being seated, subjects
filled out a form on the experiment, were then given
brief feedback (the stress-group subjects' attractiveness ratings [see subsequent explanation] were
falsified in the positive direction), sworn to secrecy,
and excused.
Instructions for the Rorschach were the same for
all groups, and differential stress and nonstress instructions did not start until subjects entered Room
B for the approach situation. Thereafter, in the
stress groups an effort was made to arouse anxiety
associated with social competence and sexual attractiveness, while in the nonstress groups the rationales
were neutral and geared to keep anxiety minimal.
Stress. In the approach situation stress subjects
were told:
This part of the experiment is concerned with the
impression you make on others when you first
meet them. A primary aspect of the impression
you make is, of course, your physical or sexual
attractiveness, in other words, your sex appeal.
As you may know, studies have shown that
sexually attractive people are usually more successful in their lives than less attractive people;
on the average, they make friends easier, lead
more interesting social lives, and are happier and
more emotionally stable than less attractive
people. Now we are going to see if this is true of
each of you. Each of you is going to walk over
to every other person. As you do, that person
will be judging yon on your physical attractiveness or sex appeal. You will also be judged on the
impression you make, that is, whether the other
person desires to go out with you (in the case of
the opposite sex) or to be your friend (in the case
of the same sex). The judgments will subsequently
be compared to each other indicating how you
rate when compared with your peers.

95

The previous statement was read by the experimenter in a serious manner with the italicized
words emphasized. The subjects were given small
cards on which they rated each other for "sex appeal" and "like as friends or date" on a scale ranging from I to 7. For every dyad, the object-person
rated the subject just after the approach was made.
On the silhouette task subjects were instructed
to imagine a school-building setting with the printed
silhouette representing "a classmate whom you
would like to date but who has not given any previous indication of being interested." The approachavoidance conflict was considered to produce tension.
For the stress groups the rationale for the "private
conference" (seating situation) at the end of the
experiment was: "When you come in I will tell you
how well you did before, that is, what your sex
appeal rating was and the impression you made on
the others."
Nonstress. In this condition the purpose of the
events was made to seem as innocuous and nonthreatening as possible. In the approach situation
subjects were told:
Now I would like your help in studying what is
called the orienting reflex. Each of you will be
approached by every other person. This is merely
to get some idea of certain automatic reflex reactions. These reactions are natural and present in
everyone. So relax; there is no need to be nervous.
We'll go through this as quickly as possible.
The experimenter read this statement in a relaxed
manner with a smile. On the silhouette task the
setting was also a school building but the printed
silhouette represented "a classmate with whom you
are discussing an assignment." For nonstress groups
the rationale for a final conference (seating situation)
was "to get an idea of your thoughts about the experiment."

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The degree of individual consistency over
the three experimental measures of personal
space was assessed by intercorrelations,
which were obtained separately for each of
four groups formed b3' males and females
within the stress and nonstress conditions.
The results were: (a) Approach and silhouette: A slight positive relationship was found
between these measures. The Pearson product-moment correlations were generally positive, but were significant only for the femalestress group, (b) Approach and seating:
Another slight positive relationship was observed here. All of the point-biserial correlations were positive, but only 1 of 12 was
significant at the .OS level, (c) Silhouette
and seating: The two measures appeared to
be slightly negatively related. Of the four

96

MICHAEL A. DOSEY AND MURRAY MEISELS

TABLE 1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR FOUR SEX-STRESS GROUPS IN APPROACH
DISTANCE (INCHES) AND SILHOUETTE DISTANCE (CENTIMETERS)
Male- Nonstressb

Male-Stress"

Female-Stress"

Female- Nonstressd

Variable
Approach
Same sex
Opposite sex
Silhouette
=
l> n =
n =
d n =

SD

SD

.U

SD

J/

SD

15.0
14.8
45.4

4.2
4.5
36.2

12.2
12.1
21.7

5.2
4.1
8.8

13.9
16.2

4.4
4.8
48.6

11.3
12.3
21.2

3.4
4.4
8.9

56.3

45.
46.
47.
48.

point-biserial correlations three were in the

direction opposite to consistency, and one of
these was statistically significant, (d) Questionnaires: The two questionnaires failed to
correlate significantly with each other or with
the experimental measures. It was concluded
that there was little consistency in the use
of the three experimental spatial measures
and that the results caution against discussion of personal space without consideration
of the method of assessment.
The prediction that stress would increase
spatial usage was supported for two of the
three experimental situations. For the approach situation, an analysis of variance was
employed with the between variables of stress
versus nonstress and sex of the subject (approaching person) and the within variable
of approach toward members of the same
versus opposite sex (sex-of-object). The
mean scores of the analysis are presented in
TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR STRESS CONDITIONS, SEXOF-SUBJECT, AND SEX-OF-OBJECT ON APPROACH
DISTANCE
Source of variation
Between variables:
Stesss (A)
Sex-of-S (B)
AXB
Error
Within variable:
Sex-of-object (C)
AX C
B X C
A XB X C
Error
* p < .02.
**p < .01.
*** p < .001.

MS

df

1
1
1

78619.05
200.70
617.40
2313.19

176

5461.20
387.45
6332.40
1034.55
815.60

1
1
1
1
176

24.47***

.06
.19

6.69*

.47

7.76**
1.27

Table 1, and the results are presented in

Table 2. The primary finding, consistent with
the prediction, was a highly significant main
effect (F = 24.47, p < .001), and Table 1
indicates that the groups in the stress condition stayed from 2\ to 3f inches further
away than the nonstress groups. There was
also a significant interaction between sex-ofsubject and sex-of-object (F = 7.76, p <
.01). As Table 1 indicates, this was because
females approached closer to the same sex
and stayed farther away from the opposite
sex, while males used virtually the same distances in approaching the same versus opposite sex. The finding in Table 2 that there
was a significant difference in approaching
same versus opposite sex obviously reflects
the discrepancy in the approach of female
subjects. The finding may be readily accounted for by a cultural norm for females
to be reserved when interacting with male
strangers.
The group nature of the approach situation
permitted subjects in a group to witness one
another's performance. This suggests that
modeling or group norms may have been
operative and that there would be differences
among the 16 experimental groups in each
condition. One-way analyses of variance compared group means and yielded significant
differences for both the stress groups (F =
2.09, df = 15/76, p < .05) and nonstress
groups (F = 6.09, df = IS/80, p < .01).
Since a modeling effect would tend to magnify the stress-nonstress difference in individual data, the approach measure was also
analyzed using the group as the unit of sampling. A t test between the group means of

PERSONAL SPACE AND SELF-PROTECTION

the stress and nonstress groups yielded a significant difference in the predicted direction
(t - 3.44, dj - 30, p < .01). In sum, the results using group means support the hypothesis of increased spatial distance under stress,
but caution against use of the approach measure without consideration of modeling effects.
In the silhouette situation chi-square analyses were employed to assess the effects of
the stress condition, The results showed the
stress effect to be highly significant for males
(X 2 = 22.16, df-l, p<,00l) and for females (x2 = 11.43, p < .001). Inspection of
mean scores presented in Table 1 shows that,
consistent with expectation, the distance in
the stress condition was greater than that in
the nonstress by 23.7 centimeters for males
and by 35.1 centimeters for females.
For the seating situation chi-square tests
of stress versus nonstress conditions were not
significant for males (x2 = .04) or females
(x2 = .OS). The results may have stemmed
from the (inadvertent) arousal of stress in
all subjects due to the Body Contact questionnaire, which was presented immediately
prior to the seating situation. Also relevant
is the seating task itself, which, as mentioned,
correlated weakly with the other two experimental measures. A relationship between
stress and seating distance may have been
masked by the dichotomous nature of the
response alternatives or by other covarying
factors, such as the opportunity for eye contact. In this area it might be fruitful to have
subjects place portable chairs in relation to
that of the object person and to develop a
method for systematizing and charting the
resulting arrangements.
The personality variables of anxiety and
body-image boundary were correlated with
the three experimental measures of spatial
distance for each of the four sex-stress
groups. For each personality variable there

97

were 16 correlations with the spatial measures: 8 with approach (4 for same sex approaches, 4 for opposite sex approaches), 4
with silhouette, and 4 with seating. In all
instances statistical significance was determined by two-tailed tests. Only 2 of 48 personality-variable correlations were significant
(one each for the anxiety and barrier scales),
and only 20 of 48 were in the predicted directionresults which are no higher than
chance. The results for the two questionnaires
were similarly at a chance level. The predictions of relationships between personal
space and the personality variables were thus
not supported.
REFERENCES
ELIZUR, A. Content analysis of the Rorschach with
regard to anxiety and hostility. Rorschach Research Exchange and Journal of Protective Techniques, 1949, 13(3), 247-284.
FISHER, S., & CLEVELAND, S. E. Body image and personality. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1958.
GUARDO, C. J. Self-concept and personal space in
children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Denver) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms,
1966. No. 66-11, 774.
HOROWITZ, M. J. Body image. Archives oj General
Psychiatry, 1966, 14, 456-460.
HOROWITZ, M. J., DUFF, D. F., & STRATTON, L. 0.
Body-buffer zone. Archives oj General Psychiatry,
1964, 11, 6S1-656.
JOURARD, S. An exploratory study of body accessibility. British Journal oj Social and Clinical Psychology, 1966, 5, 221-231.
LEIPOLD, W. D. Psychological distance in a dyadic
interview. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1963.
LITTLE, K. B. Personal space. Journal oj Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 237-247.
LITTLE, K. B. Child-parent interaction distances
under praise and reproof. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Denver, 1966.
SOMMER, R. Studies in personal space. Sociometry,
1959, 22, 247-260.
SOMMER, R. Small group ecology. Psychological
Bulletin, 1967, 67, 145-152.
(Received August 23, 1968)