Effect of Room Size on Critical Interpersonal Distance

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

Following the lines of Little (1965), who investigated the effect of various simulated and/or imagined spaces on critical interpersonal distance, the present study determined the distance at which Ss would move away from an approaching experimenter in a large, a small, a long, and a wide space. The dimensions of the spaces were, respectively, 12 ft. x 29 ft., 4 ft. x 6 ft., and 7.5 ft. x 65 ft. In the latter space they were tested at both the wide and the narrow wall. Ss were 13 male and 24 female student volunteers from introductory psychology. Each S was tested in each space, with order counterbalanced. S stood about 3 ft. from one wall, but was told he could move around a little in order to appreciate the room's spatial qualities. E (P. W. S.) asked S questions about the space, including feelings of crowding. E, while moving about and writing, at one point approached S and estimated to the nearest .5 ft. the distance between E's foot nearest S and S's first foot that moved away.' After being tested in each space S filled out the California F scale, the dogmatism scale, and the Rotter I-E scale. The distances ranged from less than 0.5 ft. to 3.0 ft. The greatest mean distances were in the large (1.2 ft.) and the long (1.3 ft.) spaces, followed by the small (1.0 ft.) and the wide (0.5 ft.) spaces (F = 7.37, df = 3/108, p < .01). However, of the three per:onalicy scales employed, only one, dogmatism, was significantly correlated with distance (r = .39, p < .01), even when interaction vectors were generated by taking the two- and three-way products of the personality scores and generating prediction equations in a stepwise fashion (Draper & Smith, 1966). Except for dogmatism, the largest F for increase in R' was less than 1.0. Thus, at most only about 16% of the variance in distance is associated with the personality measures employed, and, cons~dering the small N, even this value must be considered as tentative. The small space yielded 18 reports of crowding, with 3, 6, and 9 reports from the large, long, and wide rooms. This finding, considered with the fact that both the largest and the smallest distances were found in the same room, suggests that neither area nor perceived crowding per se determines the distance, but the extent of a single dimension of the space. The shortest distance was obtained with the longest (65 ft.) dimension to S's side. This finding tends to confirm Little (1965), who found the shortest distance in a simulated open space. The small but significant relationship between distance and dogmatism suggests that further research along these lines would be in order.