Invisible Walls (1968)

Social interaction within a society is made possible through the expectations its members have about each other. Thus, only a boar gives us a medical report when asked, "How are you?" Much of our shared behavior makes little sense in itself. Today there is no reason why grasping the right hand should indicate greeting and green for go has no intrinsic meaning. However, life in America is made easier because everyone responds the same way to these arbitrary actions. As a child grows up, he learns a series of behavior patterns unique to his culture. These patterns both identify him as a member of this culture and allow him to interact easily with his neighbors. Every successful member of a society is aware of the meaning of a large number of gestures and facial expressions. Many of us could construct a dictionary of non-verbal communication. We are thus able to convey a wide range of attitudes by the way we use our bodies and our features. Just as we express ourselves with our bodies, we also communicate with the space around us. Everyone learns to consider a distinct area surrounding him as his own. This area known as personal space differs from culture to culture. In the United States, we mentally encase ourselves within an invisible wall that we build about 18 in from our bodies. Although few of us are aware of this wall, in most instances, we feel uneasy when it is breached. >> Yeah, you like this very much. Would Would you say that this is as fancy or as nice as uh Topanga Plaza? Well, >> it's a little different at Bang Plaza, but it it's they're both nice places. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I shop them both. >> How about Sentry City? Do you think that's a fancier place than this place is? >> Well, it's a new. >> In the sequence that you are seeing, our actor is violating the personal space of an unsuspecting subject. >> Notice that as the actor continues to breach his invisible wall, the subject becomes more and more uncomfortable. However, rather than make a verbal protest, >> he expresses his displeasure with his body. >> As is usually the case, the subject is not completely aware of the vocabulary he employs. Still, his use of body communication is quite expressive. >> Thank you very much, sir. >> Yeah. >> Our actors randomly stopped unsuspecting people. Then they advanced into their personal space while pretending to conduct a consumer preference survey. We were concerned only with the subject's reaction to the actor's aggression and not with how people react to different types of people or different settings. Our actors therefore adhered to conventional modes of dress and grooming. The camera was hidden and all sequences were shot in similar shopping centers. Everything was planned so that the subjects would react in the most unaffected manner possible to the advances of our actors. It turns out that most people have similar reactions to violations of their personal space. Our subjects reacted with a pattern of body stances and retreats, eye aversions, and limb movements. When initially stopped by the actor, most subjects immediately adopted a stance. Many, like the woman you are watching, stood facing their aoster. As the actor began bearing down on the subjects who faced him, they all averted their eyes, then shifted their weight or began to fidget. They were being forced to choose between retreating or standing firm and the choice made them nervous. Some chose to stand firm but leaned away from their acoster. Others also held firm but positioned their arms in front of them. They touched their faces, crossed their arms, or put their hands on their hips. A few stepped into the one arm thrust out position that you were watching. Their guard now established, most subjects once again looked the actor in the eye. Of course, many subjects did not hold their ground, but chose instead to retreat. Often, as they stepped back from the actor, they tried to recapture his glance. Generally, they tried again to stand firm. On the other hand, those subjects who originally stood firm eventually began to retreat. For example, this woman repeatedly assumed a stance, averted her eyes, stepped back, caught the actor's glance, and then resumed her stance. Thus, each subject who faced the actor displayed some variation of a basic stance, retreat, stance pattern of reaction to violations of their personal space. Some subjects did not initially face the actor. A few of them were never able to set their bodies firmly. They started to retreat even before he began his advance. The other subjects who did not initially meet the actor headon, over half the men and a few women, assumed a stance with one shoulder pointed toward the actor. When he began to violate their personal space, these subjects stood very firm. They rarely used their arms or leaned away from the actor. In fact, they often allowed him to brush right against their sides. However, from the beginning of the interview, they kept their eyes averted and refused to face the actor directly. Eventually, almost everyone who stood with one shoulder toward the actor began to fidget, retreated a little, and then reestablished his stance. Thus, the facing the actor reaction and the shoulder to the actor reaction are most likely two variants of the same pattern. This pattern of body movements enables the subject to escape an unpleasant situation while subtly expressing his displeasure. The girl you are watching can deny being impolite if she is challenged for she has not verbally stated her annoyance. Men and women respond differently to violations of their personal space. Our women's subjects reacted the same way to both the actor and actress. The majority of them faced their acoster, quickly retreated, and then tried to regain eye contact. In responding to the actor, men normally turned one shoulder toward him, and then held their ground. While they were able to stand much firmer than women, they preferred not to look their aoster in the eye, and usually tried to avoid directly facing him. However, when men were accosted by our actress, they reacted nearly the same way that the women did. Companions of the subjects reacted in at least two different ways as their friends were accosted. They either watched with a disinterested air or they showed a fair amount of concern. Sometimes we do not object when our personal space is violated. For example, in the United States, the customs of some amusements, the infirmities of age, or the requirements of some occupations will all cause us to let others breach our invisible walls. People are not born encased in invisible walls. Thus, children in the United States will usually get closer to each other than will typical American adults. They will also touch more people and will permit a greater amount of physical contact than their parents will. In fact, adults respond to this by touching children more than they touch each other. Since children develop by emulating the adults of their culture, it is these adults who often unwittingly teach them their notions about correct personal space. This is why attitudes about personal space differ from culture to culture. Compared to people living in crowded countries, Americans are quite physically aloof. This may mean that as our population continues to increase, our present amount of personal space will become a luxury few of us can afford. Either we must face the prospect of enduring constant trespass of our personal territory or we can learn to enjoy physical closeness. This