• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Dedication
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix A: The instruments-- semantic...
 Appendix B: Frequency distribution...
 Appendix C: Correlation coefficients...
 Appendix D: Correlation coefficients...
 Appendix E: ANOVAS for individual...
 Appendix F: Significant personal...
 Appendix G: Variances for individual...
 References
 Biographical sketch














Group Title: development of personal space and personal time perspective
Title: The development of personal space and personal time perspective
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099534/00001
 Material Information
Title: The development of personal space and personal time perspective
Physical Description: xv, 169 leaves. : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Wagner, Peggy Jo, 1949-
Publication Date: 1975
Copyright Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Space perception   ( lcsh )
Time perception   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 162-168.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Peggy Jo Wagner.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099534
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000580849
oclc - 14090368
notis - ADA8954

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 7 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Dedication
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
        Page v
    Table of Contents
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    List of Tables
        Page ix
        Page x
    List of Figures
        Page xi
        Page xii
    Abstract
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
    Method
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Results
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
    Discussion
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
    Appendix A: The instruments-- semantic differential and time related questions
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
    Appendix B: Frequency distribution of not responding to each measure of personal space
        Page 145
        Page 146
    Appendix C: Correlation coefficients and corresponding sample sizes for composite personal space measures and comparisons
        Page 147
        Page 148
    Appendix D: Correlation coefficients and corresponding sample sizes for personal time perspective measures
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
    Appendix E: ANOVAS for individual personal space measurements
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
    Appendix F: Significant personal time perspective ANOVAS
        Page 156
        Page 157
    Appendix G: Variances for individual personal space measures
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
    References
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
    Biographical sketch
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
Full Text














THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONAL SPACE AND
PERSONAL TIME PERSPECTIVE













By

PEGCY JO WAGNER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY













UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1975































































Copyright 1975

by

Peggy Jo Wagner



































To MaAv--and the Kidcs


















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I would like to thank my chairman, Dr. Marvin E. Shaw, for doing more

than a chairman is required to do. He helped and advised me at all stages

of this project, but of greater importance, he gave me moral support and

friendship and was always available when I needed him. I would also like

to thank Dr. Lawrence J. Severy for his help in recruiting a team of assis-

tants and especially for his aid in the process of data collection and

analysis. My appreciation also goes to Dr. Barry Guinagh, Dr. Barry Lester

and Dr. Norman Markel for serving as members of my supervisory committee.

Thanks also goes to Pat Burris, Jim Rogoff, Regina Kelly, and Dale

Hamilton for serving as stimulus persons. Linda Bradmiller and Sharon

Hatch were invaluable as interviewers. Michael Priser and Teddi Atkins

helped greatly in the data collection process. All of these persons were

extremely cooperative and patient in a situation which frequently was hec-

tic and time consuming.

I would like to acknowledge the P.K. Yonge Laboratory School teachers

and research personnel who gave their time and advice. They were extremely

cooperative in allowing the use of their facilities and students. Each

student is also recognized for his/her help in this project.

The parents of the four year old subjects are to be recognized for

their voluntary commitment to participate. In all cases this meant in-

cluding a trip to P.K. Yonge in an already busy daily schedule. Although

their names are too numerous to mention, I express great thanks to them

for this service.













I would like to thank Nancy Ashton and Barbara Mitchell for helping

me with many technical tasks I could not complete long distance. My

typist, Lynne Day, also helped and advised me with many things arising

from a distance problem.

Finally, thanks go to Wayne for loving me.






















TABLE OF CONTENTS



PAGE



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... . . . . . . .... . . . iv


LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . ix


LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . ... . . . . ... xi


ABSTRACT. .. .. .. ............ . . . ... xiii


Chapters


INTRODUCTION . . . . .... .


Relation to Other Areas of Social and Devel
Psychology. ........ . . . .


Personal Space . . . .
Personal Time Perspective . . . .


Personal Space...... . . . . .


Conceptualization . . . . .
Literature Review..... . . .


Personal Time Perspective . . . . .


Conceptualization . . . . .
Literature Review . . . . .


Personal Space and Personal Time Perspectiv


Theoretical Framework . . . . .


Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development
Rotter's Social Learning Theory. . .


Derivation of Hypotheses. . . . . .


Personal Space . . . . .
Personal Time Perspective. . . . .
Personal Space and Personal Time Perspect


Summary of Hypotheses . . .. ..


opmental


3


3
5


.6


6



.20


..20
..26


..31


..32


..33
..35
. . . . 3


. . . . 3
. . . .

. . . .


. . . . 44
. . . . 20


. . . . 20
. . . . 26


. . . . 31


. . . .32


. . . .33
. . . .35


. . . . 38


. . . . 38
. . . . 41
ive . . .42


. . . .44


t


e













PAGE


II METHOD. . . . . . . . .... . . . 46

Sample Selection. ..... . . . . . . . 46

Subjects . . . . . . . .... .. . .46
Socioeconomic Status . . . . . . . .. .46

Instruments . . ........ . . . . .49

Personal Space .. . . . . . . . .49
Personal Time Perspective. . . . ... .. ... .55

Design. . . . . . . .. .. . . . 58

Standard Design. .. . . . . . . . .58
Three Year Old Subjects. . . . . . ... .60
Experimenters. ...... . . . . . . . .60

Procedure . . . . . . . . . ... .63

Standard Procedure (Seven, Eleven and Fifteen
Year Olds) ..... .. . . . . ... .63
Nineteen Year Olds .. . . . . . . .66
Three Year Olds. ... . ............ .66

III RESULTS .. . . . . . . . . . .69

Preliminary Analysis. . . . . . . . .. .69

Personal Space ... . . . . . . .69
Personal Time Perspective .. . . . . . .70

Comparison of Measures .. .. .. ........... .72

Personal Space .. . . . . . . . .72
Personal Time Perspective. . . . . . .. .74

Description of Principle Analyses . . . . ... .77

Personal Space . . . . . . . . . .77
Personal Time Perspective. . . . . . . ..78
Personal Space and Personal Time Perspective ... .78
Follow-up Tests . . . . . .. . . . .86

Testing the Hypotheses. . . . . .. . .86

Personal Space--Hypotheses One to Four ..... .86
Personal Time Perspective--Hypotheses Five and Six 101
Personal Space and Iersonal Time Perspective--
Hypotheses Seven through Ten . . . . .. 110













PAGE



Additional Findings. . . . .. . .... .. 116

Personal Space .... ... .. . .. . .. ..116
Personal Time Perspective . . .. . .. ..117
Personal Space and Personal Time Perspective. . .122

IV DISCUSSION .... . . . . . .. ... .123

Personal Space .. .... . . . . . . .124

Personal Time Perspective. .. . . . .... .128

Personal Space and Personal Time Perspective . .. .134

Conclusions. . . .. ... . . . . .. .. 137

APPENDIX A TIME INSTRUMENTS--SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL AND
TIME RELATED QUESTIONS . . . . . ... .140

APPENDIX B FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF NOT RESPONDING TO
EACH MEASURE OF PERSONAL SPACE . . . ... .145

APPENDIX C CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND CORRESPONDING
SAMPLE SIZES FOR COMPOSITE PERSONAL SPACE
MEASURES COMPARISONS . . . . . .147

APPENDIX D CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND CORRESPONDING
SAMPLE SIZES FOR PERSONAL TIME PERSPECTIVE
MEASURES . . . .. . . . . . . . .149

APPENDIX E ANOVAS FOR INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL SPACE
MEASUREMENTS ....... . . . . . . .152

APPENDIX F SIGNIFICANT PERSONAL TIME PERSPECTIVE ANOVAS . .156

APPENDIX G VARIANCES FOR INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL SPACE MEASURES .158

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 162


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . .


.169


















LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE


1 Mean Age and Standard Deviation in Years of
Ss at Five Ages 47

2 The Income Distribution of Seven, Eleven, and
Fifteen Year Old Male and Female Ss based on the
First SES Ranges 48

3 The Income Distribution of All Age by Sex Groups
based on Current SES Ranges 50

4 The Frequency of Time Interviews per Experimenter
for Each Age by Sex Group 61

5 The Frequency of Space Interviews per Experimenter
for Each Age by Sex Group 62

6 The Frequency of Three Degrees of Parental Contact
with Three Year Old Subjects 67

7 Correlations of Similar Constructs Across Methods
and the Percent of Variance Accounted for by the
Correlations 73

8 Correlations of Semantic Differential Time Measures
and Percent of Variance Accounted for by the
Correlations 75

9 Correlations of Formula Derived Time Measures
and Percent of Variance Accounted for by the
Correlations 76

10 Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Felt
Board Measure of Personal Space 79

11 Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Paper
and Pencil Measure of Personal Space 80

12 Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the
Behavioral Measures of Personal Space 81













TABLE


13 Analysis of Variance of z-Scores Utilizing
All Three Measures of Personal Space 82

14 Analysis of Variance of Past Time Perspective 83

15 Analysis of Variance of Future Time Perspective 84

16 Correlations of Mean Composite Personal Space
Scores and Formula Derived Time Scores,
Correcting for Reduced Variance and Personal Space 85

17 Variance Changes with Age in Mean Personal
Space Scores 92

18 Significant Past Time Perspective and Mean
Space Score Correlations 115

19 Age Changes in Past Time Perspective and Future
Time Perspective using Age Based Dependent
Measures 121

20 The Correlation Coefficients and Corresponding
Sample Sizes for the Composite Personal Space
Measures Comparisons 148

21 The Correlation Coefficients and Corresponding
Sample Sizes for the Personal Time Perspective
Measures 150

22 ANOVA for the Felt Board Measures 153

23 ANOVA for the Paper and Pencil Measures 154

24 ANOVA for the Behavioral Measures

25 The Significant Personal Time Perspective ANOVAS 157

26 Variances of the Felt Board Measures 159

27 Variances of the Paper and Pencil Measures 160

28 Variances of the Behavioral Measures 161


















LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURE PAGE


1 THE PAPER AND PENCIL PERSONAL SPACE MEASURE 52

2 AN EXAMPLE OF THE MALE AND FEMALE STIMULII USED
IN THE FELT BOARD TECHNIQUE 54

3 A DIAGRAM OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ROOM 56

4 AGE CHANGES IN PERSONAL SPACE MEASURED BY THE
FELT BOARD INSTRUMENT 87

5 AGE CHANGES IN PERSONAL SPACE MEASURED BY THE
PAPER AND PENCIL INSTRUMENT 88

6 AGE CHANGES IN PERSONAL SPACE MEASURED BY THE
BEHAVIORAL MEASURE 89

7 AGE CHANGES IN PERSONAL SPACE MEASURED BY THE
COMPOSITE z-SCORES 91

8 THE SIGNIFICANT AGE x SEX OF S x SEX OF STIMULUS
PERSON INTERACTION WITH THE FELT BOARD DEPENDENT
VARIABLE 96

9 THE SIGNIFICANT AGE x SEX OF S x SEX OF STIMULUS
PERSON INTERACTION WITH THE PAPER AND PENCIL
DEPENDENT VARIABLE 97

10 THE SIGNIFICANT AGE x SEX x SEX OF STIMULUS PERSON
INTERACTION WITH THE z-SCORE COMPOSITE MEASURE
AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE 99

11 THE SIGNIFICANT SEX OF S x ACE INTERACTION WITH
THE BEHAVIORAL DEPENDENT MEASURE IN RELATION TO
FEMALES 100

12 THE ACE x SEX OF S INTERACTION USING THE BEHAVIORAL
DEPENDENT MEASURE 102

13 THE SIGNIFICANT SEX OF S x SEX OF STIMULUS PERSON
INTERACTION WITH THE FELT BOARD DEPENDENT VARIABLE 103












FIGURE


14 THE SIGNIFICANT SEX OF S x SEX OF STIMULUS PERSON
INTERACTION WITH THE PAPER AND PENCIL DEPENDENT
MEASURE 104

15 CHANGES WITH AGE IN PAST TIME PERSPECTIVE USING
THE TIME FORMULA DERIVED MEASURE AS DEPENDENT
VARIABLE 106

16 CHANGES WITH AGE IN PAST TIME PERSPECTIVE USING
THE NUMBER RELATED QUESTIONS AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE 107

17 CHANGES WTTH AGE IN PAST TIME PERSPECTIVE USING
THE NUMBER OF REPORTED EVENTS AS THE DEPENDENT
VARIABLE 108

18 CHANGES WITH AGE IN PAST TIME PERSPECTIVE USING
THE MEAN EVALUATIVE SCORE ON THE SEMANTIC DIFFER-
ENTIAL ITEMS AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE 109

19 CHANGES WITH AGE IN FUTURE TIME PERSPECTIVE
USING THE NUMBER OF TIME RELATED QUESTIONS AS
THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE 111

20 THE SIGNIFICANT AGE x SEX INTERACTION USING THE
MEAN FUTURE IMPORTANCE AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE 112

21 THE SIGNIFICANT AGE x SEX INTERACTION USING THE
MEMBER OF FUTURE TIME RELATED QUESTIONS AS THE
DEPENDENT VARIABLE 113

22 THE SIGNIFICANT AGE x FAMILIARITY INTERACTION
USING THE FELT BOARD INSTRUMENT 118

23 THE SIGNIFICANT AGE x FAMILIARITY INTERACTION
USING THE PAPER AND PENCIL INSTRUMENT 119


PAGE













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONAL SPACE AND
PERSONAL TIME PERSPECTIVE

by

Peggy Jo Wagner

March, 1975

Chairman: Marvin E. Shaw
Major Department: Psychology

The purpose of this study was threefold: to observe developmental

changes in personal space, to examine trends in personal time perspective

across age and to investigate the relationship of personal space and

personal time perspective. One hundred twenty children, twenty-four

of each of five different age groups (three, seven, eleven, fifteen and

nineteen), served as subjects. Three measures of personal space (placement,

simulation and behavioral) were obtained. The primary measure of personal

time perspective was conceptually derived and consisted of listing events

at specific ages in each time domain (past, present, future) and evalua-

ting these events on an importance dimension. Answers to a series of

time related questions and semantic differential ratings of each time

domain were also collected. All measures were administered in interview

sessions with one of three female experimenters.

In the area of personal space, a significant increase in personal

space size was observed from age three to seven, with a decrease there-

after until a stable size was reached around age fifteen. Variance in

personal space behavior decreased with age. These changes occur at ages


xiii













consistent with changing reinforcements for interpersonal contact and

changing cognitive development.

Two findings in the area of sex differences in personal space were

observed. First, there was a significant decrease in personal space

size in relation to opposite sex persons after the age when sex appro-

priate behaviors are fully learned. Second, this decrease in personal

space in relation to opposite sex persons was accompanied, in males only,

by an increase in personal space in relation to same sex persons. Explana-

tion for this finding was in terms of more stringent reward and punish-

ment systems for males in this culture.

Three major findings occurred in the examination of personal time

perspective. First, past time perspective increased with increasing age.

Changing reinforcements for emphasis of past events as well as changes

in ability to store events and general cognitive development were dis-

cussed as reasons for this predicted result. Second, there was no corres-

ponding increase in future time perspective with increasing age. Changes

in expectations of receiving future rewards, increased realism, and an

increased trend of living for the present may account for the failure to

support this hypothesis. Third, a differentiation of critical life

periods for males and females was observed. Females viewed high school

as the peak time of importance, whereas males still reported future im-

portance after high school graduation. This may be due to current fluc-

tuating expectations of the female role.

The relationship between personal space and personal time perspec-

tive was generally not supported. Several theoretical and methodological

reasons are possible. First, further research needs to test the assumption













that past and future time perspective are means of increasing interper-

sonal contact. Second, a more sensitive measure of present time perspec-

tive must be developed in order to examine the relationship between

present time perspective and personal space. Finally, the failure to

support the personal space and personal time perspective connection may

be due to the inclusion of non-social events in the derivation of the

personal time perspective scores.


















CHAPTER 1


INTRODUCTION


Historically psychologists have been concerned with the relationship

of space and time in a physical sense. Research has typically investi-

gated how the individual learns to quantify and perceive physical space,

and similarly how he experiences time as measured by a man-made instrument

utilizing a derived scale. The relationship between space and time has

also been conceptualized in this physical manner. Although the rela-

tionship of these two physical dimensions has not been conclusively

identified, the purpose of this paper is to present a new approach to

the connection of time and space. This approach is innovative in that it

is an attempt to relate personal and psychological usages of space and

time.

The individual's perceptions and judgments about the situation in

which he exists have been demonstrated to effect the behavior of that

individual. E. T. Hall [1959] stated that all of man's behavior operates

within the two interrelated dimensions of space and time. Accepting this

thesis, it seems that the behavior of any person is determined by his

perceptions of the environment in a spatial sence, as it currently exists,

and also his perceptions of his environment in a temporal sense, as it

has existed and will exist. Thus the attributions that influence an

individual's behavior derive both from temporal and spatial surroundings.

If the effects of the environment are broadened to include both

temporal and spatial phenomena, then what needs to be considered about












space and time is not their objective standardized and measurable exis-

tence in a physical world, but rather individual perceptions and inter-

pretations of their effects. Therefore space and time will be considered

in a limited and subjective manner. The term "space" will be restricted

to the concept of personal space which can be briefly defined as the

area surrounding the person's body into which unwanted intrusion causes

discomfort [Sommer, 1969]. Time is similarly limited to the concept of

personal time perspective or the relative importance of the past, present

and future in the individual's life. These usages of time and space are

personal and directly involve the individual's utilization and interpre-

tation of the two dimensions.

This approach does not in any way deny the importance of time and

space in physical terms. Rather it advances the notion of their inter-

relatedness into a new domain. Further, as Piaget [1969] stated, it may

be that the personal concepts derive from the physical and that in order

for one to be completely cognizant of the psychological dimensions, one

must understand physical laws. This paper does not deal with the question

of the causal relationship of physical and psychological time and space

but asserts that both the psychological and physical dimensions are

learned phenomena. That is, as the child becomes increasingly aware of

his environment spatially and temporally, he becomes more knowledgeable

of both sorts of dimensions. As Piaget stated, "at all stages, .

psychological time is based on physical time and vice versa" [Piaget,

1969, p. 217]. The suggestion of Piaget that "space is a still of time,

while time is space in motion--the two taken together constitute the

totality of the ordered relationships characterizing objects and their

displacements ." [Piaget, 19i6, p. 2], and those of Hall [1959] and













Sommer [1972] that time and space interact and influence each other are

examined in this paper. Therefore the major purpose is to study such

an interaction between personal space and personal time perspective.

Further, since these phenomena do not seem to be present in very young

infants, yet are present in most adults, it seems that they are acquired

developmentally. Thus personal space and personal time perspective will

be studied developmentally in children of various ages.



Relation to Other Areas of Social and Developmental Psychology


A study of these "personal" uses of space and time will provide impor-

tant information for several traditionally researched areas in social and

developmental psychology. It is not the purpose of the present paper to

identify the complete potential of personal space and personal time per-

spective research to other areas more commonly examined. Therefore a

few specific possibilities will be briefly discussed only in order to

demonstrate the feasibility of relating personal space and personal time

perspective to other trends of research in psychology.


Personal Space

Affiliation and attachment. These areas of research have in common

the formation of a bond of attachment between one individual and another.

Social psychologists have sought to understand why people affiliate

[Schacter, 1959] and seek each others' company. Developmental psycholo-

gists [Cohen, 1974] have attempted to understand the formation of the

specific attachment of a child and his most intimate companion--usually

his mother. Various measurement techniques have been developed to mea-

sure these relationships. Spatial distances lend themselves easily as













indicators of affiliation. Personal space is, perhaps, another indicator

of these behaviors. If so, then a developmental study of personal space

yields important information about the formation of relationships with

various others. The potential linkage of these areas needs to be examined.

Attitude formation. Similarly personal space has possible validity

as an unobtrusive measure of attitudes toward other persons. The larger

the distance maintained between two persons, the less likely they are to

be friends. Again further validation of this idea needs to be obtained.

Attribution. Attributions made about other persons are based on the

behavior of those persons. Behaviors uncommon to most individuals lead

to more definite attributions of a personal characteristic [Jones, E.,

Kanouse, D., Kelley, H., Nisbett, R., Valins, S., Weiner, B., 1971].

Uncommon use of personal space behavior in relation to a specific stimulus

person will thus cause attribution to be made about the individual using

such uncommon personal space. A developmental study allows the examina-

tion of changes in personal space usage in relation to specific others

with changes in age. Perhaps the characteristics typically labeled as

adolescent are due to uncommon or "unadult" usages of personal space. A

developmental perspective permits the study of adolescent behavior in

these terms. For example, the gang phenomenon observed in young adoles-

cents [Dunphy, 1963] is merely the changing use of personal space in

relation to friends.

Personal space has importance in other areas of research also, but

these examples support the utility of a developmental study of personal

space behavior.













Personal Time Perspective

Affiliation and attachment. The formation of attachment bonds occurs

in a temporal as well as a spatial sense. An extremely strong bond formed

in early childhood would tend to increase the personal importance of the

past for an individual. Thus if no past time perspective is found, it

may be due to a minimal level of attachment to persons in the past. A

developmental study of personal time perspective allows examination of

changes in emotional affiliation as age increases.

Cognitive development. The relevance of a developmental study of

personal time perspective to stages of cognitive development as suggested

by Piaget [1957] seems obvious and crucial. In order to form a personal

time perspective the child must have attained a certain level of cognitive

ability. Further, the personal use of time perspective is directly

related to the ability to understand physical notions of time. These

possibilities are discussed in more detail later (see Personal Time Per-

spective--Influence of cognitive development).

Personal time perspective has potential importance in other areas

of social and developmental psychology but these examples serve to demon-

strate its importance as a research area.

A developmental study of the relationship of personal space and

personal time perspective thus has importance for social and develop-

mental psychology. Before stating the specific hypotheses which will be

examined in this paper, it is necessary to clearly define personal space

and personal time perspective and to briefly review previous literature.












Personal Space


Conceptualization

Definition. Personal space is a specific utilization of general

space by a person to maintain comfortable interaction distances. The

idea of personal space as developed by Little, Hall, Sommer and Kuethe

involves a spatial area surrounding the individual into which intrusion

causes discomfort. Tt is an area, physically measurable which is, in

essence, the self-boundary of the person; the area which he feels is

uniquely his. For this reason it has been likened to a "portable terri-

tory," a physical area to which a person claims ownership. Thus personal

space is the physical area beyond a person's body, which extends into

space in general, which a person feels belongs to him.

Several variables have been found which specifically influence this

physical area. First, personal space is dependent on the culture of the

individual, with some cultures demonstrating consistently larger personal

spaces than others [Hall, 1959]. Second, personal space size varies

with the situation. A person interacting in a crowded subway may be able

to withstand much smaller interpersonal distances than a person in a

sparsely populated room in a museum. A person may experience discomfort

in either situation, but when situational norms permit closeness the

discomfort will occur at a closer distance than when situational norms

call for large interpersonal distances. Thus in a museum one does not

stand too close to another person since the sparsity and formality demand

maintenance of large distances. In a crowded subway one cannot claim

very much space, and extreme closeness must be evident for a personal

space violation to occur. When discomfort is experienced in either













situation, personal space has been invaded. Thus acceptable personal

space size may in extremely crowded situations diminish to zero [Sommer,

1969].

Third, the relationship in which the individual is functioning has

an effect on the size of personal space. Interaction in intimate, friendly

relationships yields consistently smaller personal spaces than a stranger-

stranger relationship [Hall, 1966]. Finally, personal space is an indi-

vidual, personal characteristic which is evidenced over time [Sommer,

1969]. Thus personal space, even though it is an individualized tendency,

is influenced by the culture, the situation and the type of relationship

in which a person is enmeshed at any particular time.

Because personal space size is influenced by these surrounding

factors, it appears that many characteristic personal spaces are used by

any one individual. Further, in extremely intimate situations, the person

may feel no intrusion at all, thus personal space is zero. Thus the

definition of "personal space" is actually a composite term describing

the characteristic "bubble" surrounding a person in every possible situa-

tion. Obviously measurement of this "bubble" in all situations is impos-

sible, therefore, the term personal space will be used here in conjunc-

tion with the particular situation in which it was measured. It was

stated above that personal space is a relatively consistent personal

characteristic. In terms of a "characteristic" personal space, this

means that persons in various situations tend to use consistently greater

or smaller personal spaces as compared to other persons in similar

situations.

This interpretation of personal space can become extremely trivial

if the uniqueness of each situation is emphasized. However, generally













speaking, personal space for similar situations and relationships are

very much alike. Thus there is an appropriate personal space for close

friends, and another one for strangers and enemies. An individual would

maintain a similar personal space size in relation to all close friends.

Thus one can view a continuum of types of personal space dependent on

the relationship of the two interacting persons (holding situation con-

stant). Further this is true for situations--there is a characteristic

personal space for museums and another one for subways (holding the

relationship constant).

Indeed Hall [1966] has delineated four distance zones for the Ameri-

can culture, each with a near and far phase, which are dependent on the

relationship and the situation. Intimate distance, varying from zero to

eighteen inches, involves situations and relationships classified as

intimate. Touching is easily possible and contact is maximum. Use of

this distance in public is not considered proper by American norms.

Personal distance, which ranges from one to four feet, is conceptualized

by Hall as the "protective sphere" that an individual maintains around

his body. Again this zone depends on the relationship between the persons.

"A wife can stay inside the circle of her husband's close personal zone

with impunity. For another woman to do so is an entirely different

story" [Hall, 1966, p. 120]. The third distance is social distance

ranging from four to twelve feet. It is in this range that business

and casual social interactions are conducted. Social distance is also

used to maintain privacy even in close relationships. Finally, public

distance (twelve feet or more) is used on formal occasions and by high

status persons to maintain distance from the public.













Basically it seems that the resultant personal space is determined

by two factors--the individual's attitude toward the other persons) and

the individual's belief about appropriate distancing in the particular

situation in which they are interacting. Thus personal space is a

behavior influenced by an attitude and a belief in a norm. It can, how-

ever, be used as indicative solely of the individual's attitude if the

situation is appropriately interpreted or no norms are available.

A further limitation should be placed on the concept of personal

space as used here. It is restricted to interaction with other animate

beings. It is possible that intrusion by physical barriers and objects

may cause discomfort, but this aspect of personal space invasion is not

considered in this paper. Occasionally measurement in relation to an

object such as a hat rack has been used as indicative of personal space

size. However, since a major characteristic of personal space is that

it is used to maintain comfortable interaction distances, personal space

necessarily can be measured only with other persons. This distinction

is critical when differentiating crowding behavior from personal space

(see below).

Related terms. Literature dealing with spatial concerns has evolved

under several different semantic labels; crowding, proxemics, individual

distance as well as personal space. These areas all have in common the

use of space by persons in interpersonal situations, yet each approach

is in itself unique. Crowding occurs when many people are in a reduced

physical area leading to increased density (number of persons per cubic

foot). It depends on the number of people as well as the area size and

may be created either by increasing the number of people or decreasing

the area or some combination of both. Crowds of people result in reduced













individual distances which may or may not result in violations of the

personal space needs of the individual. The critical factor in deter-

mining whether or not personal space is violated is whether the person

experiences discomfort from these intrusions. Thus for some people a

large number of persons will not produce an experience of crowdedness.

Indeed Milgram [1970] suggests that in very crowded surroundings, such

as New York subways, other persons are treated as non-humans and thus

personal space is not violated. However, it seems likely that personal

spaces would tend to be more frequently invaded in a crowded as opposed

to an uncrowded situation.

A further problem in utilizing "crowding" literature is the differen-

tiation of two types of crowding: too many people and too many things.

In dealing with personal space, other people seem necessarily involved.

Most empirical research induces crowding by a combination of reduced

space and increased number of people although theoretically it would be

possible to be crowded solely by objects. However in utilizing "crowding"

research as indicative of personal space development, only that which

deals with interpersonal crowding will be reviewed.

Individual distance has been described as "the characteristic

spacing of species members" [Sommer, 1969]. Individual distance neces-

sarily involves two or more persons and the culturally accepted spacing

between them. In comparison with personal space, measurement techniques

are similar (placing two felt figures on a board or having one person

approach another). However a major difference exists. Individual dis-

tance is one specific distance between two persons in terms of a vector-

ial measurement whereas personal space is the space totally surrounding

one person. Inother words, measurement of individual distance is the













identification of one of an infinite number of points on the boundary of

an individual's personal space. However due to the similarity of measure-

ment techniques, personal space research is essentially individual

distance research.

Finally, proxemics is a term used to describe a person's bodily

orientation in space in relation to other people. It is a global term

which includes individual distance, and other dimensions such as angle of

body and/or head towards another person. This concept is specifically

relevant for personal space only when using the individual distance mea-

surement although similar results are often obtained for angle of orien-

tation. However, for purposes of simplicity, only individual distance

measurements in proxemics will be used as relevant for personal space

concepts.


Literature Review

Relevant literature will be described in three areas: crowding,

proxemics, and individual distance/personal space. They are reviewed

below as applicable to the developmental study of spacing behavior and

with reference to possible sex differences.

Crowding. If people are aware of space, then the removal of space

by increasing density should elicit differences in behavior. In an

observational study of 20 children, ages two to three, Bates [1971]

found that behaviors of the children changed as the group size increased

or the density increased. She found that girls spent more time alone,

tended to play in smaller groups, played significantly more often with

same sex children, spent more time in the least used area of the room

and increased in number of inter.itions of a conflict nature in the high













density situation. Boys similarly increased the percentage of conflict

interactions but they, however, tended to play in larger groups. In a

similar study of four and five year olds Loo [1972] found that in a 48-

minute free play situation there was overall reduction of aggression,

more interruption and more time in solitary play in a high density than

in a low density setting. In viewing sex differences, boys overall were

more aggressive than girls, whereas females were more nurturant and inter-

rupted other children more. Boys were more aggressive in the low density

than in the high density environment. Even at age three, increasing den-

sity and presumably therefore decreasing personal space caused varied

behavioral effects.

Evidence from studies of adult crowding supports ideas of sexual

differences. For example, Freedman [1971] found that in a crowded jury

situation, men became more severe in their sentencing and females more

lenient. Men reported that they found the experience less pleasant,

liked each other less and thought they were a poor rather than good jury

in the crowded as opposed to the uncrowded situation. Women found the

crowded situation more pleasant and thought the other members were

friendlier and more likeable. Further they believed they were a good

jury. It is surprising that all these sex differences disappeared when

mixed-sex groups were run. It is possible that different role expecta-

tions are evoked when opposite sex members are present. This could be

caused by an increased concern with interpersonal affairs rather than the

situation when the opposite sex is present. Overall, however, there is

strong support for sex differences in crowding effects.

Proxemics. Proxemic patterning studies deal with the way people

place themselves in interpersonal situations including such variables as












angle of orientation to others as well as interpersonal distancing in the

interaction. The use of interpersonal distancing seems directly coor-

dinate to the concept of personal space and it is usually this spacing

which is a main measure of proxemic behavior. Viewed this way several

studies have been conducted which yield information about the development

of such a concept.

Markey [1971] specifically studied the ontogenesis of proxemic be-

havior in school children. She studied this behavior in 45 males and 45

females in nine different school grades by having them place felt figures

on a board at appropriate and comfortable distances. She found that boys

and girls placed the figures similarly and that older subjects, regard-

less of sex, placed the figures farther apart than younger subjects. She

concluded that proxemic behavior is a socially learned process and that

as subjects get older they learn to more accurately represent adult be-

havior. Her failure to find sex differences for this behavior is sur-

prising but may have been caused by a small sample size as well as the

use of a figure placement technique instead of observation of actual

behavior.

Aiello and Jones [1971] studied ethnic and sex differences in proxe-

mic behavior in first and second grade children. Observations of indivi-

dual distances and angle of orientation were made in a free-play, outdoor

setting. They found that significant differences across sexes were

particularly noticeable in white children, with white males using a

greater interpersonal distance than white females. In a more recent

study, the same authors [Jones and Aiello, 1973] also studied third and

fifth grade black and white children, this time in a controlled class-

room interaction. In this case the effect of sex was more confused,













with black females using the closest distance and white females the

greatest, with black and white males intermediate. None of the differ-

ences were statistically reliable. This confusing interaction could

have resulted from their failure to separate the effect of different

sex stimulus persons.

Several proxemics studies yield evidence that increased familiarity

and similarity are correlated with decreased distance. McGrew and

McGrew [1972] found that as the length of stay of three year olds at

local nursery schools increased, their spacing in relation to other

children decreased. Further if Ss had older siblings at the same nursery

school, they used less space initially. Castell [1970] similarly found

a decrease in interpersonal distance in one and one-half and three year

olds as social and physical familiarity increased. King [1966] found

that increasing friendly interactions in three to five year olds led to

a decrease in distancing regardless of sex. Using adults, Allgeier and

Byrne [1973] found that both males and females stood closer to a liked

than a disliked member of the opposite sex. These studies suggest that

interpersonal distance is affected by physical and social familiarity

and liking in the same way that personal space has been shown to be

affected by relationship and situation variables.

There are several difficulties in generalizing results from proxe-

mic behavior to personal space. First, proxemic behavior is usually

studied with actual conversation occurring between subjects. Verbal

communication needs may influence and counter-affect any personal space

norms that may be present. Second, the situation is particularly variable

across proxemic studies as natural observations are often used. Situa-

tions vary from.a playground [Aiello and Jones, 1971] to a zoo [Baxter,













1970] to a controlled classroom [Jones and Aiello, 1973]. Each situation

tends to produce different effects. Third, interpersonal distance is

in only one direction from the subject to the stimulus person whereas

personal space is a space surrounding an individual completely. However,

it does seem that many of the methods for measuring proxemic behavior are

similar or identical to those used in measuring personal space, and for

this reason perhaps the differences are mainly limited to the use of

different terms as descriptive of the same behavior.

In reviewing crowding and proxemic literature, two findings are

evident. First, there is a developmental trend demonstrating increasing

use of distance with increasing age. However this is based only on the

data presented by Markey [1971]. Second, evidence of sex differences is

strongly prevalent. Freedman [1971] found that females are more comfort-

able in crowded situations than males. Aiello and Jones [1971] found

that males use more space than females. However Jones and Aiello [1973]

found the reverse pattern, although not statistically significant, that

females use more space than males. Loo [1972] found that males were less

aggressive in a high density than in a low density environment. Markey

[1971] found no sex differences at all but her sample size was very small.

In summary, there is evidence that there is increasing use of interper-

sonal space with increasing age. Further females use less space than

males although this difference is not always present.

Personal space and individual distance. Several studies concerned

with either individual distance or personal space have employed similar

methodologies and are combined here for that reason. Russo [1971] studied

interpersonal distance and eye contact relations in male and female

children in kindergarten and grades three and six. She found that













interpersonal distance did not increase with age. However, females sat

closer to other females than males sat to males, with this difference

being greatest in the third grade. Variance was greater in male than in

female behavior and tended to increase with age. It is possible that the

failure to find increasing trends in distance is due to the fact that

such concepts have not yet been learned by the child. With the increa-

sing variance in male behavior it may be that what is appropriate is not

apparent to the child. Trends may also be wiped out by the inclusion of

only three sampling points.

Pederson [1973] studied personal space developmentally in grades one

to six using eleven male and eleven female Ss in each grade. He utilized

a figure placement technique in which cut out pictures of adults (male/

female) and children (male/female) were placed by the subject at a com-

fortable distance to a cutout representing S. He found no consistent

trend in development. However, male and female personal space sizes were

roughly parallel with males having a larger size. Initially there were

no differences, but by the third grade males had significantly larger

personal spaces. Pederson also found various significant interactions

dependent on the sex of the stimulus person. Both males and females

placed opposite sex peers closest to themselves at all ages. This is

surprising since it is generally believed that children of these ages

like to maintain a large distance from opposite sex children [Sutton-

Smith, B., Rosenberg, B., Morgan, E.F. Jr., 1963; Dunphy, 1963].

Meisels and Guardo [1969] and Guardo [1969] found that children use

less space as they grow older and that they change and prefer closer

proximity to the opposite sex aroiid grade six or seven. This contrasts

Pederson's findings that an opposite sex attraction is present at all













ages. They also demonstrated that the use of less space by females than

males is dependent upon the person with whom they are interacting. If

the stimulus person is described as someone disliked or feared (negative

affect), females used significantly more space than males. Further, in

positive affect situations children show a developmental pattern of in-

creasing distances with same sex peers around the time they learn to use

smaller distances with opposite sex peers. Thus there seems to be a

reversal of intimacy patterns around grade six or seven or the beginning

of adolescence.

Lerner [1973] studied personal space development of children in

kindergarten through third grade in relation to three types of body

build ectomorphh, endomorph and mesomorph) of the other person. Using

a felt board instrument, he found that third graders used the most space.

However, his developmental trends were not unidirectional and first

graders used less space than kindergartners. He also found that females

used significantly more space than males. This contradicts most of the

sex difference literature presented below hut may confirm Meisels and

Guardo's [1969] results suggesting that sex differences are dependent on

the affect of the situation. Perhaps females were more negatively affected

by body build than males, producing a negative relationship and thus in-

creased use of distance.

Fry and Willis [1971] studied personal space developmentally but in

a manner reversed from other researchers. They attempted to determine

the age at which a child is treated as an adult when he invades an adult's

space. They had male and female children aged five, eight or ten invade

male and female adults'personal spaces in a public setting. Observers

rated the adults'behavior on the frequency of moving away, leaning away,












and amount of excessive motor behavior. Generally adults turned toward,

smiled at and spoke to five year olds. Eight year olds were ignored and

ten year olds evoked negative reactions from the adult. Mechanisms of

escape from ten year olds were different for male and female adults.

Men used barriers such as hanging their coat over their arm, whereas

women tended to use physical behavior such as shifting weight from one

foot to another. Thus adults expect children by the age of ten to have

developed appropriate personal space standards.

Several attempts have been made to differentiate male and female

personal space behavior. Generally females seem to have smaller personal

spaces than males [Hartnett, Bailey and Gibson, 1970; Hiat, 1971; Kassover,

1972; Klukken, 1972; Leibman, 1970; Pellegrini and Empey, 1970; Sommer,

1962]. However, personal space size seems to be equally effected by the

sex of the other person; that is, subjects are usually asked to approach

a male or a female and stop at a comfortable distance. Females sit closer

to a female stimulus person than males to a male stimulus person [Sommer,

1959; Pellegrini and Empey, 1970]. Both males and females stand closer

to a female than to a male. Males stand closer to a female than do fe-

males and females stand closer to a male than males do [Horowitz, Duff

and Stratton, 1970; Kassover, 1972]. Contrastingly, Thomas [1973] ob-

served dyads at a beach and found that males sat closer to males than

females sat to females. The sex effect appears to be an interaction

between sex of subject and sex of the stimulus person. These studies

were conducted with adult subjects and are representative of fully

developed personal space concepts.

In accord with these sex differences, Hollander, Duke and Nowicki

[1973] found that male personal space was related to the amount of maternal












affection received. Thus both third and fourth grade and college male

subjects with small personal spaces also reported receiving significantly

more affection from their mothers than males with large personal spaces.

Females' personal space size was not related to this variable. Thus

sex differences may be influenced by maternal affection.

Summary. In comparing the results obtained from the studies described

above, several problems arise. First, the developmental trends in personal

space are not consistent--Pederson [1973] and Russo [1971] find no uni-

directional growth or decrease in personal space size. Markey [1971]

finds that increasing age leads to increasing personal space, and Meisels

and Guardo [1969] find that increasing age leads to decreasing personal

space sizes. These conflicting results may arise for several reasons.

First, three different versions of figure placement techniques were used.

Methodological difficulties are thus strong. Second, Pederson and Markey

stressed to the Ss that they choose a comfortable distance whereas

Meisels and Guardo only asked Ss where they would be. Third, neither

Pederson nor Markey specified whether the stimulus people were friends

or enemies. Meisels and Guardo found increasing personal space distances

with positive affect same-sex stimulus persons. Perhaps there is an

interaction effect between affective and sexual relationships.

However, in spice of these inconsistencies three main trends appear

relatively clear. First, personal space increases up to grade three then

progressively decreases down to a culturally accepted level. Second, in

grade six or seven opposite sex relations become critical for male and

female children and correspondingly there is an increase in interpersonal

distancing with same sex friends. Third, findings about sex differences

in personal space are highly consistent with females having smaller











personal spaces than males. However, it is crucial to consider sex of

stimulus person and the affective relationship as these variables dif-

ferentially effect males and females.


Personal Time Perspective

Conceptualization

Definition. The term time as used here will simply denote time as

used in our everyday language. For instance, we use clock time of seconds,

minutes and hours, which evolve into days, months, seasons and years.

Time thus is an objective, culturally bound term which can be measured

through common everyday instruments.

Basically there are three general ways of thinking about time, each

of which has been defined and labeled in many ways. First, there is

temporal judgment or the ability to estimate, reproduce or discriminate

actual amounts of time as based on the culture's usage of particular

defining terms. For example, a subject is asked to tell the experimenter

when five seconds has passed or to reproduce a tone of a certain length.

Second, time may be viewed in terms of a temporal attitude. This approach

is a generic one but implies that each individual approaches the use

of time in a positive or negative manner. More simply it can be seen

as a collection of attitudes concerned with time functioning. For

instance--is punctuality a favorable or unfavorable characteristic?

Combining these attitudes toward several uses of time, one presumably

can derive a composite temporal attitude. These first two approaches

are not considered in this paper.

The third approach, and the one used in this paper, is temporal

perspective. It has previously been described and labeled as time













perspective or orientation [Fraisse, 1963; Wallace and Rabin, 1960; Doob,

1971]. Referred to here as temporal or time perspective, this is a more

subjective experimental usage of three main divisions of time; past,

present and future. These three divisions of time can be understood in

a layman's fashion. If one could, at this moment, stop the flow of time,

then the past would simply be that which occurred before this moment and

the future what will happen after this moment. The present would be the

infinitesimally small frozen moment. However, time cannot be arrested

and therefore these time domains, particularly the present, cannot be

completely understood in such a simple manner. William James [1952] re-

ports E. R. Clay's distinction of two types of present, the obvious pres-

ent and the specious present. The obvious present is that described

above. The specious present is the broadened experience of presentnesss"

that a person usually feels. For example, one experiences the past notes

of a bar of music as happening in the present whereas only one note could

possibly be in the obvious present. Further, past notes of a previous

song would be in the obvious past. Thus even though the technical defini-

tion of present is the specific moment, in experiencing the present man

may use a broadened range of time. The past, present and future, as

used here, denote what the individual experiences for himself as past,

present and future and thus may vary across persons. Further, this

experience of time occurs at a point on the flow of time and is therefore

as Lewin [1943] suggests, the perception of the past at a specific

moment as well as the perception of the future and present at this

moment.

Temporal perspective is the emphasis that an individual places on

one of these three broad divisions of time. Essentially a person can be













of three types; past-oriented, present-oriented or future-oriented.

However, it seems reasonable to suppose that persons who have the ability

to understand all three divisions will retain some emphasis in each area,

so that any one person will have past, present and future perspectives

although one may be most dominant. Thus time perspective can be viewed

as the relative importance that an individual places on the past, pre-

sent or future.

Several further limitations must be explained. First, time perspec-

tive as defined above can be of two types, historical and personal.

Historical time perspective is the emphasis the individual places on

historical events in these three divisions of time. This is the indivi-

dual's placement of himself on a historical time line. Personal time

perspective is the importance of each of these areas in the individual's

life involving his own personal attainments and losses. We will be

dealing with personal time perspective or the relative emphasis an indi-

vidual places on his own past, present or future. It is possible that

historical and personal time perspectives influence each other in some

sort of interactive manner although this is not the concern of the present

paper. Thus the term time perspective is used to mean personal time

perspective unless otherwise stated.

The second problem in dealing with time perspective is that of

measuring a relative emphasis of each of the three time domains. We

are making the assumption that the events that have happened,are happening

or hopefully will happen contribute to the importance of each area.

Thus measurement of each area can be attempted by measurement of the

events which comprise that time area. Still several possibilities of

measurement exist. First, a measure of time span for each area could













be obtained. Each area could be compared to each other area to obtain

measures of comparative lengths. However, it is questionable whether

mere length of time span is the most accurate way to assess the impor-

tance which an individual places on one of these areas. Therefore mea-

surement of each area must include not only the time span of the events

but also the importance of each event for the individual. Therefore

even though a person may feel that many things will happen to him, if

they do not matter to him, he will not be overly future oriented.

To briefly summarize, time perspective as viewed in this paper,

can be described as the relative emphasis an individual places on one of

the three time domains: past, present and future as commonly defined.

Time perspective is personal in that it involves the person's perception

of the importance of these three areas in his own life. Finally time

perspective involves not merely temporal span of events but also the

contributing factor of the importance of each event for the individual

as perceived by the individual.

Acquisition of temporal labels. In considering a developmental

study of time, a fourth approach must be considered, which is simply the

acquisition of and ability to use temporal terms and labels utilized by

one's culture. Thus before we can attempt to understand a child's

temporal attitude, judgment ability or perspective, it is necessary to

learn whether or not he even knows what is meant by a second, a month or

any other defining label we use. Several studies have examined the

child's developing reservoir of temporal knowledge. Ames [1946] studied

children,ages 18 months to eight years, finding that there are actually

several divisions of time knowledge that a child acquires. These

include a general notion of time, an understanding of time of day, clock












time, an idea of age, use of past and future as well as the present, and

finally an idea of a sequential ordering of events. Generally the child

can tell what part of the day it is by age four, what day it is by age

five and what time it is by age seven. Knowledge of months, seasons and

years is learned around age seven although days of the week are known

around age five. Most children are familiar with age concepts by age

three. The use of past, present and future is of critical importance

in the development of a personal time perspective. Ames [1946] found,

by recording relative frequencies of statements dealing with the past,

present and future in spontaneous conversations, that children first use

only present terms, then learn future ones and lastly they use past

words. By the age of 48 months the three tenses are used correctly and

in the following proportions: present--47 percent, future--33 percent,

past--19 percent. Although Ames feels these terms are used about equally

from this point on, there seems to be variation at this age and her data

do not show the proportions of usage at older ages.

Oakden and Stuart [1922] asked children, ages four to fourteen,

various questions attempting to assess their temporal knowledge. They

conclude that children reach an adult level of temporal knowledge by age

thirteen or fourteen with age eleven being a rapid transitional period

in development. They did not, however study the use of perspective terms

such as past, present and future, but dealt mainly with time labels such

as names of months and days. They further emphasized the child's devel-

oping ability to order historical events. They interpret the difficulty

which children under age eleven have in ordering historical epochs as

indicative of an inability to distinguish past and present. However, it

remains questionable whether or not historical uses of temporal perspective













are related to personal temporal perspective as experienced by the

child.

Two findings from this research on the acquisition of temporal

labels are relevant to a study of the development of temporal perspec-

tive. First, children around the age of four can differentially under-

stand and utilize perspectives toward the past, present and future in

their everyday conversations. Everyday conversations of four year olds

most likely involve descriptions of their own behavior or behavior of

others whom they know. Second, children up to age 11 seem to have dif-

ficulty ordering historical events. Perhaps before a historical time

perspective can be understood, a child must be able to order and think

about his own life in terms of what has been, is and will be. Then he

can take these dimensions and apply them to historical persons to obtain

a historical perspective. It seems obvious that this is a more difficult

task than using the terms in relation to oneself, for it involves not

only temporal knowledge but also an ability to be sociocentric and to

take the role of others [Piaget, 1969]. Thus it may be possible to study

personal time perspective with young children but not historical time

perspective.

Influence on cognitive development. This acquisition of temporal

knowledge has been demonstrated to occur in accord with stages of cogni-

tive development [Piaget, 1969]. Because of the interactive link between

physical and psychological time, the child must learn physical concepts

in order to obtain an understanding of psychological time. Generally

Piaget [1969] states that the development of psychological time does not

occur in discrete identifiable steps but is more continuous in nature.

Using several simple experiments, Piaget does identify some of the












restrictions of cognitive development on personal time perspective at

various ages. He questions children about their ages and their families

ages and also about their inner experiences of timed events. In relating

this to personal time perspective, three stages of comprehension can be

described even though they are not independent. Youngest children (under

six years old) are restricted through their egocentrism and the irre-

versibility of their thought. They equate age with size and yet deny

that anyone existed before them. Older children (six to eight years old)

relate time with introspective feeling. Past events are shorter because

they feel shorter since they are gone. Time becomes equated with the

effort the child displayed for an event. Finally, children over eight

years old can become external observers and order events without refer-

ence to their own feelings or perceptions. Since personal time perspec-

tive deals with the relative importance of events for the individual, it

seems that the only age at which there may not be any temporal perspective

is the youngest one as the youngest children cannot even put themselves

into the past due to the irreversibility of thought. Children at stage

two may have difficulty but they can at least base judgments on their

feelings. Finally after age eight, most children should be able to cog-

nitively distinguish the relative importance of the various time domains.


Literature Review

Relatively few studies are available on the development of personal

time perspective and several limitations restrict the generalizability

of those available. First, definitional problems and inconsistencies

have led to varied and seemingly unrelated measurement techniques.

Second, measurement techniques previously utilized have not functionally













incorporated any element of personal importance to the events. Thus

even though the measurement technique may be valid, in and of itself,

it is not in accord with the conceptualization of personal time perspec-

tive presented here. Third, studies conducted with persons under age

20 have included only one or two age points. Therefore if a developmental

trend is to be ascertained, data from different subjects, collected at

different times by different techniques must be compared. With these

limitations in mind, a brief review of previous work is presented in the

hopes that some consistencies may be noted.

LeBlanc [1969] studied children (mean age 10.8), adolescents (mean

age 14.6), collegiate (mean age 20.2), businessmen (mean age 45.6), and

senior citizens (mean age 74.2). Using a story-telling technique in

which stories told by the subject were evaluated for time orientation,

he found that children tended to write least about the future, adolescents

more and collegiate the most. Businessmen showed the second lowest

degree of future interest. Senior citizens demonstrated as much future

orientation as adolescents. Thus there seemed to be an increase in

future-orientation at least up to some age between 20 and 45.

Bain [1971] studied children in second and fifth grades utilizing

the Time Concept Battery, an instrument attempting to evaluate an indi-

vidual's understanding of various time concepts. He found that older

children demonstrated greater understanding of time perspective related

concepts (past, present and future)

Cottle, Howard and Pleck [1969] studied adolescent perceptions of

time in two age groups (under fifteen and over fifteen). They used

four instruments--an experiential inventory asking Ss to list the ten

most important events in life; a money game in which Ss can, in fantasy,

purchase time; a duration inventory in which Ss are requested to bracket













the three domains of time; and the Circles Test in which Ss draw a

circle to represent the past, the present, and the future. Relative

strengths of the three domains are determined by the frequency or magni-

tude of the representations of each area. Although they found varying

results across instruments, several consistencies were noted. Younger

people were preoccupied with the immediate past and present, and they

had not developed a sense of extended future. Older respondents demon-

strated greater temporal relatedness among the past, present, and future.

Sex differences interacted with class differences. Middle class girls

and upper class boys were more concerned with the past and viewed the

present and the near future as overlapping. This is explained in terms

of each group's connection with the past--middle class females through

the "glories of motherhood" and upper class males through historical

geneology. Overall a "transition from early to middle adolescence means

a shift from recall to expectation" [Cottle, Howard and Pleck, 1969,

p. 649].

Cottle and Pleck [1969] used another projective technique, the Lines

Test, in which Ss are shown a line representing time and asked to draw

sequentially three slashes representing now, birth, and death, respec-

tively. Relative importance of each time domain is determined by line

length. They found results similar to Cottle, Howard and Pleck [1969]

in that middle class females and upper class males are more past oriented

than middle class males and upper class females. This technique also

demonstrated an increase of future perspective as subjects became older.

Wohlford and Herrera [1970] used a story-telling technique to com-

pare time perspective between Cuban and American children. They found

that there was a general increase over age for retrotension (backward













perspective) and for pretension (forward perspective). Sex differences

were observed in retrotension, with females having longer past extension.

Thus the developmental trend here is merely an increase in perspective

for past and future.

Lessing [1968] studied future time perspective in fifth, eighth and

eleventh grade subjects. She used length of future time span over which

future events could be conceptualized as a theoretical definition of

future time perspective and measured this construct using an event re-

porting technique, a sentence completion test and a story completion

test. She found that longer future time perspective was always associated

with more culturally favorable attributes such as higher intelligence,

higher academic achievement, higher socioeconomic status and healthier

personality test scores. These findings were variable across instruments.

She found no overall developmental trends and concludes that sheer length

of future time perspective is not a critical developmental variable and

that a multidimensional approach to future time perspective is needed.

In a more recent study, Lessing [1972] distinguishes two types of

personal future time perspective. Cognitive future time perspective is

merely the time span over which personal future images are projected.

Cognitive-motivational future time perspective is not only this time span

but also the extent to which there is motivation to give priority to

long-range plans. Cognitive future time perspective was measured by the

events test and incomplete sentences test. Cognitive-motivational

future time perspective was measured by a future time perspective inven-

tory which is a series of statements about the predictability and con-

trollability of the future. For example, "I can't even imagine what my

life will be like in twenty years." The results indicated that cognitive













future time perspective actually decreases with age, possibly due to the

shorter distance to the event of older Ss and to the greater realism of

older Ss. Cognitive-motivational future time perspective, however, does

increase between ages nine to fifteen for females. Thus there is an

increased motivation for control in the future and a decreasedtime span

using personal expectancies of future events.

Kastenbaum [1959] in a study of high school juniors found that they

had many expectations for the next few years of life but considered few

events possible after age twenty-five. Further, these adolescents were

quite restricted in past time perspectives. Thus youth of this age have

complex future time perspectives for a brief time span but have little

use of past events. However, Kastenbaum [19641 did find that the more

intelligent students were more likely to extend into the past than those

of lesser intelligence (as measured by intelligence tests). Kastenbaum

[1959] suggests that one of the developmental tasks of adolescence is to

incorporate the past into one's personal time perspective.

In reviewing these studies which have dealt with personal time per-

spective in children and adolescents, it becomes difficult to view

developmental trends. LeBlanc [1969], Bain [1971], Cottle, Howard and

Pleck [1969], and Kastenbaum [1959, 1964] find that there is a developing

extension of future perspective. Wohlford and Herrara [1970] found no

trend at all. Lessing [1972] states that developmental literature is

clarified with the distinction between cognitive future time perspective

and cognitive-motivational future time perspective. Cognitive future

time perspective undergoes a decrease and cognitive-motivational future

time perspective an increase over time. In spite of the various measure-

ment techniques used, it seems likely that when considering span of













events, that there is an increase in future time perspective with age.

Kastenbaum's data suggest that there is an increase in past time perspec-

tive also.

Several studies have attempted to study sex differences in personal

time perspective. Bortner and Hultsch [1972] using Cantril's ladder

technique found no differences between males and females. Davids,

Kidder and Reich [1962] found no sex differences in male and female

delinquents using a story completion test. Platt, Eiseman, and DeGross

[1969] found that females had a significantly greater future time per-

spective than males in both a personal and a historical sense. This

effect was caused by an interaction with birth order with first and only

born females having the greatest future time perspective. Cottle, Howard

and Pleck [1969] found an interactive effect of sex and class reported

above. Thus it seems that differences between males and females are not

common although, when reported, support the idea that females have a

greater future time perspective than males.

Summary. Personal time perspective literature is limited due to

various methodological and theoretical discrepancies. However, it seems

that relatively consistent evidence supports the idea of an increase of

future time perspective with an increase in age. Although not as much

data is available it seems that there is a corresponding increase in

past time perspective. The present has not been studied. Finally sex

differences are not great although females may have greater future time

perspectives than males.


One study has been done attempting to relate personal space and


Personal Snace and Personal Time Perspective












personal time perspective. Tolor, Brannigan and Murphy [1972] used a

figure placement technique to measure psychological distance which they

define as "variations in desired intimacy or isolation with respect to

specific others." The Future Events Test a paper and pencil technique

which asks Ss to estimate the age at which various events will occur was

the measure of personal time perspective. Tolor et al. compared Ss with

close psychological distances (CPD) to Ss with remote psychological dis-

tances (RPD) on the mother and father stimulus items. They found that

on a significant number of items both males and females with CPD evidenced

a greater future time perspective. However, CPD females endorsed more

realistic achievements (i.e., being a leader) than CPD males. In fact,

CPD females were most similar to RPD males on these measures. It seems

that both males and females with small personal spaces have extended

future perspectives. However, CPD females are more realistically oriented

than CPD males. Perhaps it is not a "manly" characteristic to be close

to mother and father and the more "properly" socialized males are actually

the RPD. This is merely a conjecture, but if true males would be expected

to have larger personal spaces and smaller future time perspectives than

females. The Tolor et al. study suggests that persons with small personal

spaces have large future time perspectives. Past time perspective was

not considered.



Theoretical Framework


Several theoretical frameworks seem applicable in dealing with the

developmental progression of personal space and personal time perspective.

Cognitive developmental theory and social learning theory both are













appropriate in dealing with these phenomena. Piaget's cognitive theory

and Rotter's social learning theory are briefly described below in

reference to personal space and personal time perspective. However,

the theoretical derivation of the hypotheses has been drawn specifically

from Rotter's social learning theory rather than from Piaget's concep-

tual framework for several reasons. First, a social learning theory

approach seemed to account more adequately for previously observed class,

race and sex differences in personal space and personal time perspective.

Second, previous research has demonstrated that personal space can be

changed through a modeling process [Bailey, Hartnett and Glover, 1973].

A similar modeling process may cause differences between delinquents'

and non-delinquents' personal time perspective [Stein, Sarbin, and Kulik,

1968]. Third, although Piaget's cognitive theory of development can

adequately explain the development of physical concepts of space and time,

it cannot adequately account for personal usages of the space and time

dimensions as examined in this paper. The author does not deny the rela-

tionship between the physical and personal concepts of space and time,

but is limiting the scope of the present paper to deal only with the

personal usages. These personal concepts are obviously influenced by

the socialization system in which the individual exists. Finally, social

learning theory is adopted because the author is more knowledgeable in

that area.


Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development

Briefly Piaget's theory [1952] utilizes a stage process, that is,

the child develops cognitively by progressing through a series of stages.

As he moves from one stage to another, the child acquires the ability to












see the world in new ways. The progression of the child in terms of

personal time perspective has been described above (see Personal Time

Perspective--Influence of cognitive development). A similar attainment

of spatial concepts occurs. The young child has difficulty taking the

point of view of another person and thus has an egocentric view of

space. Spatial relationships are limited to the child's own perspec-

tive. In terms of personal space, this may mean that he does not take

the other person into consideration in establishing an appropriate dis-

tance. The concretely operational child can form mental representations

and is able to understand relationships in space. This age child also

should have an established personal space size in relation to persons

with whom he has interacted. He has learned to order relationships and

should therefore be able to interact at a different distance with dif-

ferent persons. Attainment of the last stage, formal operations, gives

the child the skill to consider all possibilities of solutions to a partic-

ular problem before acting. In terms of personal space this age child

would be able to formulate appropriate personal space size in relation

to a person with whom he had not previously interacted.

The major limitation of this approach in a developmental study of

personal space and personal time perspective is that it deals most

specifically with the acquisition of physical concepts. Although it has

been briefly applied to personal time perspective, it has not been applied

to personal space. Because of the lack of information about the connec-

tion between physical and personal usages of space and time, the author

believes the use of a physically based approach in a study of the personal

use of space and time would equate the physical and personal interpreta-

tions prematurely. More research is needed before this juxtaposition is

feasible.













Rotter's Social Learning Theory

Several lines of evidence suggest that personal space is a socially

learned phenomenon. That personal space is learned is demonstrated by

the fact that personal spaces are different in different cultures [Sommer,

1969]. Further, Sommer [1969] cites evidence from animal literature

that animals deprived of contact with their own kind cannot learn proper

spacing and cannot functionally interact with their own species. Bailey,

Hartnett and Glover [1973] have demonstrated that children model personal

space behavior in an experimental situation. Finally the literature

shows prevalent sex differences in personal space, with females having

smaller spaces. Role differences accorded to females, such as greater

intimacy and desire for social contact are in keeping with this finding.

Similar evidence is available to demonstrate that personal time

perspective is acquired through the socialization process. Cultural

differences in time extension and relatedness have been observed [Bongers,

1972; Wolk, 1971]. Class differences have been found also [Cottle,

Howard, and Pleck, 1969; Leshan, 1952] with middle class Americans having

large future time perspective, lower class Americans concerned with the

present and upper class Americans demonstrating past dominance. These

class differences are in accord with proper learning of one's position

in society. The middle class has high achievement orientation and looks

to the future for attainment of goals, the lower class is concerned with

survival in the present and the upper class is steeped in the preserva-

tion of tradition and family lineage. Similarly male delinquents have

small future time orientations when compared to non-delinquents, pre-

sumably because the future is not a realistic concern for them [Stein et al.,

1968; Brock and Del Giudice, 1963; Davids, Kidder and Reich, 1962].







36


Further, emotionally disturbed persons have been shown to have restricted

future time perspectives [Shybut, 1968; Davids and Parenti, 1958]. Pre-

sumably emotionally disturbed people have had difficulty learning and

accepting the socially required norms.

Since personal space and personal time perspective are learned

phenomena, social learning theory seems applicable. Rotter's [1966]

social learning theory has been well delineated. It suggests that the

behavior of any person is determined not just by the goals or reinforce-

ments available, but also by the individuals expectancy of receiving that

reinforcement. These individual expectancies are influenced by the

past reinforcement history of the person. Further, no behavior occurs

in a vacuum but is constantly being changed by situational variables.

Rotter states [1972] that it is possible to identify and quantify simi-

larities and discrepancies across situations so that behavioral predic-

tions can eventually be made.

These ideas are conceptually united in the following formula:


BP = f(E and RV ) (1)
x,s,ra x,rs as


where BP = behavior potential for behavior "x"
xs 'ra in situation "i" with reinforcement "a,"

E = expectancy that behavior "x" will
x,ra',s yield reinforcement "a" in situation
"P," and

RV = reinforcement value of "a" in situation
a,s ",,."


That is, given situation "1" and reinforcement "a" the potential for

behavior "x" to occur is a function of the expectation the individual

has for receiving reinforcement "a" in situation "V" and also the value

that reinforcement "a" has for the individual in situation ",." The













expectancy of the person is determined by his reinforcement history in

same and similar situations with positive reinforcements strengthening

expectancies of obtaining further positive reinforcement. Generalization

gradients of reinforcement account for the variability of reinforcement

values.

Rotter [1972] asserts that initially psychological needs are learned

from the consequences of internal sensory stimulation, i.e., hunger.

However, as the child matures, the strength of his needs and thus values

of reinforcements are better predicted from his psychological needs than

primary drives. Environmental cues become more critical in eliciting

appropriate behaviors. Thus in social learning theory the situation

serves as a cue to elicit appropriate expectancies which in turn result

in particular behavior potentials for any one situation.

Locus of control was conceptualized by Rotter [1966] as a measure

of a general expectancy across situations.

When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject
as following some action of his own but not being
entirely contingent upon his action, then, in our
culture, it is typically perceived as the result
of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of
powerful others, or as unpredictable because of
the great complexity of the forces surrounding him.
When the event is interpreted in this way by an
individual, we have labeled this a belief in ex-
ternal control. If the person perceives that the
event is contingent upon his own behavior or his
own relatively permanent characteristics, we have
termed this a belief in internal control [Rotter,
1966, p. 1].

These generalized expectancies also mediate the resultant behavior poten-

tial in any situation.













Derivation of Hypotheses


Personal Space

In terms of a developmental study of personal space, the expectancy

of reinforcement for a young child in any situation is unclear. At first

there is no baseline of experience on which the child can rely. Hel is,

however, dependent on parents and other adults for satisfaction of pri-

mary needs such as hunger and thirst. These needs are generally fulfilled

by another person operating at a close distance. Thus initially there

would be positive reinforcement for a small personal space. As the child

grows older he will come to depend on situational cues to elicit appro-

priate expectancies. Also, there will be an increasing.need for indivi-

dual autonomy and independence [Beller, 1955]. The child will experience

positive reinforcement for larger personal space and negative rein-

forcement for close personal space in various inappropriate situations.

For example, a child upon entering school will receive more and more

negative reinforcement for clinging to his mother. Similarly the child

will observe other individuals interacting and learn vicariously through

their experiences. Thus as the child becomes increasingly more indepen-

dent from his parents, he will learn to expect positive reinforcement

for a larger personal space.

At approximately age eight, a child becomes interested and concerned

with peer relations [Campbell, 1964]. To establish and maintain

friendships, he makes increasingly more and closer contacts. A need for

people raises the reinforcement value of small personal spaces. Personal



The author recognizes that these hypotheses apply to males and fe-
males. For purposes of consistency and simplicity, masculine pronouns
are used since they are shorter.













space size should now decrease until it becomes more similar to cultural,

class and family models. Thus, personal space should decrease after age

eight until it reaches a stable size.

Further, since the child gains more accurate expectancies of rein-

forcements in dealing with particular situations and particular persons,

his personal space behavior should become less variable as he tries to

obtain maximum reinforcement.

In the American culture as the child reaches adolescence, he becomes

concerned with dating and the opposite sex [Douvan and Adelson,

1966]. There is a corresponding concern in this society that same-sex

relations are only friendly in nature. It becomes more permissible to

maintain a close physical relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

Thus at this age, there is an increase in positive reinforcement for close

interpersonal distance with the opposite sex and an increase in negative

reinforcement for close distancing behavior with respect to the same sex,

resulting in a change in expectancy. There is also an internal change in

the reinforcement value of opposite sex relations deriving from physio-

logical changes. Thus with the advent of puberty there is a change in

the personal space behavior in relation to opposite sex members, with an

increased expectancy for positive reinforcement and an increased value

for such reinforcement for a small personal space. There is a corres-

ponding increase in personal space size in relation to same sex members.

Males and females should develop different reinforcement histories

as male appropriate and female appropriate behaviors tend to be different

in terms of role definitions [Mischel, 1966]. In particular, females are

reinforced for developing and maintaining skill in interpersonal relation-

ships. Thus females would receive more positive reinforcement than males













for small personal space. Similarly, they would be negatively reinforced

for behaviors maintaining large social distances. Overall, females should

evidence smaller personal spaces than males due to differential expec-

tancies of reinforcement. Further, the ban for same-sex relations at

puberty is not instilled in females as much as in males. A characteris-

tic of the female role is to be interpersonally adept with women as well

as with men. Men, however, cannot be too intimate with other men. Rein-

forcement histories differ and therefore, females should have smaller

personal spaces in relation to same-sex friends and relatives than men

do.

Rotter's measure of generalized expectancy, locus of control, has

been demonstrated to serve as a mediator in interpersonal distancing

responses [Tolor, Brannigan and Murphey, 1970; Tolor and Jalowiec, 1968;

Duke and Nowicki, 1972]. Internals have smaller personal spaces perhaps

because of their ability to control the consequences of behavior. Ex-

ternals, comparatively, feel that luck and fate control events and thus

maintain a larger interpersonal distance in order to be able to perceive

sudden changes in events. Duke and Nowicki [1972] found that a priori

predictions based on locus of control measures were supported. Internals

placed authoritarian figures much closer than externals (stimulus persons

were policeman, president, and professor). For stimulus persons of

mother and father, where specific expectancies have been learned by both

internals and externals, no differences were found. Thus generalized

expectancies of reinforcement do have an effect on personal space size

in situations in which no specific expectancies had previously been

generated.













Personal Time Perspective

Similar developmental learning may occur in the acquisition of

personal time perspective. At first, the child cannot distinguish past,

present and future but is taught these basic concepts through socializa-

tion by others [Stone and Church, 1973]. Further, since temporal con-

cepts are not concrete, the child must attain a certain level of cogni-

tive development before he can begin to comprehend the existence of past

and future [Piaget, 1969]. As the child learns to understand these ab-

stractions, he will also begin receiving various reinforcements for

emphasizing each domain. For example, a young child may learn the impor-

tance of the short term future by having to wait until tomorrow or wait

until his father/mother comes home. He will learn of the past by re-

telling events that happened or merely from the influence of memory. At

first the child will learn of the past and emphasize that domain although

both past and future perspectives will undergo an increase. During adoles-

cence, when most children are positively reinforced for making future

vocational plans [Witty, 1961], there would be a corresponding increase

in future perspective.

Vicarious reinforcement,through observation of parents, plays a

critical role in the development of temporal perspective, particularly

future time perspective. If the child's parents do not emphasize the

valued reinforcements which can be obtained in the future, then the

child will not expect any future gains. For example, lower classes have

shorter future time perspectives because the parents have gained nothing

from their future. Contrastingly the middle class child hears tales of

young men with lots of money, expensive cars and advanced educations who

were poor in their childhood. The future is the time for achievement













fulfillment. Whereas in personal space development the child can exper-

ience reinforcements, in personal time development all he can experience

is the present and the past; the future is demonstrated by others. Thus

time perspective may develop in a child to correspond to similar time

perspective schemes of available models, particularly futuristic references.

Males and females may learn different time perspectives as they will

be differentially affected by male and female models. For instance,

according to stereotyped role conceptions, a woman is fulfilled by her

children's attainments and a man by his own. Therefore, females may be

more future oriented as their goals are displaced further in time but

presumably not in importance. This difference may be diminished by the

increasing equality in male and female roles.


Personal Space and Personal Time Perspective

As the child is learning appropriate personal space and personal

time perspective behaviors and attitudes, he is learning a general ap-

proach toward others. If one asserts that personal space and personal

time perspective are subjective uses of the two dimensions of behavior

then one can assume a general connection between the two. Both personal

space and personal time perspective are, in essence, means of connection

or communication between people. Personal space size obviously affects

interpersonal communication. Persons in intimate relationships stand

closer to each other than persons who are strangers. Females who are

trained to be socially responsive have smaller personal spaces than males

who are trained to be task oriented. Perhaps personal space size varies

as a function of need for contact with others or a greater desire for

increased personal relationships. One can extend ones behavior not just













in terms of space, but also in terms of time. Therefore extended per-

sonal time perspective allows a person to have more contact with others

by remembering previous events and planning future ones. Greater im-

portance of events and length of time spans incorporating such events

permit the individual to gain more intimacy with others. Thus greater

personal time perspective, particularly past and future perspectives,

also seems related to a greater desire for interpersonal communication.

It appears that as the child grows, he acquires a need for a unique

amount of attachment toward others or a unique degree of sociability.

Thus not only does he learn personal space and personal time perspective

norms but a more general norm which relates these two dimensions. This

suggests that persons with characteristically small personal spaces will

have greater personal past and future time perspectives. Similarly per-

sons who cannot extend their relationships into past and future time do-

mains will also have difficulty in maintaining close personal spaces.

Therefore an individual with a large present time perspective would

have a large personal space.

Further, it can be suggested that adolescents who have received

great positive reinforcement from their relationship with their parents,

and who, therefore, have small personal spaces in relation to their

parents, will be more past oriented than adolescents who have large

individual distance from their parents. A large past time perspective

would serve to maintain the close relationship.

Similarly, persons who have small personal space in relation to

their current friends will be more likely to have greater present time

perspectives than persons who remain interpersonally distant from their

friends. Again personal time and space serve to unite the individual

with his preferred others.













Summary of Hypotheses


More specifically, based on social learning theory and previous

research, the following hypotheses were investigated:

1. Personal space size, as determined by averaging all measures,

increases up to approximately age 8-10 and decreases thereafter until

it reaches a stable size.

2. Variance in personal space size with respect to any particular

stimulus person decreases with age as the appropriate distancing norms

are learned.

3. Personal space in relation to same sex persons increases after

puberty while personal space in relation to opposite sex persons de-

creases.

4a. Females have smaller average personal spaces than males, par-

ticularly after puberty.

b. Females have smaller personal space in relation to same sex

friends and relatives than males.

5. Past and future time perspectives increase with age. At first

a child increasingly emphasizes the past, then in adolescence future

time perspective increases more rapidly and to greater extent than past

time perspective.

6. After puberty, females have greater future time perspectives

than males.

7. Persons with large average personal spaces have larger present

time perspectives than persons with small average personal spaces.

8. There is a negative correlation between average personal space

size and future time perspective.







45




9. Adolescents with small average personal spaces in relation to

parents will have larger past time perspectives than adolescents with

large personal spaces in relation to parents.

10. Persons with small personal spaces in relation to friends have

greater present time perspectives than persons with large personal spaces

in relation to friends.


















CHAPTER II


METHOD


Sample Selection


Subjects

Twelve white male and twelve white female Ss at each of five dif-

ferent age levels (three, seven, eleven, fifteen, nineteen) were studied

for a total of 120 Ss. The mean age of each group of Ss is presented

in Table 1. The three year olds were recruited from waiting lists for

enrollment at P. K. Yonge, an experimental school affiliated with the

University of Florida. The seven, eleven, and fifteen year olds were

selected from current enrollment listings of the P. K. Yonge school. Six

of the nineteen year olds (four males and two females) were volunteers

who had graduated from P. K. Yonge and were still residing in the area.

The other eighteen were recruited from introductory psychology courses

at the University of Florida.


Socioeconomic Status

The middle three age groups were matched across sex and age groups

on socioeconomic status (SES) as measured by family income. This infor-

mation is obtained as part of the application for admission to the

laboratory school. Five SES groups were arbitrarily defined by the

school officials. They are; under $3,000, $3,000 $5,999, $6,000 -

$8,999, $9,000 $12,999, and $13,000 and over. Table 2 contains the

income distribution for these age groups.


46


















TABLE 1


Mean Age and Standard Deviation
in Years of Ss at Five Ages


Age


Sex Statistic 3 7 11 15 19


X 3.63 7.40 11.05 15.34 19.64
Male
SD .62 .61 .64 .67 .50

X 3.72 7.15 11.11 15.25 19.23
Female
SD .38 .64 .46 .37 .74

X3.67 7.27 11.08 15.30 19.43
Total
SD .50 .62 .54 .53 .65









TABLE 2


The Income Distribution of Seven, Eleven and Fifteen Year Old
Male and Female Ss based on the First SES Ranges


Income Level

Under $3000- $6000- $9000- $13,000
ge ex $3000 5999 8999 12,999 and over



Male 3 4 3 1 1
7
Female 2 5 3 1 1

Male 3 5 1 2 1
11
Female 3 4 3 1 1

Male 4 3 3 2 0
15
Female 3 4 3 1 1

Male 10 12 7 5 2
Subtotal
Female 8 13 9 3 3


TOTAL 18 25 16 8 5














An attempt was made to recruit three year old Ss who matched the

other Ss on the parental income measure. However, the school officials

had changed the ranges of incomes specified for their different levels

of SES and did not advise E until the sample had been obtained. These

new ranges are: under $5,000, $5,000 $8,699, $8,700 $12,399, $12,400 -

$18,599, and $18,600 and over. New SES scores were then obtained for

the other three age groups and Table 3 presents the income distribution

in the new ranges for all age by sex groups. Because of this difficulty,

groups are not completely matched, although all levels are used in all

age by sex groups with the preponderance of Ss being from the middle to

upper income levels.

The nineteen year olds claimed to be self-supporting as they were

in college but an estimate of parental income was obtained by telephone

after the interview in order to compare their family's SES to the other

four age groups. Table 3 gives the income distribution of this age group

also.



Instruments


Personal Space

Four measures of personal space were used. These measures were

chosen for several reasons. First, previous research has used only one

instrument at a time for assessing personal space. As a result, dif-

ferent findings have been obtained, possibly due to the method specific

nature of the research. Thus several assessment techniques were chosen

to investigate the relationship between measures and to make the present

findings more generalizable. Second, these particular measures were











TABLE 3

The Income Distribution of All Age by Sex Groups based on
Current SES Ranges




Income Level

Age Sex Under $5000- $8700- $12,400- $18,600 Unavailabe
Age ex $5000 8699 12,399 18,599 and over


Male
3
Female


1 1 0

2 0 0


Male 3 3 3 2 1 0
7
Female 4 3 3 1 1 0

Male 3 5 3 1 0 0
11
Female 1 4 3 3 1 0

Male 4 3 3 2 0 0
15
Female 3 4 3 1 1 0

Male 0 2 1 4 1 4
19
Female 0 1 1 5 3 2


Male
Subtotal
Female
TOTAL Male


10 3 4

12 6 2
22 9 6


-- --













included to represent basic types of instruments commonly used. Thus

paper and pencil, simulation and behavioral observation measures are

included. Further, two types of instructions were used depending on

the instrument--one specifying comfort and the other just placement.

Again this was done in order to assess whether discrepancies in previous

research were caused by methodological differences.

The first was a paper and pencil test designed by Duke and Nowicki

[1972]. Ss imagine they are standing in the center of a large room

graphically represented on paper. Lines forming various angles with a

horizontal axis are also depicted on the instrument. Ss indicate at

what distance they would feel uncomfortable when various stimulus per-

sons approach along randomly selected axes. Figure 1 gives an example

of this task. This measure was completed for the following ten stimulus

persons: best female friend, mother, sister, female stranger, saleslady,

best male friend, father, brother, male stranger and mailman. Five

stimuli are female and five male at various degrees of intimacy to S.

This instrument yielded several indices of personal space. First,

t.ie distance to each stimulus person, or the measure of interpersonal dis-

tance, was used as indicative of personal space toward that particular

stimulus person even though only one point on the boundary was measured.

Second, a mean personal space measure was derived for familiar (friend

or relative) vs. unfamiliar stimulus persons (stranger or worker).

Third, a mean score was computed for male vs. female stimulus persons.

Then these composite measures were combined to obtain a mean score for

male and female familiar and unfamiliar stimulus persons yielding four

more indices of personal space: familiar male personal space, unfamiliar









4]


L1


E


6 I


7i


LI3


18


Figure 1. THE PAPER AND PENCIL PERSONAL SPACE MEASURE
[Duke and Nowicki, 1972]













male personal space, familiar female personal space and unfamiliar female

personal space. Finally, a composite measure of personal space was

derived by calculating the mean distance of approach for all stimulus

persons.

The second instrument was a simulation technique. Ss were requested

to place 2 1/2 by 5 1/4 inch yellow felt figures representing various

stimulus persons on a 16 1/2 by 24 inch green felt board which already

held a similarly shaped figure representing S. However, figures repre-

senting S were marked with a green triangle on the trunk of the figures'

body. Examples of the stimulus figures can be seen in Figure 2. Stimulus

persons were described to represent persons identical to those used in

the paper and pencil technique above. A plastic overlay divided into

quarter inch squares permitted easy recording of the distance between a

standard point on the neck of the felt figure representing the subject

and a standard point on the neck of the felt stimulus figures. This

interpersonal distance was used as a measure indicative of personal space

in one direction. Composite indices of personal space identical to those

in the paper and pencil task above were computed for this measurement.

The third technique for measuring personal space was behavioral

observation. Ss were asked to approach an adult male and an adult female

stimulus person until they felt uncomfortable. The same stimulus persons

approached each S until S stated he began to feel uncomfortable. One

adult male and one adult female served as stimulus persons for all sub-

jects. An observer measured the distance using a plastic multi-colored

strip placed along the wall. Thus "approach" and "approached by" measures

of actual behavior were obtained in reference to both a same sex and

opposite sex adult stimulus person.















































Figure 2. AN EXAMPLE OF THE MALE AND FEMALE STIMULI USED IN THE FELT BOARD TECHNIQUE













Finally, a more unobtrusive measurement was recorded. A row of

chairs was placed along one wall of the experimental room and one of the

stimulus persons was casually seated in the end chair. At the very

beginning of the experimental session Ss were asked to have a seat and

wait briefly while E got prepared. After each S was seated the observer

simply recorded the number of chairs separating the S and the stimulus

person. This measure may be understood more clearly by looking at the

schematic diagram of the experimental room in Figure 3.


Personal Time Perspective

A multi-method assessment of personal time perspective was viewed

as necessary due to the exploratory nature of all measures, none of which

had been previously used. Thus three measures were developed attempting

to measure personal time perspective.

The primary measure was a self-report technique. Ss were asked to

tell the interviewer things that happened to them or that they had done

in the past and at what age each event had occurred. After specifying

the events and ages, Ss indicated how important each event was to them.

This measure of importance was on a scale of one to five with five as

very important, four as pretty important, three as somewhat important,

two as not very important, and one as not important at all. A similar

procedure was completed for the present (things that are happening to

you or that you are doing), and the future (things that will happen to

you or that you will do). Ss again reported the age and importance of

each event mentioned. All interviews were tape recorded and analyzed at

a later time.

This interview led to measurement of personal time perspective by

combining age of events and the importance of each event in each time









- windows


bookcases I

+ chairs im
tape measure stimulus
under chairs sits


subject


Nes


is person
here


t0


stimulus person


E dividers (5' high)
_-_ oobserver




SI =1
I 2
(E^i
is ^'


.1 _______ 1 _______ 1 _______ .1 ______ .i ________ I. ______ h _______ -


outside


=cl
-A
N


SCALE: 1" = 5'


Figure 3. A DIAGRAM OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ROOM


door


entrance













domain (past, present and future). These three measures can be computed

as follows:

S(ap ae)(Ie)
e-i
PATP = (2)
5N
N
S(a- a)(le)
PRTP = e-1 (3)
5N
N
7 (a ap)(Ie)
e-p
FTP = (4)
5N


where: PATP = past time perspective,

PRTP = present time perspective,

FTP = future time perspective,

N = number of events,

a = age of events (months),

a = present age (months), and

I = importance of events.


Thus, past, present and future time perspectives equal the mean differ-

ence between the age of each event and the current age multiplied by the

importance of each event to the person. For ease of calculation each

score was divided by a constant of five since the value I ranged from

one to five. The essential difference is that FTP involves the expected

age of future events whereas PATP involves actual age of past events.

PRTP has the potential for both past and future events. These three

scores were used as individual measures of each time domain.

Two other techniques were used to measure personal time perspective.

First, Ss completed semantic differential ratings on YOUR PAST, YOUR PRESENT,













and YOUR FUTURE. Seven pairs of referents were used: important/unimpor-

tant, good/bad, active/passive, successful/unsuccessful, fast/slow,

happy/sad and kind/cruel. The seven year olds and eleven year olds

completed these forms using a large chart and responding verbally. The

two older groups completed them in the typical written fashion. Appendix

A gives examples of this task.

Finally, Ss responded verbally to a series of eight questions con-

cerning time domain desirability using common language terms; for example,

what do you think is the best age to be? All items could be answered as

showing preference for either the past, present or future. Ss were given

points in each time domain equal to the number of answers preferring that

time zone. The time area with the largest score thus was considered the

preferred time domain for that S.



Design


A small number of preliminary five year old Ss were investigated to

determine the practicality of the use of both the personal space and the

personal time perspective measures in very young children. After viewing

twelve Ss who had difficulty in understanding the instruments, it was

decided to change the design for this age group in order to obtain as much

information as possible without undue difficulty or frustration. Thus

the following designs resulted.


Standard Design

Subjects of four age groups (seven, eleven, fifteen, nineteen) were

given the instruments in a randomly chosen balanced order so that half of













the Ss received the personal time questions (TIME) first and half re-

ceived the personal space (SPACE) measures first. The seven, eleven and

fifteen year olds were tested on two different days. The nineteen year

olds underwent both parts of the experiment on the same day but again

half of this age group received TIME first and half received SPACE first.

Within this balanced order, the personal space instruments were

administered in the following order. All Ss received the behavioral mea-

sures first as this was the measure most similar to everyday situations.

The sex of the stimulus person to be approached first was randomly

selected at the beginning of each day of testing. The first subject on

each day met the same or opposite sex person as chosen. The sex was

changed after each S for that particular day. Ss were approached by

and then approached a male and a female stimulus person.

Following the behavioral measure half the subjects completed the

Duke and Nowicki [1972] paper and pencil instrument first, and half com-

pleted the felt board measurements first. Ss received male and female

stimuli for these instruments in the same order that was randomly chosen

for the behavioral measure. Therefore Ss who were approached by a male

first also completed both simulation measures first for males and then

for females.

Thus four main orders of item administration resulted for the four

oldest age groups: two receiving the time measures first and two recei-

ving the space measures first. They are: TIME, felt board, paper and

pencil; TIME, paper and pencil, felt board; SPACE, felt board, paper

and pencil; and SPACE, paper and pencil, felt board. Within these orders,

sex of the stimulus person prescrned first was randomly varied.













Three Year Old Subjects

The three year old subjects did not receive the behavioral measure of

personal space. Most of them were afraid of the strange situation and

the strange stimulus person. In order to alleviate this fear so that

these Ss would complete the other measures of personal space, the behav-

ioral measure was eliminated. Further, the interview measure and semantic

differential of personal time perspective were also excluded as these Ss

were unable to answer any of the relevant questions. Ss still received

the eight time related questions. In order to further maintain their

interest, all Ss were given the personal space measures first, then the

time questions. Thus lalf the three year olds were in the personal space,

paper and pencil, felt board condition and half were in the personal

space, felt board, paper and pencil condition.


Experimenters

Three female experimenters conducted all sessions. No single experi-

menter ran all Ss in any age by sex by order group. To control for

possible interviewer effects, an attempt was made to have one experimenter

administer the TIME measures to approximately half the Ss of each age by

sex group and the other two experimenters each administer a fourth. How-

ever, due to scheduling difficulties, this was not entirely possible for

the three and nineteen year old groups. Table 4 gives the frequency of

TIME interviews by experimenter for each age by sex group. As the personal

space measures are standard instruments with specific instructions, ex-

perimenter effects were not expected to be as great as the TIME interview.

Ss were therefore tested as convenience permitted. Table 5 gives the

frequency of SPACE interviews by experimenter for each age by sex group.


















TABLE 4

The Frequency of Time Interviews per
Experimenter for Each Age by Sex Group



Age

Sex Interviewer 3 7 11 15 19


A 9 6 7 6 5
Male B 3 3 3 3 5
C 0 3 2 3 2


A 7 7 6 6 5
Female B 3 3 3 3 4
C 2 2 3 3 3


A 16 13 13 12 10
Total B 6 6 6 6 9
C 2 5 5 6 5



















TABLE 5

The Frequency of Space Interviews
per Experimenter for Each Age by Sex Group


Age

Sex Interviewer 3 7 11 15 19


A 9 3 2 7 5
Male B 3 6 6 4 5
C 0 3 4 1 2


A 7 5 6 4 5
Female B 3 4 5 6 4
C 2 3 1 2 3


A 16 8 8 11 10
Total B 6 10 11 10 9
C 2 6 5 3 5













Procedure


A standard procedure was designed and followed with the middle three

age groups. However, due to scheduling difficulties and variations in

the items to be administered, minor changes were made in the procedure

for the three and nineteen year old Ss.


Standard Procedure (Seven, Eleven and Fifteen Year Olds)

Three Ss were taken from their classroom at P. K. Yonge on two

separate days according to the randomly selected order condition. Thus

one testing day involved the personal space measures, the other the time

interview.

The exact procedure on the SPACE day was dependent on the order

condition. However all Ss were given the behavioral measures first. S

was brought to the experimental room by one of the three Es and asked to

have a seat in the row of chairs along the wall. One of the stimulus

persons was seated in the end chair. The number of chairs separating S

from the stimulus person was recorded by an unobtrusive observer behind

a screen (see Figure 3).

Then S was instructed by E to stand on a mark on the floor approxi-

mately thirty-six feet from the stimulus person. The instructions were:

I am going to have this person start to walk toward
you. I would like you to tell me when you start to
feel uncomfortable and want them to stop. Please
look at them while they walk.

Now the other person will stand still. You walk toward
them until you feel uncomfortable and want to stop,
then stop. Again try and look at them while you walk.

Distances were recorded by the observer and the exact procedure was re-

peated for the other stimulus person.

Ss were then taken to one of three interview stations shown in Figure













3. The paper and pencil instrument and the felt board were administered

according to the pre-selected order. These Ss imagined stimulus persons

at the appropriate places on the paper and pencil instrument and marked

their desired stopping distances with various colored pens. One diagram

was used for all male stimulus persons and one for all female stimulus

persons. Instructions for the paper and pencil instrument for these age

groups were:

This page represents a large room. Pretend you are
standing here (E points to center). Your best friend
who is a boy is coming toward you through this door.
Please take this pen and mark the place where you
want him to stop because you feel uncomfortable.

An example of the felt board instructions is:

Pretend this figure with the green triangle on it is
you. We'll put it on the board like this. Now this
other yellow figure is your father. Please put him
on the board, too.

Similar instructions were used for all stimulus persons. At the end of

this session, Ss were allowed to return to their classrooms.

For the TIME interview, Ss were taken to one of the interview sta-

tions in the experimental room. They were told that no answer was right

or wrong but rather all were opinion questions. The first four time

related questions were asked to help Ss relax. Then a cassette tape

recorder was turned on and the following instructions given:

Think about things that have happened to you or that
you have done in the past (in the time gone by, all
the yesterdays you have had). Take a minute to think
about this: what things have happened to you? What
have you done? Now would you tell me all the things
you can think of? (Interviewer briefly recorded each
event.)

Now I want you to tell me how important (the first
event) was to you. Was it very important, pretty
important, somewhat important, not very important or
not important al all?













The interviewer was allowed to prompt with "anything else?" but was not

allowed to suggest any particular events) to S. Further if the term past

was not understood, E explained only with the alternative definitions

enclosed in parentheses above. If S still did not comprehend, the inter-

viewer continued with something new. A similar procedure was used for

both present (now, currently) and future (in the time ahead, all the

tomorrows you will have) events.

At this point the tape recorder was stopped and the semantic dif-

ferential items administered. The seven and eleven year olds received

the following detailed instructions and indicated their responses on a

large chart with a movable X.

Next we would like to ask you some new questions. I'm
going to give you a word and I want you to answer some
questions about the word. For example, let's use the
word candy bar. Now I want you to use these words (point
to chart) to tell me how you feel about candy bars. The
first words are important/unimportant. Now if you feel
candy bars are very important you would place this X
close to the word important; if you feel they're very
unimportant you would place the X close to the word
unimportant. If they're a little bit important place
the X here (demonstrate) or a little bit unimportant
place the X here (show). If you just don't know you
would place the X in the middle. So the closer the X is
to the word, the more you believe that word is true about
candy bars. OK, let's do the next words. They are
good/bad. How good or how bad do you think candy bars
are? Show me where you'd put the X.

The fifteen year olds were given the following brief instructions and

recorded their answers directly on the data sheets:

On each of the next three pages you will find a dif-
ferent word representing someone or something. You
are to judge that person or thing on the set of scales
underneath. Place an X in the position which best
represents your feeling.

For instance, if the word was candy bar and you feel
that candy bars are very close to the good end of the
scale, you would put an X here (demonstrate). Thus













the closer you put an X to any particular word the more
you think that word is true about the word at the top
of the page. You may work quickly.

All Ss were given the option of not responding to any or all pairs of

words.

Finally, the last four time questions were asked. Then S was thanked

and allowed to return to his classroom.


Nineteen Year Olds

These Ss followed the same exact procedure as the fifteen year olds

except they were tested during one session. They also were contacted

within two weeks after the experimental session in order to obtain an

estimate of their parents' SES.


Three Year Olds

Parents brought S to the experimental room and waited outside while

the child was interviewed. However, some children became upset about

leaving their parents) and in those cases, the parents were allowed to

sit across the room from the experimenter and the child. Some children

were so distressed that the parent remained seated with the child while

the experimenter conducted the interview. Two female Ss were excluded

as they would not answer even if their parents) was present. Further,

parents of eight children either cancelled or failed to show for the

interview. Table 6 presents the frequency of males and females who were

tested with or without direct parental influence. In all cases parents

were instructed to remain quiet and not to help the child.

After the child was seated at the table, the interview was conducted

according to one of the randomly selected orders described above. All

children received the personal space measures first and the time questions


















TABLE 6

The Frequency of Three Degrees of Parental Contact
with Three Year Old Subjects


Degree of Parental Contact


Sex Child Alone Parent Present


Parent Sat with Child


Male 3 1 8


Female 2 2 8


Total 5 3 16













second. An attempt was made to make friends with S and to explain each

task to them in simple terms. Small one and one-half inch dolls were

used to represent S and the stimulus persons in the paper and pencil test.

The doll representing S was placed in the center and the doll representing

each stimulus person was placed at the end of a randomly selected line.

The instructions were:

Let's pretend this piece of paper is a big room. Ok?
Now this doll in the middle is you. This is (S's name).
This doll over here is your best boy friend. Do you
have a little boy friend? What's his name? Ok, this
is (friend's name). Now he's going to walk toward
you like this (E moves doll). You show me where you
would want him to stop because he'd make you uncom-
fortable. You move your friend. Remember this is you
in the middle.

Similar instructions were used for each stimulus person with E substitu-

ting a name for the stimulus person when possible.

The standard felt board figures were used for the felt board instru-

ment. Again names were substituted when possible in order to facilitate

the child's understanding of the task. An example of the instructions is:

Now let's pretend this boy with the green triangle is
you. This is (S's name). We'll put you right here.
This figure is your daddy. Ok? Show me where you'd
put your daddy on the board with you.

Similar instructions were used for all stimulus persons.

These Ss were asked the time questions as worded in Appendix A. They

were allowed the option of saying they did not know to any or all questions.

After the interview, Ss were returned to their parents whose questions,

if any, were answered.


















CHAPTER ITI


RESULTS


Preliminary Analysis


Personal Space

Several preliminary computations were conducted on the personal

space measures before performing the primary analyses. These prelimi-

nary analyses were combinations of the various dependent measures. The

following scores were calculated for both the felt board and the paper

and pencil measures of personal space:

Familiar male (FM) score = mean of all responses to
best male friend + father
+ brother.

Familiar female (FF) score = mean of all responses to
best female friend + mother
+ sister.

Unfamiliar male (UM) score = mean of all responses to
male stranger + mailman.

Unfamiliar female (UF) score = mean of all responses to
female stranger + saleslady.

Composite scores also calculated for the behavioral measures:

Approached by (A) score = mean of all responses to
approached by male and ap-
proached by female.

Approaches (A) score = mean of all responses to
approaches male and approaches
female.

Male behavioral (MB) score = mean of all responses to ap-
proached by male and approaches
male .













Female behavioral (FB) score = mean of all responses to
approached by female and
approaches female.

These calculations permitted inclusion in the analyses below of the few

subjects who had not responded to all items. Appendix B gives the number

of subjects who did not respond to each dependent measure. The mean

scores of these Ss were not significantly different from the mean scores

of Ss responding to all items on the felt board and paper and pencil

instruments. All seven to nineteen year old Ss responded to the behav-

ioral items. Three year old Ss were not given this measure.

Further, z-score transformations were performed on the mean measures

derived above. These z-scores permitted combination of similar mean

scores across measures. Thus the z-score for familiar male on the felt

board and the z-score for familiar male on the paper and pencil test were

added. Further, mean s-scores were computed per each composite category;

familiar male, familiar female, unfamiliar male and unfamiliar female.

The male and female behavioral measures were added with the appropriate

unfamiliar stimulus categories. Consequently, the composite z-scores

incorporated all personal space measures.


Personal Time Perspective

Time formula. Each tape of each subject's responses was judged by

one judge who recorded name of event, age of event, and importance of

event as reported by the subject. A preliminary rating of eight tapes

by two independent judges demonstrated 98 percent agreement on both age

and importance of event. Due to this high inter-rater reliability only

one judge rated the interview tapes.

After the tapes were analyzed, the measures of past, present and

future time perspective were derived according to the prespecified formulas












(see page 57). These measures are essentially measures of temporal range

within each domain, irrespective of chronological age, multiplied by the

importance of specific events. Thus three scores result: past time

perspective, present time perspective and future time perspective.

Actually only a past and future score resulted. During the inter-

views, present events were reported to have occurred at the present age.

When applying these ages to the formula, scores of zero were obtained for

the present time perspective for all but two subjects. Thus present time

perspective scores cannot be examined utilizing this formula.

Utilizing these tapes, two other measures were calculated. First,

a mean measure of importance for all events in each time domain was com-

puted. Second, a frequency count of events in each time domain was ob-

tained. Thus six other measures were used from the time formula informa-

tion--past importance, present importance, future importance, number of

events in the past, number of events in the present and number of events

in the future.

Semantic differential. Two indices of time were calculated for the

past, present and future referents from the semantic differential. First,

a mean score of all evaluative items was computed by adding scores on the

important/unimportant, bad/good, successful/unsuccessful, happy/sad and

kind/cruel scales and dividing by the number of pairs of these items to

which the subject responded. Secondly, a score for the major evaluative

scale (good/bad) was used for each subject. This scale was chosen

because all subjects responded to the good/bad adjectives.

Time related questions. The score for past, present and future on

the time related questions was a frequency score of the number of items

specifying desirability for each time domain. For example, a seven year













old subject who stated he would like to be eight received one.point in

the future domain on that item. The total number of items exemplifying

each time domain was used as the score for that domain.



Comparison of Measures


Personal Space

Correlations, excluding subjects with missing data, were computed

between all mean composite scores for each type of measure of personal

space. Ninety-six subjects were used for correlations involving the be-

havioral measures--as the three year old subjects were not tested on that

measure. One hundred twenty subjects were used in computing the other

correlation coefficients. Appendix C gives the correlation matrix and

the sample size for each comparison. Ninety-three percent of the corre-

lations were significant at least at the .02 level. Eighty percent were

significant at the .001 level. All were positive. Thus there is strong

evidence that these were measurements of the same construct, i.e., a

general measure of personal space. Table 7 gives the correlation coef-

ficients for similar composite scores across methods. All of these

correlations were significant at least at the .01 level. However, these

correlations, although significant, account for only eight to 27 percent

of the variance (see Table 7). Due to this limitation, the results are

presented below in terms of the analysis of each type of measurement

technique as well as in terms of the composite z-scores. Extremely

similar results were obtained with all analyses, again suggesting that

they are measurements of a general construct of personal space.










TABLE 7

Correlations of Similar Constructs Across Methodsa
and the Percent of Variance Accounted for by the Correlations


Construct Instrument


Felt


Instrument

Paper and Pencil Behavioral


Correlation Variance Correlation Variance


Familiar Felt 1.00 --
Familiar
ale Paper and Pencil .45** 20.25


Felt 1.00 --


r amillar
Female


Paper and Pencil


Correlation Variance


7.90


Felt
Unfamiliar
Unfamiliar Paper and Pencil
Male

Behavioral

Felt
Unfamiliar
Unfamiliar Paper and Pencil
Female

Behavioral


1.00


.41** 16.85

.42** 17.70


1.00


.51** 1.00


.41**


a
The behavioral measures had no familiar scores.
*E < .01.
p < .0001.


1.00


16.85


1.00


24.07


1.00


.41**












Personal Time Perspective

Correlations, excluding subjects with missing data, were computed

between all time measures. Appendix D gives the resulting correlation

coefficients and the sample size for each.

Significant correlations were obtained in two groups. First, the

semantic differential items including the mean of the evaluative items

for past, present and future and the simple raw score on the good/bad

items, all correlated positively with each other. Thus if a subject per-

ceived the past to be good, he was likely to see the present and future

as good also. The mean rating of important/unimportant obtained from

the interview for each time domain also correlated significantly with the

semantic differential items. Importance is basically an evaluative dimen-

sion and thus highly similar to the evaluative scale. These correlations

and the variance attributable to them are presented in Table 8.

The correlation coefficients for the formula derived measures are

presented in Table 9. The past time perspective score correlates highly

with the number of events in the past (p < .01), present (p < .001) and

future (p < .001). The frequency scores of number of events in each time

domain correlate significantly with each other time domain. Thus the

greater the number of events reported in the past, the greater the amount

in the present and the future. The variance accounted for in these

correlations ranges from 33 to 53 percent. Further, these scores are

highly correlated (15 percent of the variance accounted for) with the

past time perspective formula derived score utilizing importance of each

event. The future time perspective formula derived score, however, does

not correlate significantly with any other measure, suggesting that it

measures a different construct than mere number of events does.









TABLE 8


Correlations of Semantic Differential Time Measures
and Percent of Variance Accounted for by the Correlations


Evaluative Good/Bad Importance
Measures Past Present Future Past Present Future Past Present Future
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Correlation
1.00
Variance

Correlation .75a 1.00
Variance 56.25 --

Correlation .69a .75a 1.00
Variance 47.65 56.25 --

Correlation .80a .63a .57a 1.00
Variance 64.00 39.75 33.55 --

Correlation .53a .72a .55a .59a 1.00
Variance 26.35 51.90 30.25 34.85 --

Correlation .45a .50a .75a .37a .36a 1.00
Variance 20.25 25.95 56.25 13.75 13.00 --

Correlation .36b .44a .50a .43a .46a .29 1.00
Variance 13.00 19.40 25.00 18.55 21.20 8.45 --

Correlation .44a .40a .32b .38a .29b .21 .39a 1.00
Variance 19.40 24.05 9.90 14.50 8.45 4.45 15.25 --

Correlation .06 .15 .24c -.10 -.09 .16 .16 .20 1.00
Variance .20 2.25 5.80 1.00 .80 2.40 2.40 4.00 --

a b c. .


_ < .001.


p < .05.


p_ < .01.









TABLE 9


Correlations of Formula Derived Time Measures and
Percent of Variance Accounted for by the Correlations


Formula

Past Future
1 2


Number of Events

Past Present Future
3 4 5


Importance
Past Present Future
6 7 8


Correlation
Variance

Correlation
Variance

Correlation
Variance

Correlation
Variance

Correlation
Variance

Correlation
Variance

Correlation
Variance

Correlation
Variance


1.00


.32a -.03
9.9 0


.46b
21.20

.46b
21.20


1.00


.73b
53.35


-.03 .59b .57
0 34.85 33.55


.21 -.23
4.45 5.35

.28a -.06
7.35 0

.10 .08
1.00 0


.16
2.40

.10
1.00


1.00


.32a
9.90


.16 .11
2.40 1.25


1.00


1
.39b
15.25


1.00


.01 .08 .16 .20 1.00
0 0 2.40 4.00 --


a < .01


b < .001.


Measures













Thus two dimensions of temporal perspective were obtained. The first

is an evaluative rating of each time domain. The second consists of

various indices derived from the time formula scores. High positive

correlations were obtained from the number of events in each domain and

the past time perspective formula derived score suggesting that there

is a relationship between ability to list events and the past time per-

spective score. The future time perspective score did not correlate

with the other measure indicating that future time perspective does not

depend simply on skill in reporting many events.



Description of Principle Analyses


A brief description of the principle analyses is presented below.

Discussion of the specific results will be included in the following

section--Testing the Hypotheses. The analyses are presented here to give

a global picture of the computations performed.


Personal Space

Individual scores. Three types of analyses were computed on personal

space data. The first was a two-way analysis of variance using each

individual score for each measure of personal space as the dependent

variable. Age and sex were the independent variables accounting for

the variance. Appendix E summarizes these findings. A main effect for

age was found in all cases.

Mean scores. The second type of analysis used mean scores as

described above for the dependent measures. Separate analyses of variance

were run for each of the three measures of personal space. A four-way

analysis of variance with two repeated measures was computed for the













felt board data. Age and sex were the non-repeated independent variables

and familiarity and sex of the stimulus person were the repeated mea-

sures. Table 10 presents the results of this analysis.

Table 11 presents the results of a similar analysis using the

paper and pencil data.

Thirdly, a three-way ANOVA with one repeated measure, sex of stimu-

lus person, was calculated using the behavioral data. Familiarity was

not included with this analysis as both male and female stimulus persons

were unfamiliar. Table 12 presents these results.

z-scores. Finally, the combined z-scores for all measures was

used as the dependent variable. Again a four-way ANOVA with familiarity

and sex of stimulus person as repeated measures and age and sex as non-

repeated variables, was calculated. Table 13 presents the results of

this analysis.


Personal Time Perspective

These analyses consisted of a series of two-way ANOVAS with age and

sex as the independent variables. Each measure of time was utilized as

a dependent measure. Appendix F gives the resulting significant ANOVAS.

Table 14 and 15 give the results of these analyses for the time formula

derived measures.


Personal Space and Personal Time Perspective

To observe the relationship between personal space and personal time

perspective, correlations were calculated between all individual and

composite scores of personal space and all measures of time. Further

partial correlations factoring out the effects of age were calculated

with the composite personal space scores and the formula derived time scores.















TABLE 10

Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Felt Board
Measure of Personal Space


Source df MS F


Age (A)

Sex of S (S)

Ax S

Error within Ss

Familiarity (F)

Ax F

Sx F

A x S x F

F x Ss within groups

Sex of Stimulus Persons (St)

A x St

S x St

A x S x St

St x Ss within groups

F x St

Ax F x St

S x F x St

A x S x F x St

F x St x Ss within groups


pa < .001.. b


4 139625.50 18.06a

1 4841.67 .63

4 1047.41 .14

110 7731.30

1 403354.20 154.19a

4 9183.86 3.51b

1 592.50 .23

4 219.29 .08

110 2615.89

1 1383.16 1.09

4 1097.71 .86

1 22093.54 17.35a

4 3074.82 2.42c

110 1273.26

1 .00 .00

4 1337.54 1.29

1 1243.77 1.20

4 940.51 .91

110 1033.98


< .01. c < .05.















TABLE 11

Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Paper and
Pencil Measure of Personal Space


Source df MS F



Age (A) 4 5264.42 9.08a

Sex of S (S) 1 8.18 .01

A x S 4 460.07 .79

Error within Ss 110 579.77

Familiarity (F) 1 11681.63 98.80a

A x F 4 325.75 2.76d

S x F 1 80.28 .68

A x S x F 4 96.55 .82

F x Ss within groups 110 118.24

Sex of Stimulus Person (St) 1 1.23 .02

A x St 4 29.49 .51

S x St 1 376.96 6.54C

A x S x St 4 229.07 3.97b

St x Ss within groups 110 57.67

F x St 1 28.34 .83

A x F x St 4 99.02 2.91c

S x F x St 1 6.46 .19

A x S x F x St 4 16.99 .50

F x St x Ss within groups 110 33.98

a < .001. bP < .005. c < .025. dE < .05.

















TABLE 12

Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the
Behavioral Measures of Personal Space




Source df MS F



Age (A) 3 98602.56 10.94a

Sex of S (S) 1 5063.52 .56

A x S 3 22123.41 2.45b

Error within groups 88 9015.75

Sex of Stimulus Person (St) 1 19200.00 22.44a

A x St 3 492.00 .57

S x St 1 1102.08 1.29

A x S x St 3 1788.43 2.09

St x Ss within groups 88 855.77


p < .001.
p < .10.















TABLE 13

Analysis of Variance of z-Scores Utilizing All
Three Measures of Personal Space


Source df MS F



Age (A) 3 31.14 24.74a

Sex of S (S) 1 1.01 .80

A x S 3 1.00 .80

Error within Ss 88 1.26

Familiarity (F) 1 .00 .00

A x F 3 .85 2.14

S x F 1 .02 .04

A x S x F 3 .15 .38

F x Ss within groups 88 .40

Sex of Stimulus Person (St) 1 .00 .00

A x St 3 .03 .18

S x St 1 2.09 11.63a

A x S x St 3 1.14 6.36'

St x Ss within groups 88 .18

F x St 1 .00 .00

A x F x St 3 .16 1.24

S x F x St 1 .06 .47

A x S x F x St 3 .12 .89

F x St x Ss within groups 88 .13

ap < .001;


















TABLE 14

Analysis of Variance of Past
Time Perspective


Source df F P



Age (A) 3 19.34 .0001


Sex of S (S) 1 .03 .8530


A x S 3 .33 .8067



















TABLE 15

Analysis of Variance of Future
Time Perspective


Source df F P




Age (A) 3 .74 .5351


Sex of S (S) 1 .00 .9646


Ax S 3 .28 .8433


















TABLE 16

Correlations of Mean Composite Personal Space Scores and
Formula Derived Time Scores, Correcting for
Reduced Variance and Personal Spacea



Personal Space Measure Personal Time Measure
Stimulus Future Time
Past Time Perspective
Person Perspective


FM .76 .77
FF .70 .71
IIM .16 .18
UF .62 .61


FM .52 .60
Paper FF .87 .87
and
an UM .62 .58
enc UF .86 .82


UN
Behavioral
UF


was the nineteen year old group.


a The small range group used




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs