Spatial behaviourA B C D E F G H IJKL M N O P R S T U VXYZWfriends; everyday encounters usually take place
within the personal zone; in a more formal
context, such as that of a workplace meeting,
the social zone is more likely to apply, whilst the
public zone operates in very formal situations
and refers to the distance kept between the
key fi gures and members of an audience or the
public. Hall noted that the usual distances kept
by middle-class European Americans in each
zone were: intimate, 6–18 inches; personal, 18
inches to 4 feet; social, 4–12 feet; and public,
over 12 -25 feet.
Desmond Morris in People Watching (Vintage,
2002) argues that for Western Europeans,
from the outstretched arm to the fi ngertips is a
comfortable distance for an everyday conversa-
tion, whereas for those from Eastern Europe
the distance is from the outstretched arm to the
wrist. For people from the Mediterranean area it
is the stretch from the upper arm to the elbow.
Stella Ting-Toomey in Communicating Across
Cultures (Guildford Press, 1999) also comments
that in several cultures – Latin American, Carib-
bean and Arab cultures, for example – people
sit or stand closer to one another in everyday
conversations than would be the norm among
Western Europeans. In culturally diverse societ-
ies, however, it could be expected that a range
of practice would be found depending on the
cultural heritage of the communicators. Such
cultural diff erences have the potential to be a
source of noise in everyday encounters.
Th e term personal space is often used to
denote the space within which an individual feels
easy and which, if encroached upon, causes anxi-
ety, tension or resistance. Personal space is fl uid
and mobile, a kind of bubble around the indi-
vidual. Stanford M. Lyman and Marvin B. Scott
in ‘Territoriality: a neglected social dimension’ in
Social Problems 15 (1967) refer to personal space
as ‘the most private and inviolate of territories
belonging to an individual’. When our personal
space is violated we respond, argues Morris
(2002), with a reduction in our social signals: we
may, for example, avoid eye contact, and reduce
the number of body movements and facial
expressions. Th ere are, however, cultural diff er-
ences in the way in which individuals respond
to such incursions. According to William B.
Gudykunst and Stella Ting-Toomey in Culture
and Interpersonal Communication (Sage, 1988),
people from individualistic cultures tend to
deal with encroachments in an assertive, if not
aggressive, manner, whereas people from collec-
tivistic cultures tend to adopt a more passive,
withdrawn manner.sources. It is also a matter of journalistic prin-
ciple that in some cases the source of informa-
tion, especially if it is of a particularly sensitive,
or sensational, nature, is kept secret; that the
provider of information is assured of anonymity
(see deep throat).
Where the information provided by source
is perceived to impugn those in authority, by
suggesting corruption or other wrong-doing,
reporters may be charged with criminal off ences
if they refuse to divulge their sources. If they
give in to pressure, retreat from the guarantee of
confi dentiality, it is unlikely that they will ever be
trusted with sensitive information again; on the
other hand, they may end up in jail, as happened
to New York Times journalist Judith Miller in
2005 after she refused to reveal the source of an
enquiry into the leaking of the name of a CIA
undercover agent.
Th e mass media are often criticized for over-
reliance on offi cial sources, or failing to question
information which has been supplied to them
by those in authority. Equally they are seen to
pay selective attention to sources, valuing some,
ignoring others. At worst, they serve the interests
of the powerful by transmitting propaganda as
if it were news. See news values.
Source domination See primary, secondary
definers.
Spatial behaviour Michael Argyle in Bodily
Communication (Methuen, 1988) notes that
‘proximity, orientation and territorial behav-
iour’ are the main aspects of spatial behaviour.
proxemics is the study of the distance people
keep between themselves and others within
an encounter. Th is distance can depend upon
a number of factors, such as the nature of
relationships, culture and the social context.
It seems that individuals generally sit or stand
closer to those whom they like and those whom
they perceive as being similar. However this
norm can be deliberately disregarded in order
to intimidate or dominate others by standing
too close to them. In certain circumstances, in
crowds for example, individuals seem able to
tolerate much closer proximity to others than is
usually preferred.
There appear to be definite norms that
mark the appropriate distance people observe
between each other in communicative encoun-
ters, although these norms vary from one
culture to another. According to Edward Hall
in The Hidden Dimension (Doubleday, 1966),
these distances relate to four main zones. Th e
intimate zone is for those with whom we have
the closest relationships, typically family and