Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 432–435 | Cite as

FORPROXIMITY: An update and expansion of the PROXTIME computer program

  • Bonnie N. Pollack
  • Benjamin B. Chase
Article
  • 193 Downloads

Abstract

A new program, called PROXIMITY, was created as a tool for proximity calculation and to update and expand upon Kirste and Monge’s (1983) PROXTIME program. The purpose of PROXIMITY is to calculate the fluctuating proximity between individuals within organizations. PROXIMITY provides output for three types of relationships: (1) an overall organizational proximity, (2) pairwise proximity between individuals, and (3) individual proximity to multiple others. PROXIMITY also updates some of PROXTIME’s features such as the computer platform, the type of data the program can handle, and the form of output available.

Keywords

Entire Work Computer Platform Interpersonal Attraction Group Proximity Word Processing Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Altman, I. (1975).The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  2. Arkin, R. M., &Burger, J. M. (1980). Effects of unit relation tendencies on interpersonal attraction.Social Psychology Quarterly,43, 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, A., &Paulus, P. B. (1987). Crowding. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.),Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 533–570). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, F., &Steele, F. (1995).Workplace by design: Mapping the high-performance workscape. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Evans, G. W., &Cohen, S. (1987). Environmental stress. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.),Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 571–610). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Griffitt, W., &Veitch, R. (1971). Hot and crowded: Influences of population density and temperature on interpersonal affective behavior.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,17, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kirste, K. K., &Monge, P. R. (1983). Computing dynamic organizational proximity: The PROXTIME computer program.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,15, 89–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Monge, P. R., &Kirste, K. K. (1980). Measuring proximity in human organization.Social Psychology Quarterly,43, 110–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Monge, P. R., Rothman, L. W., Eisenberg, E. M., Miller, K. I., &Kirste, K. K. (1985). The dynamics of organizational proximity.Management Science,31, 1129–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moos, R. H. (1976).The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Oldham, G. R., &Fried, Y. (1987). Employee reactions to workspace characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology,72, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smith, P., &Kearny, L. (1994).Creating workplaces where people can think. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Steele, F. I. (1986).Making and managing high-quality workplaces: An organizational ecology. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sundstrom, E. (1986).Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Sundstrom, E. (1987). Work environments: Offices and factories. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.),Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 733–782). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Valacich, J. S., George, J. F., Nunamaker, J. F., &Vogel, D. R. (1994). Physical proximity effects on computer-mediated group idea generation.Small Group Research,25, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zahn, G. L. (1991). Face-to-face communication in an office setting: The effects of position, proximity, and exposure.Communication Research,18, 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bonnie N. Pollack
    • 1
  • Benjamin B. Chase
    • 2
  1. 1.University of North CarolinaCharlotte
  2. 2.Concord

Personalised recommendations