Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The proxemics lexicon: A first approximation

  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A lexicon of terms used in research and theory of human spatial and territorial behavior is presented. The need for greater consistency and refinement in the terminology of these fields, in light of growing research attention, is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Altman, I.The environment and social behavior. Monterey, California: Brooks-Cole, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyle, M. & Dean, J. “Eye-contact, distance, and affiliation.”Sociometry 28: 289–304, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, R.G., Wright, H.F.Midwest and its children. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birdwhistell, R.L.Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciolek, T.M. “Location of static gatherings in pedestrian areas: an exploratory study.”Man-Environment Systems, 7: 41–54, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciolek, T.M. “Spatial arrangements in social encounters: an attempt at a taxonomy.”Man-Environment Systems 8: 52–59, 1978a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciolek, T.M. “Some spatial features of the phenomenon of copresence.”Sociolinguistics Newsletter 9 (2): 23–24, 1978b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciolek, T.M. “Spatial extent and structure of the field of copresence: summary findings.”Man-Environment Systems 10:57–62, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciolek, T.M. “Pedestrian behavior in pedestrian spaces: some findings of a naturalistic field study.” In S.V. Szokolay (Ed.),Understanding of the built environment — Proceedings of the 1981 ANZASCA conference. Canberra: Australian and New Zeland Architectural Science Association, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciolek, T.M. & Kendon, A. “Environment and the spatial arrangement of conversational encounters.”Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 237–271, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, R.D.Spatial structuring in everyday face-to-face behavior. A neurocybernetic model, M-ES Focus Series, No. 4, Orangeburg, N.Y.: ASMER, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edney, J.J. “Human territoriality.Psychological Bulletin 81 (12): 959–975, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G.W. & Howard, R.B. “Personal space.”Psychological Bulletin 80 (4): 334–344, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E.The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E.Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: The Free Press, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E.Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. Hardmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. “Seating arrangements.”Ekistics 234: 295–299, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E.T. “A system for notation of proxemic behavior.”American Anthropologist 65: 1003–1026, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E.T.The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday Co., 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E.T. “Proxemics.”Current Anthropology 9 (2–3): 83–108, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, E.T.Handbook for proxemic research. Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication: Washington, D.C., 1974.

  • Hayduk, L.A. “Personal space: An evaluative and orienting overview.”Psychological Bulletin 85 (1): 117–134, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewes, G. “World distribution of certain postural habits.”American Anthropologist 57: 231–244, 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, M.J. et al. “Personal space and the body-buffer zone.”Archives of General Psychiatry 11:651–656, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J.The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendon, A. “The role of visible behavior in the organization of social interaction,” in Mario von Cranach Ian Vine (Eds.),Social communication and movement: Studies of interaction in Man and Chimpanzee. London and New York: Academic Press, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendon, A. “The F-Formation system: The spatial organization of social encounters.”Man-Environment Systems 6: 291–296, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendon, A. “Spatial organization in social encounters: The F-formation system” inStudies in the behavior of social interaction Cht. 5.

  • Kinzel, A.F. “Body buffer zones in violent prisoners.”American Journal of Psychiatry 127: 99–104, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Long, A.J. “Proxemic zones and context: An empirical analysis.” In W.H. Ittelson, & Rogers, (Eds.),ERDA 9: New directions in environmental design, 1978.

  • Lyman, S.M. & Scott, M.B. “Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension.”Social Problems 15 (2): 236–249, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, K.The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, G. “Theories of animal spacing: The role of flight, fight, and social distance.” in A.H. Esser (Ed.),Behavior and environment: The use of space by animals and men. New York-London: Plenum Press, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, G., & Clancy, H. “The social properties of places and things.” In A. Rapoport (Ed.),The mutual interaction of people and their built environment. The Hague—Paris: Mouton, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, O.Defensible space—crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M.L. “Compensation in nonverbal immediacy behaviors: A review.”Sociometry 36: 237–252, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portrous, J.D.Environment and behavior: planning and everyday urban life. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1977.

  • Rapoport, A.Human aspects of urban form: towards a Man-Environment approach to urban form and design. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roos, P.D. “Jurisdiction: an ecological concept.”Human Relations 21: 75–84, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandstrom, C.I. “Proposals to phenomenological approaches in determining architectural spaces.”Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 15: 81–88, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheflen, A.E. “Some territorial layouts in the United States.” In A. Rapoport (Ed.),The mutual interaction of people and their built environment. The Hague—Paris: Mouton, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedlen, A.E. and Ashcraft, N.Human territories—How we behave in space-time. Englewood, Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, R. “Studies in personal space.”Sociometry 22: 247–260, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, R. “Further studies of small-group ecology.”Sociometry 28: 337–348, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, R. “Sociofugal pace.”The American Journal of Sociology 72: 654–660, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, R.Personal space: the behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel, J. and Machotka, P.Messages of the body.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 4 Boucaut Place, Curtin, 2605, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia

    T. Matthew Ciolek

Authors
  1. T. Matthew Ciolek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The bulk of the work on this document has been initiated and carried out at the Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, while the author was on a Nuffield Foundation Traveling Fellowship, 1978–1979.

During that time, Roger Lamb and Peter Collett of Oxford University kindly provided their comments and suggestions on the manuscript. The remainder of the work was carried out in 1982 while I was a visiting professor in the congenial environment of the Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska.

My main indebtness, however, is to my wife, Irena Goltz, without whose direct and indirect support and encouragement neither this nor other work would ever be originated, carried out, or completed. It is to her, therefore, that I direct my words of thanks and gratitude for the assistance in the work on this project.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ciolek, T.M. The proxemics lexicon: A first approximation. J Nonverbal Behav 8, 55–79 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986330

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986330

Keywords