Abstract
This paper presents a study that examined the relationship between visual interaction and interpersonal distance as it relates to an equilibrium theory of social interaction. Differential boundaries were found to exist for the effect of distance on five highly related male and female visual behaviors, exemplifying different overall equilibrium levels for the sexes. While males looked more as distance increased, females looked less after an intermediate distance of 6.5 feet. These data support a modified equilibrium model that posits that eye contact functions to regulate the comfort of an interaction and is also a response to the degree of interaction comfort; further, comfortable interaction distances promote eye contact and, more importantly, uncomfortable distances diminish it. Because women tend to be more oriented toward inclusive relationships, they are more comfortable at closer interaction distances and, hence, look more at these distances. At greater distance, however, they are more uncomfortable and, consequently, look less.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aiello, J. R. A test of equilibrium theory: Visual interaction in relation to orientation, distance, and sex of interactants.Psychonomic Science, 1972,27, 335–336.
Aiello, J. R., & Aiello, T. D. The development of personal space: Proxemic behavior of children 6 through 16.Human Ecology, 1974,2, 177–189.
Aiello, J. R., & Jones, S. E. A field study of the proxemic behavior of young school children in three subcultural groups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971,19, 351–356.
Argyle, M.Social interaction. New York: Atherton, 1969.
Argyle, M., & Cook, M.Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation.Sociometry, 1965,28, 289–304.
Argyle, M., Lalljee, M., & Cook, M. Effects of visibility on interaction in a dyad.Human Relations, 1968,21, 3–17.
Argyle, M., Salter, V., Nicholson, H., Williams, M., & Burgess, P. The communication of inferior and superior attitudes by verbal and non-verbal signals.British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1970,9, 222–231.
Baxter, J. C. Interpersonal spacing in natural settings.Sociometry, 1970,33, 444–456.
Cattell, R. B. The personality and the motivation of the researcher from the measurement of contemporaries and from biography. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.),Scientific creativity. New York: Wiley, 1963.
Duncan, S. Nonverbal communication.Psychological Bulletin, 1969,72, 118–137.
Exline, R. V. Explorations in the process of person perception: Visual interaction in relation to competition, sex and need for affiliation.Journal of Personality, 1963,31, 1–20.
Exline, R. V., Gray, D., & Schutte, D. Visual behavior in a dyad as affected by interview content and sex of respondent.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,1, 201–209.
Exline, R. V., & Winters, L. C. Affective relations and mutual glances in dyads. In S. Tomkins & C. Izard (Eds.),Affect, cognition, and personality. New York: Springer, 1965.
Fry, A. M., & Willis, F. N. Invasion of personal space as a function of age of the invader.Psychological Record, 1971,21, 385–389.
Goldberg, G. N., Keisler, C., & Collins, B. Visual behavior and face-to-face distance during interaction.Sociometry, 1969,32, 43–53.
Hall, E. T.The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday, 1966.
Jones, S. E., & Aiello, J. R. Proxemic behavior of black and white first, third, and fifth grade children.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973,25, 21–27.
Kagan, J. Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sex-role identity. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.),Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 1). New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.
Kendon, A. Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction.Acta Psychologica, 1967,26, 22–63.
Knight, D., Langmeyer, D., & Lundgren, D. Eye contact, distance, and affiliation: The role of observer bias.Sociometry, 1973,36, 390–403.
Miller, N. E. Experimental studies in conflict. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.),Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol. 1), New York: Ronald, 1944.
Nielson, C.Studies in self-confrontation. Cleveland: Allen, 1964.
Patterson, M. L. Compensation in nonverbal immediacy behaviors; A review.Sociometry, 1973,36, 237–252.
Patterson, M. L. A test of equilibrium theory in laboratory and field settings.Sociometry, 1976, in press.
Russo, N. F. Eye contact, interpersonal distance, and the equilibrium theory.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,31, 497–502.
Sommer, R. The distance for comfortable conversion: A further study.Sociometry, 1962,25, 111–116.
Stephenson, G., & Rutter, D. R. Eye contact, distance, and affiliation: A reevaluation.British Journal of Psychology, 1970,61, 385–393.
Witkin, H. A. Sex differences in perception.Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1940,12, 22–26.
Witkin, H. A. Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures.Journal of Personality, 1950,19, 1–15.
Reference notes
Aiello, J. R. Male and female visual behavior as a function of distance and duration of an interviewer's direct gaze: Equilibrium theory revisited. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972.
Exline, R. V., & Winters, L. The effects of cognitive difficulty and cognitive style upon eye-to-eye contact in interviews. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association Convention, Atlantic City, New Jersey, 1965.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NIMH Grant MH-10779-04, grants from the Research Council of Rutgers University, and Grant HD-8546-01 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. This article is based in part on the author's doctoral dissertation completed at Michigan State University; some of these data were presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1973. The author is very grateful to the numerous students who assisted in these studies and to Jeanne Gullahorn, Eugene Jacobson, Lawrence Messe, William Crano, Yakov Epstein, and Miles Patterson for their critical reading of early drafts of this research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aiello, J.R. A further look at equilibrium theory: Visual interaction as a function of interpersonal distance. J Nonverbal Behav 1, 122–140 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01145461
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01145461