Personal space in nursery school children was examined by two methods. In one, unobtrusive observations of actual interpersonal distance choices in four different social situations were made. In the other, the same children chose interpersonal distances in four similar social situations represented symbolically by drawings. The results demonstrate that 4-year-old children already show regular variations in personal space based on acquaintance (Acquain- tances closer than Strangers), sex (Boys greater than Girls), and social context (Informal greater than Formal). Three interactions are also significant. Projective and naturalistic observation measurement methods produced similar results, contrary to the conclusions of recent reviews. Conceptually, however, there may be two types of personal space, analogous to Murray's distinction between alpha and beta press. The oft-studied phenomenon of interpersonal distance or personal space developed from observations b y naturalists o f regular inter-individual spacing in bird and animal species (e.g. Hediger, 1950). The possible application of the concept to humans was suggested by Hall (1959) and at about the same time empirical work began (e.g. Sommer, 1959). Reflecting its origins, personal space is usually measured as a chosen interpersonal distance. This paper bears on two implications of this: measurement by direct observation vs. measurement by' 'projective" methods, and some of the factors which influence the choice of interpersonal distance - sex, degree of acquaintance, and formality of the social context. Particularly since Guardo's (1969) work, questions have naturally arisen about the developmental aspects of personal space. Adults possess a richer articulation of interpersonal distancing, but several studies (e.g. Bass & Weinstein, 1971) have shown that soon after children enter school they make reliable distinctions in interpersonal distance based on sex, acquain- tance, and context. Distancing in children is related to age (Meisels & Guardo, 1969; Tennis & & Dabbs, 1975), race (Koslin, Koslin, Pargament, & Bird, 1971) and apparently even somatotype of the other child (Lerner, Karabenick, & Meisels, 1975). All these studies used simulation measures of personal space. Few studies of pre-school children have been undertaken, although Moreno (1953) claimed that space is used to represent social relations by
[1]
H. Hediger,et al.
Wild animals in captivity
,
1950
.
[2]
R. Sommer.
Studies in Personal space
,
1959
.
[3]
Jacob Lomranz,et al.
Children's Personal Space as a Function of Age and Sex.
,
1975
.
[4]
R. Castell.
Effect of familiar and unfamiliar environments on proximity behavior of young children
,
1970
.
[5]
J. M. Blaut.
Environmental Mapping in Young Children
,
1970
.
[6]
E. Hall.
The Silent Language
,
1959
.
[7]
Early development of interpersonal distance in children.
,
1971
.
[8]
Richard F. Haase,et al.
A Methodological Note on the Study of Personal Space.
,
1973
.
[9]
M. Meisels,et al.
DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONAL SPACE SCHEMATA
,
1969
.
[10]
L. Hayduk,et al.
Personal Space: An Evaluative and Orienting Overview.
,
1978
.
[11]
S. Karabenick,et al.
Effects of Age and Sex on the Development of Personal Space Schemata towards Body Build
,
1975
.
[12]
J. D. M. join.
Sex, Setting and Personal Space: First Grade Through College
,
1975
.
[13]
C. Guardo.
Personal space in children.
,
1969,
Child development.
[14]
A Field Study of Interpersonal Distance in Early Childhood
,
1978
.