I A NATURALISTIC STUDY IN PROXEMICS: SEATING ARRANGEMENT AND ITS EFFECT ON INTERACTION, PERFORMANCE, AND BEHAVIOR Gary N. Rubin A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 1972 ii ABSTRACT The purpose of the present study was to determine if various seating arrangements would have an effect on the performance, attitudes, and behavior of 84 sixth grade students. The study was conducted in a naturalistic setting. The 84 subjects comprised four groups ranging in I.Q. from 56-134 of a local Ohio school. Ehch week for a period of six weeks the teacher rearranged the class­ room setting. Students were assigned their seats by process of random­ ization. At the beginning of each week and at the end of each week students completed semantic differential scales to determine their attitudes toward their seating position, the person they were sitting next to, the teacher's seating position, their feelings about school, and degree of class participation and verbal interaction. At the beginning and end of each week the teacher also completed semantic differential scales evaluating students on their class participation, written work, verbal interaction, discipline, and number of complaints regarding a subject's seating position. Mean scores were determined for each of the eleven variables in each of the four groups in the various arrangements. They were examined for their relative magnitude and for trends. Canonical correlation was employed to examine the relationship of one set of variables to a second set. In the present instance, scores obtained from the teacher for each proxemic arrangement (Set One) were examined for their rela­ tionship to the scores obtained from each subject (Set Two). The results indicated that seating arrangement effected the per­ formance, attitudes, and behavior of subjects. The canonical correlation associated particular variables with specific arrangements. It was also found that I.Q. scores did correlate with particular arrangements. In conclusion the investigator stressed that the results of this study did not suggest causation. Instead the findings were to be interp­ reted as indications. Replication of the study was suggested. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT Special acknowledgment is due to the author’s advisor, Dr. Fhymond Tucker, for his encouragement and guidance during the writing of this dissertation and also to the author’s wife, Nancy, without whose assistance and understanding this dissertation would not be possible. iv TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. INTRODUCTION....................................... 1 Theoretical Grounds The Dimensions of Proxemics . ........... ............... 2 A Review of the Literature .•••••• ........... 15 Objectives .••••»..•••••••••■... 19 Exploratory Question 1 ....... ......... ... 20 Exploratory Question 2 21 Exploratory Question 3 ............... 21 Exploratory Question 4 ............... 22 Exploratory Question 5 ......... 22 Exploratory Question 6 ............... 23 Exploratory Question 7 23 Exploratory Question 8 ............... 23 Justification for the Present Study 24 II. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . .................... 26 Method • • • • ............... ••••••••••• 35 Setting ............................... 35 Subjects 35 Procedure • •••••••••••••• ........ 36 Dependent Variables • ••••••••••■••• 38 Analysis of Data Procedures......................... 41 III. RESULTS ..... ...................................... 44 Interpretation of Thble 1.45 V CHAPTER Rage Set One: Teacher 45 Set Two: Students............................ 48 Interpretation of Ihble 2 . .................... 49 Interpretation of Table 3.... ........ ...... 51 Set One: Teacher.............. 51 Set Two: Students ............ .............. 54 Interpretation of Table 4. ........ ...... 56 Interpretation of Ihble 5***»»*»*»***»*» 58 Interpretation of Ihble 6 ......... ........ 58 Set One: Teacher ...••••••........ .. 58 Set Two: Students 63 Interpretation of Thble 7 • ............. .. 65 Interpretation of Table 8.......... 65 Interpretation of Table 69 Set One: Teacher ••.••••••••••••. 69 Set Two: Students ..•••••.......... 73 Interpretation of Ihble 10 76 Interpretation of Table 11 ■•••••...••... 79 Interpretation of Thble 12 ..»«.•••• ......... 79 Set One: Teacher ••••••••.••••.•• 79 Set Two: Students .............................. 84 Interpretation of Ihble 13 .......................... .. 86 Interpretation of Table 14 89 Interpretation of Ihble 15 ••••.......... 91 Set One: Teacher 91 vi CHAPTER fege Set Two: Students ................... 95 Interpretation of Tàble 16 ................. 97 Interpretation of ï&ble 17 .......... ........ .. 97 Interpretation of Thble 18........ .. ........................101 Set One : Teacher ................... 101 Set Two: Students..................... ............ .. 105 Interpretation of liable 19 ........ ......... .. 107 Interpretation of liable 20 ................. 109 IV. DISCUSSION................................................. Ill Pretest Prior to the Six-Week Investigation ........ Ill Group Concept Arrangement .................................. 113 Circle Arrangement .......... 115 Teacher Among Students Arrangement • . ........ ...... 117 Horseshoe Arrangement ............. ........ 119 Random Arrangement .. ............. ............ 121 Traditional Arrangement ........ ........... .... 123 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................... 132 Pretest Prior to the Six Arrangements ........... 132 First Arrangement: Group Concept ...... ............. 133 Second Arrangement: Circle ..... ........ ...... 133 Third Arrangement: Teacher Among Students . ............. 134 Fourth Arrangement: Horseshoe ..... ....... ..... 134 Fifth Arrangement: Random........................... .. 135 vii CHAPTER Page Sixth Arrangement: Traditional • •*■>>..••• 135 Sources of Error • •»•••••••••••...« 136 Ideas for Further Research . •........ • • 137 Conclusions 138 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................... 140 APPENDIX.......................................................... 144 viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Mean Scores For Arrangement (Traditional) Prior Six Week Investigation, Pretest • 46 2. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement (Traditional) Prior to Six Week Investigation, Pretest with 1 Significant Root ...... 50 3. Mean Scores for Arrangement #1 (Group Concept) Pre and Posttests .... ........ ........... 52 4. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #1 (Group Concept) Pretest with 0 Significant Roots ... 57 5. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #1 (Group Concept) Posttest with 1 Significant Root ... 59 6. Mean Scores for Arrangement #2 (Circle) Pre and Posttests •••••••..... .......... ...... 60 7. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #2 (Circle) Pretest with 1 Significant Root ....... 66 8. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #2 (circle) Posttest with 2 Significant Roots ...... 67 9. Mean Scores for Arrangement #3 (Teacher Among Students) Pre and Posttests ........ ............... 79 10. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #3 (Teacher Among Students) Pretest with 2 Significant Roots, 77 11. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #3 (Teacher Among Students) Posttest with 1 Significant Root . ........... ................................... 70 12. Mean Scores for Arrangement #4 (Horseshoe) Pre and Posttests ....... ........ ............ 81 13. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #4 (Horseshoe) Pretest with 2 Significant Roots ..... 87 14. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #4 (Horseshoe) Posttest with 1 Significant Root ..... 90 TABLE Page 15. Mean Scores for Arrangement #5 (Random) Pre and Posttests . ........... ............................... 92 16. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #5 (Random) Pretest with 1 Significant Root ............... 98 17. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #5 (ftetndom) Posttest with 2 Significant Roots........ .. 99 18. Mean Scores for Arrangement #6 (Traditional) Pre and Posttests ......................... 102 19. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #6 (Traditional) Pretest with 1 Significant Root ..... 108 20. Canonical Correlation Factor Structure for Arrangement #6 (Traditional) Posttest with 1 Significant Root ..... 110 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is this author’s contention that when one thinks of the term ’’communication" the first notion that comes to mind, is the process of verbal interaction that exists between two people in various situa­ tions. Communication failure is often attributed to improper use of language symbols, whereas successful communication is explained as the proper use of words or the verbal understanding that is shared by individuals. Thus communication success or failure is often explained simplistically. Often the process of communication is analyzed only with reference to verbal responses. Certainly verbal communication plays a central role in communication theory and for years communicologists have focused their attention primarily on this aspect of communication. In recent years, however, social scientists from many disciplines have concerned themselves with other features of communication. Research in nonverbal communication has focused upon eye-contact, body movement, posture, and the ways in which these three variables Interrelate. Another area which has carved