The invisible 3dimensional zone

Literature review from
Intercultural Study of Personal Space: A case study. 2006.
Catherine MJ. Beaulieu. Canada: University of Montreal.

and
Modeling the spatial behavior of virtual agents in groups for non-verbal communication in virtual worlds. 2007-2011. Hamid Laga et al. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute of Technology

“Intercultural differences in personal space have become an increasingly crucial element of social interaction. As a results of the globalization of markets and increased international cooperation, a better understanding of the impact of personal space could lead to improved and more respectful international agreements.” (Catherine,2006)

“This invisible three-dimensional zone that we call personal space can be envisioned as a bubble around a person. Difficult to measure, the invisible zone exists around a person, is fluctuating, and is a part of a communication style. Most of the time, a person becomes aware of his or her personal space by the feeling of irritation or malaise when another person invades the space.” (Catherine,2006)

Structure of the space around a person; this space is divided into regions. people tend to protect each area depending on their relationship with other people.
According to the Personal Space theory, the space around a person is divided into four areas: intimate, personal, social and public spaces shown as above. Including the face orientation as a factor, personal space is twice wider in the fonrt area than the back. (image and infor; Hamid, 2007-2011)

“As Evans and Howard (1973) suggested, ‘personal space is a mediating, cognitive construct, which allows the human organism to operate at acceptable stress levels…’ On the other hand, in the growth process, all humans beings are shaped by the environment and learn spatial cues that tell them how to behave and regulate interpersonal interactions. Thus,personal space is acquired and varies according to culture.” (Catherine,2006)

“The personal space between people depends on the amount of space available in the room (Freedman 1975) and is determined by age group, gender, affiliation, role, activity, setting, social class, region, and culture. The distance between two persons also varies from interpersonal emotion response reflecting on their relationship.” (Catherine, 2006)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s