T H E E F F E C T OF T H E MARITAL RELATIONSHIP O N PERSONAL SP.4CE O R I E S T A T I O S IN

MARRIED COUPLES*'

Brighorn Yorng L'nitvrrtiy and Trras Trrh l'niuerritp

SUMMARY

Thirty-seven Caucasian married couples between the ages of 20 and 54 were tested for personal space orientation by means of a behavioral and a simulation test. Participants included a husband (H) and wife iW) married combination, one male (M), and one female (F). The following dyads were tested: HW, HF. HM. WF, WM. The results for both tests indicated that the husband-wife combination required significantly less personal space than any of the other combinations tested. Additionally, the opposite-sexed nonspouse, as well as the Husband-Male dyads, required greater personal space in the presence of the other dyads, suggesting that the marital relationship could have an impact on personal space needs.

A. LVTRODUCTION

Since the development of personal space as a construct for human behavior. Hall, as well as others has suggested that intimacy is an impor- tant factor to consider in understanding an individual's personal space needs. Hall's concept of pmxemics outlined various distance zones people exhibit which v a n according to their culture and their degree of intimac!. for one another ( i ) . Contemporary studies among American Caucasians have shown that personal space needs are reduced towards an opposite- sexed stranger with similar attitudes ( 2 ) . as well as towards peers and acquaintances (6. 15). In addition. personal space needs were reduced fur

* Received in the Editorial Office. R o v i n c e t o u n . Massarhusatri, on September 9. 1981. Copyright. 1982. by The Journal Press.

I This stud? was supported in part by .ISBYC vrant 5-2323.;-40. Special thanks am due W. Reed Worrell. Brigham Young University statiiticd department, for assisrance with the analvsis of the data. Reprints ma\- be obtained from the first author at the address shown at the end of this arucle.

2 3

JOURXAL O F SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

3.; who liked each other Ill. and for Ss engaged in a .;ocial interaction ,i 101.

Personal space orientation relating to sexual intimacy has also been studied. Hartnett (81, as well as Thomas (14). has suggested that a situation involving the potential for socially appropriate sexual interaction may manifest itself in reduced personal space needs. The dimension of sexuality. then, has an effect on personal space orientation, which could accuunt for findings that mixed-sexed dyads exhibit less need for personal space than same-sexed dyads. (3. 9 . 12. 14).

The present study deals with the effect of the marital relationship on personal space orientation in Caucasian couples. Berman and Lief 14) have sugge-er-ted that two "critical dimensions" of the marital relationship are level of intimacy and degree of inclusion or exclusion of others, and that both have potential impact on personal space needs. Since a high degree of intimacy is expected to occur within the marital relationship and sexual interaction is considered socially appropriate. it is likely that personal space needs among married couples would be relatively small. Furthermore. since sexual interaction between a married person and an opposite-sexed nonspouse is generally considered inappropriate in the American culture. it is likely that personal space needs between a married person and an opposite-_.esed nonspouse would be relatively large, even though the com- bination ~ o u l d represent a mised-sex dyad. Specifically. it x v s hypothe- sired that personal space needs \rould be smallest between Si married to each other. somewhat greater between a married S and .+rime-sexed straneer, and greatest between a married S and an opposite-resed stranger.

I. S r r b ~ r r l i

Sixteen Caucasian couples from the Utah County tCtahl area and ? I couples from the Lubbock Count?. (Texas) area \olunteered to participate in the study. Each couple had been married for at least one year, and the mean age of all couples was 20.16 years ISD = 6.84. range = ? I to 5 4 years) for the husbands and 28.05 years tSD = 5.98. ranqe = 2 0 to 48 years) for the wives. The husbands were currently enrolled iu students of either Brigham Young University or Tesas Tech Uni\-ersity. The couples were assessed in their own homes: the entire assessment process required approximately 20 minutes.

R. D. HILL, R. E. BLACKHh41, AND D. R. CR4NE

2 . Prorrdrrrr

The assessment consisted of two tests, a behavioral measure and a simulation test using paper figures. For each couple, the tiio tests were conducted in a randomly determined order.

Participants in the test included a husband (HI and wife (\+'I married combination. and two confederates tCs). one male (>I) and one female iF). both strangers to the married couple. Each of the following dyads were tested: HLV. HF. HM. \VF, IVM. The order of dyads was determined randomly and reordered for each assessment.

The behavioral test was an adaptation of the Pedersen Awareness Be- havioral Personal Space .\leasure" previously reported and validated 1111. It a a s conducted by asking members of the dyad to stand a t opposite ends of the room. walk sloa.ly towards each other. and stop when they felt the distance between them was the closest possible. before feeling uncomfort- able Distance x a s measured in inches between the closest two opposing feet. \Vhen a C was a member of the dyad, he or she was instructed to stop when the S stopped. so as not to interject experimental bias into the mea.ure. The behavioral test was conducted in the largest room of the house or apartment. and in the presence of the other spouse.

The second measure was a type of simulation with paper figures. a variation o i the "Pedcrsen Interpersonal Distance Measure" 113). This test n a s conducted with the husband and wife separated from one another in private room,. Each S \ias shoir,n an 8!.' by 11" sheet of iihite paper with the longest side horizontal. and told it was to represent a room. He or she was then chown four areen paper discs. and told each disc \vas to represfnt a person, includine himself lor herself), his (or her] spouse. another male. and another female. Each of the discs had an arrow drawn diametricall? across it, and the Ss \yere told that the direction of the arrow jhould represent the direction the simulated individuals would lace.

The S a a s told to imagine that he cur she1 and spouse were to spend a sorial ex-enina with another couple. The S as then asked to arrange the circles on the paper in a manner representative of how he or she felt the four people ~vould arrange themselves in a room for the occasion. LVhen tlie 5 had completed the arrangement of the figures. he or che as asked to peel the backing off the figures. erpo,inu an adhesive surface, and to permanently aifix them to the sheet of paper. The S was also told to label which person each circle represented. The distance between the closest outer edges of the four circlues was measured in millimeters.

JOCRXAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

C. R E S C L T ~ ASD DISCCSSION

For comparison of the mean distances between the respective dyads from the behavioral test. it can be seen in Table 1 that the H-W combination stood closer than any of the other dyads tested iX = 8 . i 2 , SD = 5.441. A very similar relationship was noted for the simulation test. Both the hus- band and wife S s placed the H-W combination in closest proximity.

The contrasts between the H-W combination versus the remaining dyads in the behavioral and simulation tests were analyzed further by usina an analysis of variance. The differences between individual dyads ivere as- 5esed by using orthogonal contrasts. The outcome of these analyses re- vealed that the H-W relationship required significantly less personal space in the presence of the other combinations in both the behavioral IF =

2 i . 2 6 , df = 4. 140, p S.001) and simulation (F = 6.34, df = 9,315. p S

,001) tests. n-hich supports the initial hypothesis that the husband-wife proper spouse combination would require the least personal space in the presence of the other combinations.

.an additional analysis of the remaining dyads revealed that although the LV-F dyad required more personal distance than the H-W dyad, the dis- tancing of the W-F combinations was significantly less than the remaining combinations from the behavioral test (F = 2.48. df = 1.180. p = ,014). This same relationship also manifested itself in the simulation test for the Husband S iF = 2.15. df = 1.360, p = .032); however, the wife S spacing of the \\--F combination did not reach significance (F = 1 . 5 5 , df = 1.360. p = 2 2 ) . Perhaps one explanation for the nonsignificant,outcome of the wife S may be the variation in the It..-F distance placement between the t n o populations. In the simulation test. it was found that the Lubbock. Tcsas w r s f r s Provo. Ctah groups differed significantly ( F = 15.14. df = 1.34. p S

TABLE ! M ~ A S Drcrascrs B E ~ \ V E E \ T M E Dv.aos i.V = 3;)

\ ~ , f e Huibnnd Bcharlclriti ~,irnuI,>lvd~ liimularcd I

<inches, - tmml .- - cmml

Wads % SD ? SD % S D -. ...

R . D. HILL. R . E . BLACKHAY, AND D. R. C R A S E

.00i) in the wife's5 placement of the \V-F combination. This could suggest that a cultural difference may exist between the females in Texas z ~ t ~ r s i i s

those in Ctah. The placement of remaining combinations. however. was not significantly different between the two populations.

Finally, the H-M. H-F, W-M relationships, as measured by both tests, clustered together to form the outermost region of personal space need. Although these three dyads were not significantly different from one an- other. they each required significantly more personal space than the H-LV. W-F relationships, respectivelv. It was consistent with previous research that the H-M dyad would require more personal space in the presence of the H-W. W-F combinations (31; however, the distancing of opposite- sexed. nonspouse dyads represented a deviation from previous research studies. Although these combinations were opposite in sex. the distancing was substantially larger than the H-W. W-F combinations.

Several factors may account for the distance needs of the% opposite- sexed. nonspouse partners. First. it appears that the marital relationship could be influencing the distance zones of these dyads. Berman et ul. I41 suapest that the intimacy of a marriage relationship can be threatened by intruding iriends and potential lovers. Previously in this study. it has been noted that intimacy has a significant effect on personal space needs. Per- haps the threatening influence of an unknown. opposite-sexed individual with the potential for an inappropriate sexual relationship may have elic- ited an attempt to defend the intimacy of the marital relationship by requiring a substantial need for personal space.

This study has attempted to substantiate the concept that the American Caucasian marital relationship, which represents an important social con- text. ~icnificantly affects personal space orientation and should be con-111- ered a a \.ariable in future personal space rebearch.

KEFERENCES I . \ t i ,.Lo. J R.. & C o o ~ ~ a . R E T h y u,c t l i ~cr ,ona l .pare ss n i ~ ~ n c t j o n 0 1 .ucini .ll'tci!

P n ~ c - .YO111 $ r r a C'cr,t:c.nr . imrr P$r,-lrl,l . l i re l . IY ;? . 7. ?0:-208. 2 . ~ L L C E I I R . 4 K.. L BYRNE. U .AI!ra~lt,in toward !he rlppojlle i e s s. a ilrtcmlinanr t l l

ph?&sl prorlm!c? I S o r . Psvl-lrul . 1 O ; i . YO. ?I j -? lo . 3 . BLKTER. 1. L 1ntzrpr.onal rp.iiing in niilural ~rrt incr . So, ,onirtr). 1U:O. :l:). 4 - r i . l i h .

4 BERIIAS. E. Y.. 8i LIEF. H. 1 ZIarilal r b r a p y inlm a ps>rhiatnc pcnprcrlvr: A n "YCIV ICU. , .A, , ! . 1 P.SV</,,,Z, , 1v75, I:]%, ss3-5q2.

5 EBERTS. E. S . . 8. LFPPER. 51. R. lndlrtdual ronsirrmc! :n the prurcmlr khar iur ul preschool children. J PcvionoI B 901. I 9 :lP. 811-819

6 EDWARDS. D J , h. .Apprua<hinp the uniamiltar: A jrud) oi human interartlnn dl,- tancts. J Bri iar Sc.8 , IQ;!. I. 249-!5C

JOCRYAL O F SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

. . . . 9. I,EI.F.XTHAL. C;.. ~ I T T ~ R R O . Y.. 8. .%.H.ASI.RYIX. J. Ei fcc t 1,1 attnu<lr. .<.x, 2nd

a ~ ~ p m a i h on n,in\'crbal. ~ c r b a l and projrclivc me%$.rurrs o i prronal Apace I ' l ,r , , ,p! i+ Y o l o r SkrlL. 1978. l i . I O i ~ 1 18

10. PATTERWS. ;\ H . K ROLES. \\' L The effects of p r rona l rpacc varrabks up$>)> approach m d stlltodc louard rhc orhrr m a prinrnrr'r dilemma ~ a m e P~r.n,z.rl 2- S , Pn.rBoI Bz,li.. 1ni-I. 1. 361..166.

I ! . PFDERIES. D. 21 Drrrivpment 01 d personal space rnc-uw. PyrBol Rrp . . 1'1;;. :P2. <>7..:.;;

1 2 . PFDERSFS. D 11. Factorz afiectlnu prsondl 3pacc toward a group. P p r r r ~ l . C- .Yl~t,>r S k ~ l l ~ . 1q;;. 45. 7.;5.743,

1.5. I'F.DER.;ES. D Y . d. SHEARS. L. >I. E f t i . ~ t ~ 01 an ~ntecwrsonal eame and uf confine- ment on lxrrvnal -pact. I . Prrronnl. 6. Soi . Pry<hoi.. 197l. 30. 6. S i 8 ~ 8 4 5

14. THOMAS. D. R Interaction distance, in ,me-,e~ and mixed-,ex Froups Pcrrc,pc c? .\folr~v Skills, 1'173. :%, I j - i 8 .

I; \VILLIC. F S . IT. Initial spaking distance a% a iunrrlon u i the rpeaken' relati~mrhip. P > v I - k u n . Sci . . 19h6. 5. 121-222.

Srhool of E d a c a l i o n

Sturlford L'uir~evsity Slanfovd . Cal i fov?t ia 44.30;