An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy.

A theoretical model designed to explain and predict reactive changes in the expression of interpersonal intimacy is presented. The model basically proposes that in an interaction, sufficient changes in one person's intimacy behaviors (e.g., interpersonal distance, eye contact, touch) precipitate arousal change in the other person. Depending upon the type of relationship, the setting, and other factors, this arousal change may be labeled either a positive or negative emotional state. The model predicts that positively labeled states facilitate reciprocal or enhancing reactions to the other person's intimacy changes, while negatively labeled states facilitate compensatory reactions. Applications and limitations of the model are discussed. Research into the role of nonverbal communication in social interaction has increased rapidly over the last several years. Although there is considerable disagreement regarding the use of the label communication to describe these behaviors (see Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Wiener, Devoe, Rubinow, & Geller, 1972), there is little doubt that a wide variety of nonverbal behaviors is important in the interaction process. Argyle and Dean (196S) have suggested that one set of these behaviors, primarily nonverbal and including interpersonal distance, eye contact, leaning, smiling, and intimacy of topic, is critical in indicating interpersonal intimacy. Mehrabian (1969) has discussed many of the same behaviors in a review and has used the label immediacy to refer to a limited number of dimensions including touch, distance, eye contact, body lean, and body orientation. Mehrabian cited considerable evidence indicating that increased immediacy in one or more of these dimensions is related to a more positive attitude toward another. Thus, both Argyle and Dean (1965) and Mehrabian (1969) seem to be describing a common process in postulating a direct relationship between in

[1]  S. Schachter The Psychology Of Affiliation , 1959 .

[2]  S. Schachter The Interaction of Cognitive and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State , 1964 .

[3]  M. Argyle,et al.  EYE-CONTACT, DISTANCE AND AFFILIATION. , 1965, Sociometry.

[4]  G. McBride,et al.  Social proximity effects on galvanic skin responses in adult humans. , 1965, The Journal of psychology.

[5]  Robert Sommer,et al.  Invasions of Personal Space , 1966 .

[6]  O. Watson,et al.  Quantitative Research in Proxemic Behavior1 , 1966 .

[7]  A. Kendon Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[8]  A. Kendon,et al.  The Experimental Analysis of Social Performance1 , 1967 .

[9]  M. Argyle,et al.  The Effects of Visibility on Interaction in a Dyad , 1968 .

[10]  P. Ellsworth,et al.  Effects of eye contact and verbal content on affective response to a dyadic interaction. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  C A Kiesler,et al.  Visual behavior and face-to-face distance during interaction. , 1969, Sociometry.

[12]  J. Bowlby Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect. , 1969, The American journal of orthopsychiatry.

[13]  A. Mehrabian Significance of posture and posiion in the communication of attitude and status relationships. , 1969, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  P. Ekman,et al.  The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding , 1969 .

[15]  R. Kleck Interaction Distance and Non-verbal Agreeing Responses , 1970 .

[16]  M. Cook Experiments on Orientation and Proxemics , 1970 .

[17]  S. Jourard,et al.  Experimenter-subject "distance" and self-disclosure. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  R. Pellegrini,et al.  Interpersonal Spatial Orientation in Dyads. , 1970 .

[19]  B. Champness,et al.  Eye gaze and the GSR , 1971 .

[20]  James M. Dabbs,et al.  Physical closeness and negative feelings , 1971 .

[21]  M. Patterson,et al.  Compensatory Reactions to Spatial Intrusion , 1971 .

[22]  Albert Mehrabian,et al.  Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. , 1971 .

[23]  C. Kleinke,et al.  Affective and emotional responses as a function of other person's gaze and cooperativeness in a two-person game. , 1971, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  John R. Aiello,et al.  Field Study of the Proxemic Behavior of Young School Children in Three Subcultural Groups. , 1971 .

[25]  Albert Mehrabian,et al.  Seating Arrangement and Conversation , 1971 .

[26]  G Breed,et al.  The effect of intimacy: reciprocity or retreat? , 1972, The British journal of social and clinical psychology.

[27]  J. R. Aiello A test of equilibrium theory: Visual interaction in relation to orientation, distance and sex of interactants , 1972 .

[28]  M. Argyle,et al.  Gaze, Mutual Gaze, and Proximity , 1972 .

[29]  A Gale,et al.  Some EEG correlates of face-to-face contact. , 1972, The British journal of social and clinical psychology.

[30]  M. Wiener,et al.  Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication , 1972 .

[31]  M. Patterson Compensation in Nonverbal Immediacy Behaviors: A Review , 1973 .

[32]  M. Patterson Stability of nonverbal immediacy behaviors , 1973 .

[33]  Visual interaction and distance. , 1973, British journal of psychology.

[34]  Irwin Altman,et al.  Reciprocity of Interpersonal Exchange , 1973 .

[35]  J. A. Cheyne,et al.  Affective concomitants of the invasion of shared space: behavioral, physiological, and verbal indicators. , 1974, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  J. Barefoot,et al.  Non-verbal responses and affiliative conflict theory. , 1974, The British journal of social and clinical psychology.

[37]  J. M. Dabbs,et al.  The Effects of Lighting, Distance and Intimacy of Topic on Verbal and Visual Behavior* , 1974 .

[38]  Phoebe C. Ellsworth,et al.  Direct Gaze as a Social Stimulus: The Example of Aggression , 1975 .

[39]  N. Russo Eye contact, interpersonal distance, and the equilibrium theory. , 1975 .

[40]  G. Mandler Mind and Emotion , 1975 .

[41]  Donn Byrne,et al.  Too close for comfort : Sex differences in response to invasions of personal space , 1975 .

[42]  A. J. Chapman,et al.  Eye contact, physical proximity and laughter: A re-examination of the equilibrium model of social intimacy , 1975 .

[43]  R. D. Middlemist,et al.  Personal space invasions in the lavatory: suggestive evidence for arousal. , 1976, Journal of personality and social psychology.