E study of how man unconsciously structures microspace-the distance between

Transcription

1 2uaniaive Research in Proxemic Behavior1 0. MICHAEL WATSON Universiy of Colorado THEODORE D. GRAVES Universiy of Colorado Proxemics is he sudy of how man srucures microspace, how lie relaes physically o oher persons wih wkom he is ineracing, and wha is communicaed by hese physical relaionships. laward Hall, who coined he erm proxemics and dewised a sysem oj noaion for recording proxemic behavior, repors many impressionislic observaions on Arab and American proxemic dijerences. To es hese hypoheses sysemaually, 32 Arab and American college sudens were observed under conrolled condiions and heir pronemic behavior recorded. The Arabs and Americans were found o dijer significanly in proxemic behavior, he Arabs ineracing wih each olher closer and more direcly han Americans, as hypo& esized. DU ARD T. HALL, innovaor of he erm, defines proxemics as he E sudy of how man unconsciously srucures microspace-he disance beween men in he conduc of daily ransacions, he organizaion of space in his houses and buildings, and ulimaely he layou of his owns (1963: 1003). In an aricle published in 1955, Hall illusraed he difficulies ha arise when wo sysems of proxemic behavior clash. He laer presened some of he dynamic aspecs of man s srucuring of space, linking i wih he concep of erriorialiy (1959: ). The paper in which Hall (1963) coined he erm proxemics saed furher heoreical implicaions of he sudy of he srucuring of space and provided a sysem for is noaion. In he works cied above, Hall made he poin ha members of differen culures, when ineracing wih each oher, canno be relied upon o aach he same meaning o he same elemens of proxemic behavior. The examples he mos frequenly referred o were he differences beween Arabs and Americans. In none of hese works, however, did Hall presen or menion empirical daa used in he measuremen of hese differences2 Our objecives in pursuing his problem furher were hreefold: (1) o record empirical daa quanifying Arab and American proxemic behavior; (2) o es pragmaically Hall s sysem for he noaion of proxemic behavior o ry o uncover any weaknesses or ambiguiies inheren in he sysem; and (3) o es he validiy of Hall s impressionisic observaions on Arab and American differences. HYPOTHESES On he basis of Hall s observaions, a hypohesis can be made no only ha Arabs and Americans differ in proxemic behavior, bu abou he direcion of his difference as well. Hall s descripive maerial (1959, 1963) cies many insances of Arab-American differences. The following is a good example (1 963 : 1005) : 971

2 972 A merican A nhropologis [68, 1966 When approached oo closely, Americans removed hemselves o a posiion which urned ou o be ouside he olfacory zone.... Arabs also experienced alienaion raceable o a suspiciously low level of he voice, he direcing of he breah away from he face, and a much reduced visual conac. Americans were no only aware of uncomforable feelings, bu he inensiy and inimacy of he encouner wih Arabs was likely o be anxiey provoking. The Arab look, ouch, voice level, he warm moisure of his breah, he peneraing sare of his eyes, all proved o be disurbing. On he basis of hese observaions we formulaed he following hypoheses: 1. Arabs will exhibi significan differences in proxemic behavior from Americans, wih Arabs being closer and more direc in heir proxemic behavior han Americans. 2. Wihin he group of Arabs, persons from any paricular Arab counry will be more similar o persons from any oher Arab counry in proxemic behavior han o Americans from any paricular region of he Unied Saes, he direcion of his difference being he same as for over-all Arab-American differences. 3. Similarly, Americans from any paricular region of he Unied Saes will be more similar o Americans from any oher region of he Unied Saes in proxemic behavior han o persons from any Arab counry, he direcion of difference again being he same as over-all Arab-American differences. RESEARCH STRATEGY This research was conduced among Araba and American4 male sudens sudying a he Universiy of Colorado. The Arab sudens comprised four groups of four sudens each from Saudi Arabia, he Unied Arab Republic, Iraq, and Kuwai. The American sudens comprised four regional groups: four sudens from New York-New Jersey, four from Colorado, four from California, and four from he Midwes (Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin). This made a oal of 32 persons: 16 Arabs and 16 Americans. A member of each subgroup was enlised and asked o bring hree friends from he same counry or US. region wih him a he scheduled ime. Unforunaely, i was impossible o observe all subgroups a a similar ime during he day, so here was no conrol for his facor; all observaions were, however, made during he dayligh hours. When each group of four sudens arrived, hey were old nohing more han hey were going o be observed. They were hen direced, wo a a ime, o an observaion room (Figure 1) unil observaions had been made on he six possible combinaions of pairs wihin he group. The room was bare excep for a able and wo chairs placed in sandardized posiion in fron of he observaion window. The sudens were old o alk abou anyhing ha came ino heir heads, he Arab sudens being old o speak Arabic. The fac ha all four members of each group were friends minimized he possibiliy of hesiancy in alking o one anoher. They were observed from behind a one-way glass, and lisened o hrough a microphone inconspicuously placed in he ceiling of he observaion room. Each pair was given one or wo minues o warm up, and hen observaions were recorded over a period of five minues, one line of noaion of proxemic behavior per

3 WATSON AND GRAVES] A 11 Analysis of Proxemic Behavior 973 minue. Each group of four sudens herefore had a oal of 30 lines of noaion, and each individual had 15 lines. Afer all individual scores had been recorded, group means were calculaed and various echniques of saisical analysis, o be discussed laer, were applied. The reliabiliy of he scoring was checked by having a second observer record scores for he firs several ineracions, and hen by cross-checking he wo ses of scores. The ses proved o be idenical. Afer all he daa were colleced, i was impressionisically obvious ha here were large differences beween Arab and American proxemic behavior. The Arabs sared alking he momen hey enered he observaion room and didn sop unil we enered and old hem ha was enough. In a few insances he Arabs old us o wai a minue unil hey finished heir discussion. One FIGURE 1. Observaion room. Scale: 1 =6 I could well be ha garruliy is a good measure of closeness. The Americans, by conras, were comparaively resrained in heir behavior, bu noneheless carried on conversaion in a fashion ha we, as Americans, fel o be ypical of Americans. OPERATIONAL DEFINITIO Hall (1963: 1006) has divided proxemic behavior ino eigh differen caegories : (1) posural-sex idenifiers (2) sociofugal-sociopeal axis (3) kinesheic facors (4) ouch code (5) visual code (6) hermal code (7) olfacion code (8) voice-loudness scale

4 974.4 merican Anhropologis [68, 1966 These caegories will now be discussed briefly, and operaional definiions supplied for each. Hall has reaed each caegory in deail (1963: )) and he reader is referred here for a deeper undersanding of he heoreical and mehodological assumpions underlying he caegories. (1) Posural-sex idenijers This caegory simply idenifies persons as o sex and as o wheher hey are siing, sanding, or prone. Since all subjecs in his sudy were male and since all sa in he chairs provided, his caegory was no scored as a variable. (2) Sociofugal-sociopeal axis This caegory scores he relaion of he axis of one person s shoulders o ha of he oher. These relaionships are scored on a scale of 0 hrough 8 (Figure 2). The Arabs were expeced o be more direc, i.e., o score lower, han Americans. 0 I Face o Face 4 FIGURE 2. Scoring for variable 1-Axis b Back o Back (3) Kinesheic facors This caegory relaes o he closeness of one person o anoher, and o he poenial of each for holding, grasping, or ouching he oher. There are arrangemens in Hall s (1963: 1010) scheme for each person o receive a separae kinesheic score. This would be necessary if he persons observed were of differen sizes, i.e., had differen poenials for lengh of reach, ec. The subjecs of his research were all of approximaely he same size, so only one score was given o each pair of ineracing persons, i.e., each of a pair shared he same score. As an aid in scoring, he edge of he able closes o he sudens was inconspicuously marked wih a pencil every six inches. The pairs were scored on he following bases: 1.0 wihin body conac disance 1.5 jus ouside his disance 2.0 wihin ouching disance wih forearm exended 2.5 jus ouside his disance 3.0 wihin ouching disance wih arm exended 3.5 jus ouside his disance 4.0 wihin ouching disance by reaching 4.5 jus ouside his disance Arabs were expeced o inerac more closely han Americans.

5 WATSON AND GRAVES].I N.4 rralysis of Yroxemic Behavior 975 (4) Touch code This caegory provides for he amoun of conac during each ineracion. I is scored as follows: 0 holding and caressing 1 feeling and caressing 2 prolonged holding 3 holding 4 spo ouching 5 accidenal ouching 6 no conac Arabs were expeced o ouch more han Americans. (5) Visual code The coding in his caegory provides an index of he amoun of visual conac presen. The code is: 1 sharp (focusing direcly on he oher person s eyes) 2 clear (focusing abou he oher person s head and face) 3 peripheral (having he oher person wihin he field of vision, bu no focusing on his head or face) 4 no visual conac (looking down or gazing ino space) Arabs were expeced o have lower scores han Americans, i.e., o display greaer and more direc visual conac. (6) Thermal code This caegory provides for he deecion of one person s body hea by he oher. This would be almos impossible o deermine by observaion. Heasensiive devices or quesioning he subjecs are abou he only ways in which his caegory can be scored. The laer, more inexpensive echnique was chosen. Since none repored deecion of he oher person s body hea, his caegory was dispensed wih as a variable. (7) Oljacion code This caegory scores for wheher he odor of one person is deeced by he oher. This caegory, like he preceding one, would be almos impossible o score by observaion. Again, subjecs were queried as o he deecion of odors, and again none repored ha hey had deeced any. This caegory also was discarded as a variable. (8) Voice-loudness scale This caegory provides a measure for he level of a person s voice during ineracion. To make he measuremen of his caegory more reliable, he microphone of a ape recorder equipped wih a decimeer was aached o he

6 916 Ame~icaa Anhropologis [68, 1966 speaker over which he subjecs voices were heard. The decimeer was divided ino ranges, which provided he scoring for his caegory$ 0 very loud 1 loud 2 normal plus 3 normal 4 sof 5 very sof 6 silen Arabs were expeced o obain lower scores, Lea, o alk louder han Americans. RESULTS Table 1 presens mean scores on all of he five proxemic variables ha could be scored for Arabs as a group, for Americans as a group, and for he various subgroups. TABLE 1. ARAB AND AMERICAN GROUP MEA AND STANDARD DEVIATIO ON FIVE MEASURES OF PROXEMIC BEHAVIOR VARIABLE 1 VARIABLE 2 VARIABLE 3 VARIABLE 4 VARIABLE 5 -. MEAN SD MEAN SD MEAN SD MEAN SD MEAN SD Saudi Arabia N=4 UAR Nu4 Iraq N=4 Kuwai N-4 Toal Arab N= 16 NY-NJ N=4 Midwes N-4 Colorado N=4 California N-4 Told American N= As hypohesized, Arabs confroned each oher more direcly han Americans when conversing (heir mean sociofugal-sociopeal axis scores are lower han for Americans), hey sa closer o each oher (heir mean kinesheic scores

7 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ WATSON AND GRAVES] An Analysis of Proxemic Behavior 977 are lower han for Americans), hey were more likely o ouch each oher (no americans ever ouched each oher), hey looked each oher more squarely in he eye (heir mean visual scores are lower han for Americans), and hey conversed more loudly han Americans, Every one of our hypoheses abou he direcion of Arab-American differences in proxemic behavior is confirmed, and no overlapping is o be found beween he disribuion of mean scores wihin he Arab subgroups and wihin he American subgroups. To es he saisical significance of hese findings, one-ailed ess were calculaed.6 Tables 2 hrough 6 presen hese resuls. TABLE 2. ARAB-AMERICAN DIFFERENCES IN PROXEMIC BEHAVIOR VARIABLE 1-AxIs MEAN SD DF h B S VS p<.ooo5 AMERICA Saudi Arabia UAR Iraq SIC UAR Iraq p<.05 _ p<.02 - Kuwai NY-NJ Midwes -- Colo p<.oo p<.o p<.oo p<.0005 p< <.oo 4.12 p<.01 p< p< p<.02 Calif p< p<.ooo p<.o005 Kuwai NY-N J SIC p<.o005 p<.01 p<.02 p<.o p<.01 p<.05 Midwes Colorado ~ p< p<.05 : No significan a he.05 level or beer

8 978.4 merican Anhropologis [68, Axis (Table 2). Despie he small size of he sample, he magniude of he difference we found on his variable would have occurred by chance less han five imes in en housand. Our daa herefore provide srong suppor for our firs hypohesis and for Hall s observaions. The various Arab subgroups are relaively homogeneous in axis; only hree of he six comparisons aained saisical significance, and hese a a relaively low level. This is in marked conras o he 16 Arab-American subgroup comparisons, all of which were saisically significan and generally a a very high level. This suppors our TABLE 3. ARAB-AMERICAN DIFFERENCES IN PROXEMIC BEHAVIOR VARIABLE 2-KINESTHETICS MEAN SD DF ARABS VS p<.0005 AMEESCA ~~~ UAR Iraq Kuwai NY-NJ Midwes Colo. Calif. Saudi Arabia p< p< UAR Iraq Kuwai NY-NJ Midwes Colorado p<, p< p<.ooo p<.0005 I p< 3* p<.ooo p<.0005 p< p<.0005 p<.o005 : 0.04 I I- p<, : No significan a he.05 level or beer

9 ~~ WATSON AND GRAVES] An Analysis of Proxemic Behavior 979 second hypohesis, ha persons from he various Arab counries will be more similar o each oher han o any regional group of Ameri~ans.~ Four of he six comparisons among American regional groups were saisically significan, and a fifh closely approached significance. This suggess ha, wih respec o axis, American regional groups are more variable han Arab naional groups. Bu even so, relaively lile overlap occurs beween he values for inra-american comparisons and hose for he Arab-American comparisons. Thus we also have suppor for our hird hypohesis, ha persons from various TABLE 4. ARAB-AMERICAN DIFFERENCES IN PROXEMIC BEHAVIOR VARIABLE 3-TOUCHING MEAN SD DF ARABS VS p<.ooo5 ~ R I C A N S Saudi Arabia UAR Iraq Kuwai NY-N J SIC UAR Iraq Kuwai NY-NJ Midwes Colo. Calif. I p<.005 ><.005 6'71 p<.oo5 I< p<, p< p< p< p <,025 p< 3' p< pc p< ITS p< p< p< Midwes Colorado SIC : No significan a he.05 level or beer

10 980 A m~rican Anhropologis [68, 1966 regions of he Unied Saes will be more similar o each oher han o persons from any Arab counry. 2. Kineslheics-closeness (Table 3). Arab-American differences on his variable were even more marked han for axis, and he value falls compleely off he ables. Again, greaer mean differences are found among American regional groups han among Arab regional groups, hough boh Americans and Arabs are surprisingly homogeneous. This homogeneiy is in marked conras o he highly significan differences beween he Arab-American subgroup compari- TABLE 5. ARAB-AUERICAN DIFFERENCES VARIABLE 4-vISUAL DIRECTNESS IN PROXEMIC BEHAVIOR MEAN SD DF SIC ~- ARABS ~ VS p<.oo05 ~RICA Saudi Arabia UAR Iraq Kuwai NY-NJ Midwes p <.0005 Colo p<.o005 Calif UAR p<.ooo p<.ooo Iraq Kuwai NY-N J Midwes -- Colorado SI G -~ p< p<.o p< , p<, p<,025 : No significan a he.05 level or beer

11 -_I WATSON AND GRAVES] An Analysis of Proxemic Behavior 981 sons, all 16 of which achieved he.0005 level of significance. Again all hree of our hypoheses wih regard o disance mainained beween persons were srongly suppored. 3. Touching (Table 4). Only among Arabs did any ouching ake place during our observaions, and his was all of he accidenal ype. Bu ouches were observed among persons wihin each of he four Arab subgroups and herefore can be inerpreed as a general phenomenon among Arabs. The over-all Arab-American difference again would have occurred by chance less han five TABLE 6. ARAB-AMERICAN DIFFERENCES IN PROXEMIC BEHAVIOR VARIABLE 5-VOICE LOUDNESS MEAN SD DF ARABS vs p<.ooo5 AMERICA UAR Iraq Kuwai NY-NJ Midwes Colo. Calif. Saudi Arabia 3.83 p<, p< p<.01 UAK I 1'02 : p<, p< Iraq p< Kuwai p<,005 NY-NJ ~ - - ~ Midwes ----_ Colorado : No significan a he.05 level or beer 4.51 p< p< < p< p<.o p<.ooo5 ~ p< p<

12 982 American Anhropologis [68, 1966 imes in en housand. No significan differences were found beween any Arab subgroups; and since no Americans ouched during our observaions, no differences beween American regions were observed eiher. This is again in marked conras o he Arab-American comparisons, all 16 of which yielded significan differences. Again all hree of our hypoheses were suppored. 4. Visual direcness (Table 5). This variable yielded he same familiar picure: over-all Arab-American differences were highly significan; no significan differences were found beween Arab subgroups, and relaively small differences beween various American regions; all 16 Arab-American subgroup comparisons yielded highly significan differences. Again all hree hypoheses were suppored. 5. Voice loudness (Table 6). Alhough greaer heerogeneiy was found on his variable among boh he Arab and he American subgroups, he over-all paern is very similar o ha found on he previous four proxemic variables and srong suppor was provided for all hree of our hypoheses. In summary, all five of he faces of proxemic behavior defined by Hall for which objecive measuremen could be achieved yielded highly significan differences beween Arabs and Americans in he direcions prediced on he basis of Hall s observaions. Furhermore, Arab mean scores for he four naional groups represened were exremely similar o each oher, as were he mean scores of he four American regional groups, hough here was more variabiliy among Americans han among Arabs. All hree of our guiding hypoheses were given srong empirical suppor. Looking a Table 1 more closely, we can see ha no one Arab subgroup is consisenly more American in proxemic behavior han any oher. The Arabians were mos similar o Americans in axis and voice loudness, he UAR sudens in closeness and visual direcness, and hose from Kuwai wih respec o ouching. Similarly, no American regional group was consisenly more Arab. Among he four Arab subgroups, cerain consisen paerns of similariy did emerge, however. Group means on all five variables were very similar for he sudens from Iraq and Kuwai. And he Saudi Arabians and Egypians, whom we migh expec o be quie differen in erms of he levels of modernizaion currenly achieved by heir counries, were mos differen of he four subgroups on axis, visual direcness, and voice loudness. They were similar, however, in disance and ouching. Also, wihin American regions, excep for loudness, he New York-New Jersey group was consisenly similar o he California group, in conras o he Midwes and Colorado groups. This would conform wih he similar cosmopolianism of he wo coasal regions. Given he very small sizes of our samples, however, hese observaions should be considered no more han suggesive clues for fuure research. A final quesion-are we really working wih muliple dimensions here, or

13 WATSON AND GRAVES] An Analysis of Proxemic Behavior 983 TABLE 7. PEARSON CORRELATIO AMONG FIVE MEASURES OF PROXEMIC BEHAVIOR N=32 (16 Americans and 16 Arabs) - _. ~. -~ Variable 1-Axis X Variable 2-Kinesheics X Variable 3-Touching X Variable &Visual direcness x.74 Variable 5-Voice loudness X can hese various aspecs of proxemic behavior be subsumed wihin a single variable, such as he conac - nonconac dimension suggesed by Hall? For our 32 subjecs, he uniformly high over-all Pearson correlaions among he five variables sugges he laer conclusion (Table 7). Bu hese findings are parly an arifac of he gross ehnic group differences observed. Wilhin he American and he Arab groups separaely, several of hese correlaions disappeared or even reversed hemselves (Table 8). Given our small sample siz,e we can again draw no firm conclusions, bu i appears ha paerns of proxemic behavior may prove more complex and variable han casual observaion has led us o believe. TABLE 8. PEARSON CORRELATIO AMONG FIVE MEASURES OF PROXEMIC BEHAVIOR Americans only (N= 16) Variable x -.51.oo X.OO X.oo.oo 4 x -.lo 5 X Arabs only (N = 16) X X X -.lo -.16 x -,54 X SUMMARY rznd CONCLUSIO Hall s impressions concerning Arab and American differences in proxemic behavior were esed empirically by means of sysemaic observaions of 16.4merican and 16 Arab college sudens under conrolled condiions. Highly significan Arab-American differences emerged in he direcion expeced, wih he Arab sudens confroning each oher more direcly han he Americans, moving closer ogeher, more ap o ouch each oher while alking, looking each oher more squarely in he eye, and conversing in louder ones. Marked homogeneiy among he represenaives of four Arab naions was also found; his was also rue among he four regions of he Unied Saes represened.

14 984 American Anhropologis [68, 1966 Neverheless, ineresing paerns of regional differences emerged and appear worhy of furher invesigaion. Our research, which was exploraory in naure, demonsraes boh he feasibiliy of sysemaic invesigaion in his area and is poenial power. Improved mehods of recording lines of proxemic noaion need o be used-such as a digial magneic ape recorder or even a simple adding machine-ha will enable he invesigaor o keep his eyes on he subjecs a all imes. A mechanical recording device would also enable he observer o increase he lines of noaion o as many as one every five or en seconds. I is also obvious ha larger samples are needed o increase confidence in he gederalizabiliy of our conclusions and o permi he kinds of wihin-area analysis ha proved so provocaive. Samples of sudens from all over he world are conemplaed, wih he evenual aim of subjecing our observaions o a facor analysis. If clusers of subjecs belonging o disinc culural areas emerge, we will obain ineresing definiions of Arab or Lain characer in proxemic erms. When recording echniques have been perfeced and when our undersanding of he underlying dimension or dimensions of proxemic behavior have advanced under conrolled condiions, observaions in he field are also anicipaed. The plea advanced for he sudy of prelierae culures before hey are engulfed by he ide of civilizaion applies wih equal weigh o he sudy of proxemic behavior wihin hese culures. Observaions of proxemics are no common in he ehnographic lieraure and end o be limied o nonquaniaive descripions of posural and gesural habis or o remarks by he ehnographer abou how he people appear o make spaial disincions. Acculuraive changes in proxemic behavior are also worhy of sysemaic sudy. Do shifs in proxemic behavior occur as people are exposed o paerns differen from hose in which hey were reared? Is here a syndrome of proxemic behavior associaed wih he urban indusrial sociey oward which developing naions are moving? These remain analizing quesions for furher research. Finally, almos nohing is ye known abou he psychological meanings aached o various forms of proxemic behavior. The discomfor aroused by he gross violaion of proxemic norms, paricularly in cross-culural siuaions] has ofen been noed. Bu wihin a culure area, are differences in proxemic syle-a endency o confron ohers more direcly, o avoid looking hem in he eye more han mos, ec.-associaed wih oher personaliy rais? Wha kinds of hings are communicaed by such suble deviaions? We can envision he emergence of a field of psychoproxemics as challenging o he researcher as psycholinguisics is proving o be. NOTES The research here repored was conduced under he Research Training Program in Culure Change, Deparmen of Anhropology, Universiy of Colorado. The program is financed by he Naional Insiue of Menal Healh (gran number 5 T1 MH ) and is under he direcion of Dr. Theodore D. Graves, 0. Michael Wason is a hird-year rainee under he program.

15 WATSON AND GRAVES] An Analysis of Prozemic Behavior 985 * The sysem of noaion apparenly originaed from he insighs gained from Hall s inerviewing of foreign sudens sudying in he US. (Hall 1963:1005). 3 Bernard Lewis (1950) has poined ou he dficulies inheren in a definiion of Arab. Suffice i o say ha all sudens in our Arab group came from counries considered by Lewis o be Arabic. 4 Hall (1963: 1005) poins ou ha here are wo basic American ypes as far as closeness is concerned: a conac group, predominanly of souhern European origin, and a L nonconac group, composed primarily of norhern Europeans. The nonconac group supplies he predominan ehos of American proxemic behavior, and i was assumed ha he American sudens were of his ype. Analysis of he daa laer showed his assumpion o be correc. 6 A Hall s suggesion (personal communicaion) he direcion of scoring his variable was reversed from ha suggesed in his 1963 aricle. This resuls in a low score always represening he close end of he coninuum, as is his curren pracice, and all our predicions concerning Arab- American differences are ha Arab mean scores will he lower. 6 Wih small samples he disribuion of 1 provides a more appropriae model han eiher he binomial or he normal disribuion (Ferguson 1959: ). The es was one-ailed because he expeced direcion of difference had been specified in our hypohesis. Use of he 1 es involves wo assumpions: ha he sampled populaion is normal and ha he populaion variances are homogeneous. Bu as long as he sample size is even moderae for each group, quie severe deparures from normaliy seem o make lile pracical difference in he conclusions reached (Hays 1963: 322). Furhermore, for samples of equal size, relaively large differences in he populaion variances seem o have relaively small consequences for he conclusions derived from a 1 es. 7 On wo of he five proxemic variables-axis and kinesheics (disance)-boh persons in an ineracing pair receive he same score. Since a person is alernaely paired for observaion wih each of he oher hree in his subgroup, he hereby comes o share a porion of his variance on hese measures wih hem. This produces greaer subgroup homogeneiy on hese wo measures (lower variance) han would occur if each member s score was independen of he oher hree, and increases he likelihood of saisically significan differences from oher subgroups. Hypoheses wo and hree are an aemp o overcome he saisical problems ha his lack of independence creaes. Since each of he eigh subgroups conains his same problem, pairs of American or of Arah subgroups should be as likely o display saisically significan differences from each oher by chance as cross-ehnic pairs of Arab-American subgroups. Our hypohesis on he realiy of Arab-American differences in proxemic behavior depends on he rejecion of his null hypohesis. REFERENCES CITED FERGKISON, GEORGE A Saisical analysis in psychology and educaion. New York, McGraw-Hill. HALL, EDWARD T The anhropology of manners. Scienific American 162: The silen language. Greenwich, Conn., Fawce A sysem of noaion of proremic behavior. American Anhropologis 65: HAYS, WILLIAM L Saisics for psychologiss. New York, Hol, Rinehar, and Winson. LEWIS, BERNARD 1950 The Arabs in hisory. New York, Harper & Brohers.