Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Relatii Si Procese

    Caricato da

    victor902014
    3 visualizzazioni9 pagine
    relatii si procese

    Titolo originale

    relatii si procese

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    relatii si procese

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    3 visualizzazioni9 pagine

    Relatii Si Procese

    Caricato da

    victor902014
    relatii si procese

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 9
    A FIELD STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN GERMANY, ITALY. AND THE UNITED STATES ROBERT SHUTER DWARD HALL indicates that each E culture strictly regulates the dis- tance at which communicators interact and the display of physical contact.! He maintains, for example, that Italians are contact oriented—engaging in tactile dis- plays and conversing at a close distance while Americans and Germans are pri- marily noncontact interactants? Al- though Hall’s analysis of Italy, Germany, and the United States is unaccompanied by quantitative data or exhaustive anec- dotal evidence, few have examined his findings." Ashley Montagu argues without sub- stantiation that the "German family pro- dluces « rigid character which renders the average German a not very tactile be ing." Similarly, Desmond. Morris indi- cates Uhat Americans are so deprived of physical contact that they turn to second hand intimacies—a massage, a manicure, a physical examination—to satisfy their psychological desire to be touched.* Finally, the impressionistic investigations Mr, Shuter is Chairman, Department of Inter- personal Communication, Marquette University. A verson ofthis paper was presented at the 1977 meeting of the Association in Berlin. 1 Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension (New York: Books, 1 ternational Gommunication ams," Journal of Cross-Cultural Prychology, 2 (09% 130-44, ‘Montagu, Touching: The Si cance of the Skin “(New, York, Columbia versity Press, 1971), TBeamond Moreh: Intimate Behavior (New York: Random House, 1971), pp. 171-91. of Howard Montagu? and Gehring perpetuate the stereotype of the tactile Nalian, freely touching, holding, and em- bracing both in public and private. While provocative, these findings are highly speculative, since they are un- supported by reliable da Like the preceding tactility studies, the comparative proxemic research con- ducted on Germany, Italy, and the United States is mostly of a qualitative nature." However, in an experimental study, Little made an interesting discov- cry while testing Hall's observation that Italians interact at a closer distance than do Americans.” He found, unexpectedly, that the American proxemic orientation is more like that of Italiins than that of ss and Scots. ostensibly residents of act cultures like the United States, The finding suggests that the dis- tance patierns of contact and noncontact societies may be more similar than Hall » indicated. However. since Little stud- 1 interpersonal distance by measuring Jane Howard, Please Touch (New York: McGraw Hill, 1970). ‘1 Montagu, p. 260. 8 Albert Gehring, Racial Contrasts: Distin- guishing Traits of the Grazco-Latins and Teu- fons (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1908). 84, 85, and BB. jor example: Mark Knapp, Nonverbal ication in Human Interaction (New Hol, Rinehart and Winston, 1972) pp- 5455. “Volumes of folklore and Also, see Montagu, pp. 264-65. Jw Kenneth |B. Lite Cultural Variadons_ in Social Journal of Personality and Social Pochology, io (1968), 1-7. COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS, Volume 44, November 1977 FIELD STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION his subject's placement of dolls, his re- sults may be questionable. Such uncertainties encouraged the in- vestigatot to systematically examine dis tance, axis, and tactility in Germany, Italy, and the United States. Rather than develop specific hypotheses, two research questions were posed: 1. Do Germans, Italians, and Americans differ significantly in the frequency and type of con- tact in which they engage, and the distance and axis (angle) at which they interact? 2. Do male/male, male/female, and female/fe- male pairs differ signiGcantl and type of contact in which they engage, and the distance and axis (angle) at which they imeract? MetHop Materials A modified version of Hall’s notation system was used to measure the axis at which interactants conversed. With this scale, the shoulder orientation of two communicators was converted into a nu- merical score of zero to twelve. Corre- sponding to the hours on a clock, each score represented a different shoulder orientation, ranging from a face to face position (zero) to a back to back rela- tionship (twelve o'clock). Accordingly, the more indirectly individuals inter- acted, the higher the axis score. Interpersonal distance was recorded as though the interactants were nose to nose and of equal height. These judg- ‘ments were estimated to the nearest half foot. To validate field judgments the inves- tigator photographed the distance and axis at which each dyad interacted. Sev- eral hundred slides were then rated for distance and axis under laboratory con- ditions at Marquette University. Finally, a scale was used to record the st Edward T. Hall,“ tion of Proxemic pologis,65 (1985) 100826." 7A System for the Not ‘American Anthro- 299 interactants’ tactile responses. Developed by this investigator for an earlier study, the observational guide divides tactility into six behavioral categories, including contact, embrace, touch, spot touch, hold, and spot hold.!? Each is operation- ally defined as follows: contact — any type of tactile response between two interactants, embrace — a type of tactile response during which an individual wraps his arms around ‘another person's upper torso. touch ~ a type of tactile response occurring when an interactant brushes another individ- ual's limb or other bodily part. hold — a type of tactile response occurring ‘when an interactant grasps another individual's lim or other bodily part. In addition, tactile responses were cate- gorized according to the length of time the behavior was displayed, with spot touch and spot hold lasting less than two seconds, and touch and hold surpassing this time limit. Subjects ‘The dyads examined in this study were residents of either Venice Mastre, Italy; Heidelberg, Germany; or Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Conducted in the subjects’ natural environment, the investigation focused on two person groups that met the following criteria: a. The conversants had to appear at least eighteen years okt and be engaged in face to face conversation. b. The conversants had to be able to move about easily, unimpeded by physical obstacles. ¢ The conversants had to be free of objects (ie., packages) that might limit bodily con- tact. Procedure The data was gathered by two judges who walked through selected neighbor- 12 Robert Shuter, “Proxemics and Tactility in Latin America,” Journal of Communication, 26 (1976), 46-52. oe COMME hoods in Venice Mastre, Heidelberg, and Milwaukee. rating the distance, axis, and contact orientation of appropriate dyads. The research sites~parks, storefronts. ancl street corners—were located in mid- dle residential areas composed of longstanding citizens of each country. ‘These arcas were identified by consult- Rovernment officials and additional informants. To ensure that the selected dyads in Germany consisted of Germans and the pairs in Italy were composed of Italians, subject was asked to disclose his/her nationality after the dyad was rated for distance, axis, and tactility. In the United Siates, the members of each dyad were alo questioned about their nationali wo person groups composed of foreign- e1s—German and Italian immigrants in- luded—were removed from the simple. On sighting an appropriate dyad, the investigator photographed and the two judges noted the distance and axis at which communicators interacted. After the field wark was completed, each slide was rated for distance and axis at Mar- quette University by two additional judges. Interestingly, the field judges’ ratings tor each dyad! were almost identi- cal to those recorded by laboratory judges. In fact, when field and laboratory judgments were compared for both vari- ables, the reliability ratings were .86 for distance and .88 for axis. After noting the distance and axis of a selected dyacl, the judges recorded the frequency and type of physical contact in which the communicators engaged. Tactile responsiveness was judged for three minute interval to achieve com- parability between two person groups. Dyads that interacted less than three min- utes were excluded from the tactility sample. To ensure the time period was strictly observed. each judge used a stop ch, Approximately four months were SATION MONOGRAPHS: speut in the three countries examining the spatial and tactile relationship of suitable interactants, In each city data 1» collected during selected morning —10:00 i1.m.), afternoon (12:00 ) pm.), and evening (5:00 p.m. 0 pan.) hours Helwe participating in the study, each judge way trained in measuring and re- cording distance. axis, and tactility. Field judges examined the proxemic and tac- tile vrientation of two person groups in Shorewood, Wisconsin. Similarly, many practice slides of photographed pairs were evaluated Jor both distance and axis by the laboratory judges. ‘This type ol training conditioned the judges to dis- regard a subject's culture when observing an vai which . in turn, minimized any bias that might have resulted because the judges were all Americans. The taining ap- peared beneficial since the reliability rat- ings among lxboratory and field judges ~computed at the conclusion of the re- search—exceeied .87 on each of the vari- ables. RESULTS A muhtivariate analysis of variance was performed to determine if sex or culture had any significant effect on the distance and axis at which subjects interacted. The analysis revealed a significant (p <.08) interaction effect between sex and culture, Subsequently. a univariate an- alysis was conducted to ascertain which of the two variables, axis or distance, caused the rejection of the no interaction hypothesis. The results revealed that sex and culture interacted significantly (p <.01) on each of the variables. Since pairwise comparisons were plan- ned prior to the analysis, the least signifi- cant difference (Isd) multiple compari- son procedure was used to cletermine where the differences between individual FIELD STUDY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION means was significant. (Comparisons were made at the .05 level of confidence.) Axis Culiure Comparisons Within Sex Dyads. Referring to Table 1, German males interacted at a significantly (p <.05)more direct axis than did American males. The mean axis score for Italian males was greater than that for Ameri- can males and less than that for German males; however, these differences were not significant. Although there were no significant dif- ferences between cultures with respect to male/female and female dyads, Germans interacted least directly in both sex pairs. In terms of male/female pairs, Italians interacted at a more direct axis than did Americans; conversely, Ameri- cans communicated more directly among female dyads. Sex Comparisons Within Cultures. In the United States, males interacted at a significantly (p <.08) less direct axis than did female or male/female dyads. ‘Though male/female pairs conversed less directly than did females, these means were not significantly different. The pre- ceding pattern (MMUnited States> Germany), but the comparisons were not statistically significant. The proportion of female dyads who engaged in contact or touch was highest in Germany, followed by Italy, and then the United States; nevertheless, no sig- nificant differences were discovered. In contrast, the highest proportion of fe male holders was found in the United States, then Italy, and lastly Germany, though—once again—these differences were not significant. Sex Comparisons Within Cultures. Within Germany, the highest proportion of interactants who engaged in contact or touch was found among male/female pairs, followed by male dyads, and lastly female couples; however, only women differed significantly (p <.05) from the other sex pairs. In contrast, male/female son and male pairs maintained equivalent hold proportions, while female dyads had the highest proportion of holders: no significant differences were found. In America, a significantly (p <.05) higher proportion of male/female dyads engaged in contact than did female pairs or male couples—the least contact ori- ented sex dyad. The proportion of Amer- icans observed touching followed the pre- ceding pattern (MM

    Potrebbero piacerti anche