PERSONAL SPACE PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES OF VARIOUS
NATIONALITIES IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
DURING CONVERSATIONS AT WORK IN THAILAND
PHETHAI TULITATHAM
Adviser: Associate Professor Dr. Sucharat Rimkeeratikul
A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
ENGLISH FOR CAREERS
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE, THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
BANGKOK, THAILAND
MARCH 2011
ABSTRACT
“Personal space” is an invisible bubble that surrounds us. This personal space
tells us something about our culture, background, and what country or culture we are
in. It has many meanings for the way we use space in communication. This space can
be a buffer zone that may make you feel comfortable or safe when engaging in
conversation with ones you love or newcomers from different cultural settings. This
personal space can be moved closer or extended far away from your body. There are
many factors that affect this personal space perception, depending on your gender,
age, race, working position etc. and how well you know the people in an organization.
There were 184 participants who worked at an international organization in Thailand
who participated in this study by answering a questionnaire, with SPSS version 17.0
used to calculate the information obtained from the respondents. This questionnaire
identified what the most appropriate distance was between people engaged in
conversations with colleagues or supervisors within the workplace. Finally, the results
of this study support the theory of “Proxemics” by Edward T. Hall, in which he
categorized space as intimate space, personal space, social space, and public space.
He argued that different cultural frameworks for defining and organizing space, which
are internalized in all people at an unconscious level, can lead to serious failures of
communication and understanding in cross-cultural settings. A better understanding of
personal space will not only lead to greater success in communication, it will also
help to maintain good relationships among employees within an organization.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks and
gratitude to all those people involved. First of all, I wish to express my appreciation to
my adviser, Associate Professor Dr. Sucharat Rimkeeratikul, for the valuable
guidance and advice.
Secondly, I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to all my colleagues in
UNESCAP, who encouraged and helped me by participating in the survey of this
study.
Last but not least, a million thanks to my dearest family for their
encouragement and great support throughout the past two years, which helped me get
through the difficult times and achieve academic success.
Thammasat University
Phethai Tulitatham
Bangkok, Thailand
March 2011
iii
CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................iii
CONTENTS......................................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES.................................................................vi
CHAPTER
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................1
1.1
Background ............................................................................1
1.2
Statement of the Problem .......................................................3
1.3
Objectives of the Study ..........................................................3
1.4
Definition of Terms................................................................4
1.5
Scope of the Study .................................................................5
1.6
Significance of the Study .......................................................5
1.7
Organization of the Study ......................................................6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .........................................................7
2.1
The Theory of Nonverbal Communication ...........................7
2.2
The Concept of Proxemics Communication ..........................9
2.3
Personal Space Perception .....................................................11
2.4
The Effect of Personal Space on Working Achievement
of Employees .........................................................................15
3.
METHODOLOGY .........................................................................17
3.1
Subjects ..................................................................................17
3.2
Materials ................................................................................18
3.3
Procedures ..............................................................................18
3.4
Data Analysis .........................................................................19
iv
4.
RESULTS .......................................................................................20
4.1
Demographic Information of the Respondents ......................20
4.2
Characteristics of Both Male and Female Respondents ........23
4.3
Factors Affecting Personal Space Perception of
Employees ..............................................................................24
4.4
Comments or Suggestions From the Respondents ................31
5. CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION .......32
5.1
Summary of the Study ...........................................................30
5.2
Summary of the Findings .......................................................33
5.3
Discussion ..............................................................................36
5.4
Conclusions ............................................................................36
5.5
Recommendation for Further Research .................................36
REFERENCES .................................................................................................38
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................40
A. Questionnaire (English Language)...................................................40
B. Questionnaire (Thai Language)........................................................45
v
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
PAGE
FIGURES
Figure 1: Person’s Informal Distance ........................................................................10
Figure 1: Personal Space for Social Interaction.........................................................14
TABLES
Table 1 Descriptive for Gender of the Respondents ..................................................20
Table 2 Descriptive for Age of the Respondents .......................................................20
Table 3 Descriptive for Religion of the Respondents ................................................21
Table 4 Descriptive for Race of the Respondents ......................................................21
Table 5 Descriptive for Marital Status of the Respondents .......................................22
Table 6 Descriptive for Level of education of the Respondents ................................22
Table 7 Descriptive for Working Position of the Respondents .................................22
Table 8 Descriptive for Characteristics of Both Male and Female Respondents ......23
Table 9 Difference in Gender Affecting Personal Space Perception .........................24
Table 10 Difference in Age Affecting Personal Space Perception ............................25
Table 11 Difference in Religion Affecting Personal Space Perception .....................26
Table 12 Difference in Race Affecting Personal Space Perception ..........................27
Table 13 Difference in Marital Status Affecting Personal Space Perception ............28
Table 14 Difference in Level of Education Affecting Personal Space Perception ....29
Table 15 Difference in Working Position Affecting Personal Space Perception ......30
vi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
Nowadays, many countries are facing problems that have spread throughout
the world, such as the global economic crisis, global warming, health issues, natural
disasters as well as terrorism. These countries are seeking to cooperate and looking
forward to working together in order to solve these problems through existing
international organizations. The United Nations (UN) is the largest international
organization in the world with 192 current Member States. It was established on
October 24, 1945.
After the Second World War. The United Nations is an international
organization whose stated purposes are to maintain international peace and security,
to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian
problems and to promote respect for human rights. According to its responsibilities,
the United Nations established the Economic and Social Council as the principle
organ to coordinate the economic, social, and related work of the United Nations and
the specialized agencies and institutions through all regions of the world, such as the
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UNESCAP) is the regional arm of the United Nations for the Asia-Pacific region,
which is located in Bangkok, Thailand.
The employees working in the UNESCAP compound come from different
parts of the world. Thus, they have many differences in their cultural backgrounds and
personal experiences. Therefore, they have their own frame of references when they
communicate both verbally and nonverbally with others in the workplace.
Communication between employees within an organization is an important aspect of
work. Many scholars have found that 65 to 93 percent of all meaning communicated
is attributable to nonverbal elements (Birdwhistell, 1970; Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967;
Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967; Philpot, 1983). Gaining a mastery over the nuances of
nonverbal messages, employees, especially in a cross-cultural setting, can lead to a
better workplace. If the employees cannot accurately determine the meaning of
2
nonverbal messages that intentionally or unintentionally among colleagues and
supervisors, misunderstanding of nonverbal messages can result in the sudden
breakdown of their communications. Moreover, it can deteriorate the relationships
among
colleagues,
subordinates
and
supervisors
within
the
organization.
Misunderstanding or misinterpreting of nonverbal messages will pose problems for
them and obstruct the organization’s advancement. Furthermore, employees may not
do in their work as well as they should and nor be able to achieve the organization’s
goals.
Communication is the process of people sharing thoughts, ideas, and feelings
with each other in commonly understandable ways (Hamilton & Parker, 1997).
Communication can be divided into two types: verbal and nonverbal communications
(Adler & Rodman, 2003). Proxemics is the most influential aspect of nonverbal
communication, which involves the study of the set measurable distances between
people as they interact with another during conversations (Hall, 1966). Proxemics is
the acceptable distance maintained between two people during an interactive
communication or in the course of personal conversations. It is about how nonverbal
communication among and between people is affected by distance. These kinds of
spatial relationships involve territory, proximity, and a wide range of personal space.
Even the space between two people may have an impact on their relationships.
Proxemics can have a different meaning depending on gender, age, religion, race,
marital status, level of education, and working position. It is important to know what
is and is not an appropriate distance and when it may be necessary to avoid offensive
proximity to other people in communication. The distance you maintain should be
neither threatening nor evasive to the others’ personal space. Knowing the differences
and behaving appropriately can help you avoid the pitfalls in these sensitive areas.
This study aimed to identify the most important factors affecting personal
space perception of employees of various nationalities in international organizations.
The space of employees in the workplace is classified as “Personal Space”, which
may be easily damaged by another’s invasion. If someone in the working
relationships breaks the boundary of the appropriate space or distance, the other
person will probably feel uncomfortable. Even though there is no legal definition of
“Personal Space”, it generally considered to be an invincible bubble that surrounds
3
1.5-4 feet from a person’s body. If someone continually and without provocation
comes too close to you and gets within your “Personal Space”, it can be considered an
assault or physically threatening. This is because the way we behave nonverbally is
normal and any substantial deviation from that pattern is not normal. This tendency is
particularly problematic when we encounter people from another culture. Without an
understanding of nonverbal communication in one’s own culture, as well as the
culture of the person with whom you are communicating, extensive accidental
communication is highly probable. These problems not only affect working
cooperation, but also destroy the employees’ relationships within the organization.
1.2
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Proxemics communication plays an important role in relationships among
employees within the organization. “Personal space” is one category of proxemics
communication that we have to be aware of when we engage in communication. In
the workplace, most employees are less aware of others’ personal space during
conversations. Not only does it reflect the way employees deal with others, it also can
catalyze or hinder the work process of the organization. This study aimed to answer
the following questions:
1.2.1 What is the most important factor that affects the personal space
perception of employees of various nationalities in international organizations?
1.2.2 What is the appropriate distance to maintain during conversations
between people working in international organizations?
1.2.3 What is most Thai employees’ appropriate distance of personal space
during conversations at work in international organizations?
1.3
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objectives of this study are the following:
1.3.1 To identify the most important factor that affects the personal space
perception of employees during conversations at work in international organizations.
1.3.2 To find out the appropriate personal distance perception of employees of
various nationalities in international organizations during conversations at work.
4
1.3.3 To investigate the personal space perception of Thai employees during
conversations at work in international organizations.
1.4
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The definitions of the terms of this study are as follows:
Body Language refers to the process of communicating what you are feeling
or thinking by the way you place and move your body rather than by words in
conscious and unconscious movements.
Employees refer to the persons who are working in International
Organizations regardless of the gender, age, religion, race, marital status, level of
education and working position.
Intimate zone or intimate space represents the innermost interaction region. It
ranges from touching to a distance of eighteen inches. (Richmond & McCroskey,
2004)
International Organizations refers to the Organizations which consist of
employees from more than two countries working together in toward the same
purposes.
Nonverbal behavior is any of a wide variety of human behaviors that also
have the potential for being interpreted as a communicative message. (Richmond &
McCroskey, 2004)
Nonverbal communication is the process of one person stimulating meaning
in the mind of another person or persons by means of nonverbal messages. (Richmond
& McCroskey, 2004)
Personal space is an invisible bubble that surround and expands or contracts
depending on personalities, situations, and types of relationships. Personal space is
portable; we take it everywhere we go (Richmond & McCroskey, 2004).
Proxemics is the study of how man structures micro space, how he relates
physically to other persons with whom he is interacting, and what is communicated by
these physical relationships (Hall, 1966).
Public zone is the outer region of the personal bubble. This zone begins at
eight feet and extends to the outer limits of interaction potential (Richmond &
McCroskey, 2004).
5
Social zone or social space is the region of the personal space that ranges from
four feet to eight feet. This region often called “the distance at which Americans
transacts business” (Richmond & McCroskey, 2004).
Territory of human is a semi-fixed or fixed space whose perceived owners
can move in and out of it without giving up their claim to it. It is claimed, staked out
in some way and defended against encroachment (Richmond & McCroskey, 2004).
Working Achievement refers to the successful of employees’ working to
achieve the organization’s goals.
1.5
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study aimed to identify the most important factors affecting personal
space perception of employees of various nationalities in International Organizations
and find out the most appropriate distance of employees during conversations at work.
Furthermore, the study investigates the personal space perception of Thai employees
during conversations at work in International Organization. All the participants were
selected by using random sampling technique. They were working for International
Organizations within the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific (UNESCAP) compound.
1.6
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study will identify the most important factors affecting the personal space
perception of employees of various nationalities in International Organizations during
conversations at work in Thailand. Invading or intruding others’ personal space often
unintentionally occurs among employees during their communication while working
together in International Organizations. Use of space is highly related to our cultures
and may have different meaning from one culture to another. Thus, we cannot fully
understand the use of space without understanding culture. Once we learn the
appropriate distance between interactants, we do not have to continually remember to
maintain this distance with every new conversation. However, when we go to a
different culture, we may have to learn a new set of spatial norms (Richmond &
McCroskey, 2004, p.119). Misunderstanding or unawareness of the others’ personal
space may destroy the relationship and hinder working cooperation of colleagues. In
6
order to reduce these problems, the result of this study will provide some information
and knowledge of the role of nonverbal communication. Furthermore, this study will
help employees in international organizations to better understand and be aware of
nonverbal behaviors in terms of “personal space”.
1.7
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This research study is presented in five chapters. Chapter One includes the
background of the study, statement of the problem, objective of the study, definition
of terms, scope of the study, significance of the study and organization of the study.
Chapter Two presents the review of literature, which includes the theories of
nonverbal communication, the concept of proxemics communication and personal
space perception. Chapter Three describes the methodology used for this research
study. It includes the selection of participants, the instrument, data collection, and data
analysis procedures.
Chapter Four presents the study’s findings including demographic
information, testing the research questions, confirmatory factor analysis and the
results of the data analyses for the three research questions. Chapter Five provides a
summary of the entire study, a discussion of the findings, recommendations for
further study, and the conclusion.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter reviews the literature of nonverbal communication theories, the
concept of proxemics communication, personal space perception, and the effect of
personal space on the working achievement of employees. This study only focuses on
personal space, which is one of four categories of Edward T. Hall, the anthropologist
who coined the term Proxemics. Personal space, the perception of distance between
interactants during conversations, also plays an important role in the nonverbal
communication of employees of various nationalities in International Organizations
during conversations at work. This personal space not only can illustrate the
relationships between supervisors and colleagues, but also can show the power or
social status of the owner of this space. Personal space can be catalyzed or hinder the
working process of employees within the organization.
2.1
THE THEORY OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
Communication is the process of people sharing thoughts, ideas, and feelings
with each other in commonly understandable ways (Hamilton & Parker, 1997). It
means that people transfer their thoughts, ideas and feelings from one to another
during a conversation. Thus, human communication is the process of one person
stimulating meaning in the mind of another person (or persons) by means of verbal
and/or nonverbal messages. In order to succeed in communication, the senders of the
messages have to use both verbal and nonverbal communication to convey their
messages. On the other hand, the receivers of the messages have to accurately
interpret the meaning of nonverbal messages that were sent from the senders.
Nonverbal communication is usually understood as the process of
communication through sending and receiving wordless messages by using body
language or posture, by facial expressions and eye contact, and by object
communication. Adler and Rodman (2003) divided communication into two types:
verbal and nonverbal communication. Early research into nonverbal communication,
conducted in both laboratory and field settings, indicated that a very large portion of
8
the variability in meaning communicated was a function of nonverbal messages rather
than verbal messages (Richmond & McCroskey, 2004). More specifically, nonverbal
communication has great functional significance of meaning in the interpersonal
context. Therefore, Birdwhistell (1970) asserts that “probably no more than 30 to 35
percent of the social meaning of a conversation or an interaction is carried by the
words” (p.158).
Merhrabien (1968) goes even further, estimating that 93 percent of the total
impact of a message is the result of nonverbal factors (Leathers, 1986). Nonverbal
communication is important to the study of intercultural communication because a
great deal of nonverbal behavior is universal language (Tuangporn Somsamai, 2005).
Therefore, subsequent generalizations about the impact of all nonverbal behavior are
unjustified. Although nonverbal elements dominate communication in many
circumstances, other nonverbal elements have far fewer significant effects.
However, both verbal and nonverbal elements are very important in most
human interactions, and the meaning communicated usually depends on the
interaction of the two, not on either element alone. The communicative potential of
nonverbal behavior is heavily influenced by culture. Thus, a nonverbal behavior in
one culture may send a strong message in that culture, but have little or no message
potential in another culture. Similarly, the meaning of nonverbal messages may differ
sharply from one culture to another. Nonverbal communication differs from person to
person, most nonverbal communication behaviors are natural to all people. We
assume that the way we behave nonverbally is normal and that any substantial
deviation from that pattern is not normal. This tendency is particularly problematic
when we encounter people from another culture. People from different cultures learn
very different nonverbal behaviors, and all perceived their own as normal. There are
also meaningful differences between males and females, between older people and
younger people, and among people from various ethnic groups. Once we develop an
understanding of nonverbal communication in our culture, we are ready to learn about
nonverbal communication in other cultures. Without an understanding of nonverbal
communication in one’s own culture, as well as the culture of the person with whom
you are communicating, extensive accidental communication is highly probable.
9
Employees
who
are
working
for
international
organizations
may
misunderstand or misinterpret the meaning of nonverbal messages in their
communication. Nonverbal communication is an important part of how people
communicate to each other and they have different interpretations, which depend on
their own frame of references. Moreover, nonverbal communication can be illustrated
in many ways such as, physical appearance, territory and personal space, facial
expressions, gestures and posture, body movement, eye contact, physical
environment, and time (Hamilton & Parker, 1997).
2.2
THE CONCEPT OF PROXEMICS COMMUNICATION
The study of the communicative aspects of space or virtue of the relative
positioning of your bodies is known as proxemics. Use of territory and space is highly
related to culture. The way a person uses space is determined by the dictates of that
individual’s cultural values. There are two important areas in proxemics: territoriality
and use of personal space. Territory is the larger area an individual controls that can
provide personal privacy, for example, an office or a specific chair in the conference
room or their own desk in the office. Invading another’s territory may cause that
person discomfort and the desire to defend his or her space (by turning away or
creating a barrier, for example) (Argyle, 1988). The use of personal space refers to an
invisible bubble that an individual maintains around him or herself during
conversations. Culture can influence the way that individuals use space. Individualist
societies like the United States emphasize personal rights and responsibilities,
privacy, and freedom, whereas more collectivist societies emphasize community and
collaboration (Andersen, Hecht, Hoobler, & Smallwood, 2002).
Proxemics is the study of how man structures “microspace”, how he relates
physically to other persons with whom he is interacting, and what is communicated by
these physical relationships. Edward T. Hall (1966), who coined the term
“Proxemics” and devised a system of notation for recording proxemics behavior,
reports many impressionistic observations into four categories of interpersonal space.
The four interpersonal spaces are intimate space, personal space, social space, and
public space. As shown in the diagram below:
10
Figure 1: Person’s Informal Distance
Adapted from Edward T. Hall’s diagram of “Personal Space” (The Hidden
Dimension, 1966)
• Intimate space (0-1.5 feet): This area begins at your body and goes out to
about 1.5 feet away from you. It is the domain of your most intimate interactions with
people, typically a small handful of people with whom you have the closest
relationships.
• Personal space (1.5-4 feet): This area begins about 1.5 feet away and goes
out to about 4 feet away from you. It is the domain of interactions with people you
know well, such as those whom you know relatively well and your close friends, your
colleagues, subordinates and supervisors in the workplace.
• Social space (4-12 feet): This area begins about 4 feet away and goes out to
about 12 feet away from you. It is the domain of interactions such as meeting
someone new, greeting a familiar acquaintance, or generally interacting with someone
who is not particularly well known to you.
• Public space (12- 25 feet): This area begins about 12 feet away and goes out
to about 25 feet, sometimes even more. It is the domain of public interactions such as
taking a stroll through the shopping mall, walking down the street, or passing other
people in the grocery store, or waiting for a bus at the bus stop.
11
Proxemics becomes truly interesting when individuals from different cultures
interact during conversations. This is because proxemics boundaries vary dramatically
from culture to culture. For example, in North Americans fall somewhere in the
middle as far as proxemics zone boundary preference is concerned. South Americans
and Arabs, on the other hand, tend to prefer very close proxemics distance for
interaction. When North Americans interact with South Americans or Arabs, they
usually find themselves feeling closed in and tend to move backward. On the other
hand, when interacting with Asians who prefer greater proxemics distance, North
Americans find themselves uncomfortably far away. Some people always feel
uncomfortable when they have to be close other persons while working together. This
is the reason why some people like to stay or work separately from their colleagues. If
employees are required to work in crowded conditions, they will be uncomfortable,
and their discomfort will distract them from their work. This proxemics or personal
space can affect the work of employees who prefer to work alone and need to have
their personal space respected. Comfortable personal space in the workplace
environment can increase the potential for higher productivity of the employees in the
organization.
2.3
PERSONAL SPACE PERCEPTION
In communication, we also use personal space to communicate to others
within the proxemics environment. To understand what and how we communicate via
our proxemics behavior, we must understand the meaning of personal space.
“Personal space has no finite barriers and becomes a tangible concept only when
people use space and when individuals attempt to define its boundaries. It is usually
measured in terms of how far one individual is from another during conversations.
Hall (1966) identifies four types of informal distance: intimate space, personal
space, social space, and public space. This study only focuses on the personal space
perception of employees during conversations. Leathers (1986, p. 72) concludes the
research of Hall (1966) and states that personal space is the distance that individuals
customarily place between themselves and others. This distance is particularly
important, for several reasons. A successful communicator will be sensitive to the
12
personal space that others maintain when interacting with them by keeping the
distance at 1.5-4 feet.
Most people probably do not spend much time thinking about space they use
on a daily basis is determined. For things like the distance we maintain during
conversations, we generally think it is our personal space. Each individual has a
personal space, which is like an invisible bubble surrounding them. This bubble
becomes larger or smaller depending on the person with whom we communicated.
We always feel comfortable when standing or sitting closer to someone we like
during conversations. In contrast, we may feel uncomfortable when standing or sitting
closer to someone we do not know well during conversations. However, the amount
of personal space that an individual desires depends on many factors such as gender,
age, religion, race, working position, etc.
Knapp (1972, p.42-43) cited the study of Willis (1966), who concluded that
both male and female speakers always stand closer to women than men and that older
colleagues stand closer to younger listeners than younger colleagues did. The range of
distance measured in Willis’ study was from 17.75-28 inches or about 1.5-4 feet
during a conversation.
Sommer (1969) said that an individual distance may be outside the area of
personal space to infinite distance. Personal space is always carried by every person,
although it disappears in certain situations, such crowded elevators or on the street or
in the theater. When personal space is violated, people react with defensive gestures,
shifts in posture, attempts to move away, and actually moving away. Sommer
established three main purposes of personal space that all have to do with
interpersonal boundaries as follows:
•
Protective function: serves as a buffer zone against potential emotional and
physical threats.
•
Adjusting sensory input: regulates amount of sensory information we get
from others and prevents overloads.
•
Communication function: level of closeness and intimacy that we desire with
another.
13
Fast (1970) wrote that each person has an invisible boundary around their
body into which other people may not come. When two people are talking to each
other, they tend to stand a specific distance apart. If someone pierces this invisible
boundary, they will feel uncomfortable and move away to increase the distance
between them. The size of your own personal space always changes, depending on a
number of things such as the relationship of the people nearby, the person’s emotion
states, cultural background, and the activity being performed. Furthermore, Fast
(1970) also stated that all the distances zones of proxemics. There are two phases in
each zone: close phase and far phase. In the close phase, you can hold or grasp your
partner’s hand. This distance is reserved for those who you know well such your wife,
husband or family members or your close friends. On the other hand, the far phase of
personal distance is from two and one half to four feet. This distance is used when
you have a personal discussion with your colleagues or supervisors in the workplace.
Richmond, McCroskey and Payne (199, p.118) stated that humans seem to
have a need to claim and stake out space to call their own. We defend territory, invade
that of others, put distance between others and ourselves, and avoid using certain
spaces. As a culture, we use our spaces differently from other cultures. As individuals,
we may differ still again depending on our age, sex, personality, and upbringing. The
way we use space, claim it, defend it, or allow others to enter it has a great deal to do
with the nonverbal messages we transmit. Personal space is an area with invisible
boundaries that surrounds us and we take it every where we go.
Baumeister and Bushman (2008) stated that personal space is a protective area
or “buffer zone” that allows one to maintain a sense of privacy and to control the
amount of stimulation one receives during interaction with another person. They were
in agreement with the theory of Edward T. Hall and suggested that personal space can
be divided into four categories: intimate space, casual space, social space, and public
space as shown in figure 2 below.
14
Figure 2: Personal Space for Social Interaction
Adapted from Baumeister and Bushman (2008)
•
Intimate space, from touching to 1.5 feet, is the closest distance possible and
is appropriate when engaging in activities such as dancing, hugging or speaking with
one who the most you love.
•
Casual space falls between 1.5 to 4 feet, and is used when communicating
with those that one is comfortable with and know well.
•
Social space is used when interacting with strangers and ranges from 4 to 12
feet of spacing.
•
Public space is any distance over 12 feet and is used in formal settings, such
as in a performance for an audience.
Henlay (1973) stated that there are three general conclusions concerning touch
and the status of both interactants during conversations. Firstly, individuals touch
their subordinates more often than their supervisors. Secondly, the touching depends
on the situational context. Lastly, touching and dominance are related. Dominant
persons are more likely to initiate touch with others.
Personal space is a dynamic, active process of moving toward and away from
others, to make that one more or less accessible for others. It involves withdrawal and
protective reactions to intrusion or overly close contact by strangers, and a desire to
15
be close to like persons: attracting and retracting forces. Personal space is an invisible
bubble that surrounds us and expands or contracts depending on personality,
situations, and types of relationships. Furthermore, personal space is portable; we take
it everywhere we go (Richmond & McCroskey, 2004, p.128). This bubble becomes
larger or smaller, depending on the person with whom we interact. We are
comfortable standing or sitting closer to someone we like and more uncomfortable
with someone we dislike or do not know well standing or sitting at a distance.
However, the amount of personal space that a person desires depends on many
characteristics, including gender and age. The personal space that a person prefers
also depends on the situation. When interacting with friends, relatives, or conducting
casual business, most people prefer a distance of one and a half to four feet. When
conducting formal or impersonal business, most individuals prefer a personal space of
4 to 8 feet. Therefore, a person is likely to be more comfortable standing close to a
trusted coworker than to a newcomer or stranger.
The way we use space can convey nonverbal messages. It has been observed
that dominant human beings keep a larger buffer zone of personal space surrounding
them that discourages violation than do subordinate humans. Dominant persons are
not approached as closely as persons of lesser status. Higher status is also considered
to have a bigger personal space than those who has a lower status. It appears that
women’s personal space is perceived as smaller than men’s. One study found that the
distances between a pair in conversation varied depending on sex, age, race, and
status (Barbara Westbrook Eakins & R. Gene Eakinns, 1978 p.169).
2.4
THE
EFFECT
OF
PERSONAL
SPACE
ON
WORKING
ACHIEVEMENT OF EMPLOYEES
Use of personal space often varies based on differences in age, gender,
religion, race, marital status, level of education and working position. The violation of
personal space results in consistently disruptive effects on the communication
between two or more people. To be successful in communication within the
workplace, we should be sensitive to the spatial needs of those whom we
communicated. Distance between individuals seems to have a great impact on the
16
development of interpersonal relationships. If the distance between yourself and
another individual as you interact is too far, it will probably create a negative
impression and may help to destroy interpersonal trust. Many people are completely
unaware of their personal distance requirement. How closely they sit or stand within
the personal distance range depends on their own personal space requirements, the
environment, and how much they like one another.
However, an encroachment on one’s personal space can occur and lead to
aversive effects among employees at anytime. Many supervisors use this violation of
the space to control their subordinates. Personal space violations can be a powerful
tool to show encouragement and support or can be destructive by making the receiver
uncomfortable and defensive. Because this space serves as a protective function, one
individual may develop a dislike for the intruder, or perform poorly on a given task,
or experience negative emotions, such as aggression, hostility or ignorance their work.
Knowledge of this distance is important to your business or professional success. If
supervisors and employees are aware of the importance of personal distance
requirements, many communication problems might be solved.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The primary goal of this study was to investigate what is the most important
factor that affects personal space perception of employees of various nationalities in
international organizations and to identify what is the appropriate distance perception
of employees during conversations at work. Many scholars accept that nonverbal
behaviors are very important in communication. Proxemics is the acceptable distance
maintained between two people during an interactive session or in the course of a
casual conversation. In order to find out the answer to this study, the methodology
employed to test the research questions is presented in this chapter. The chapter is
organized into four sections: (1) subjects, (2) materials, (3) procedures, and (4) data
analysis.
3.1
SUBJECTS
The target population of this study was the employees of various nationalities
in the UNESCAP compound. More than 500 employees work for international
organizations, such as International Labour Organization (ILO), United Nations
Office for Project Services (UNOPS), United Nations Development Fund for Women
(UNIFEM) and other sections of UNESCAP, such as the Security and Safety Section
(SSS), the Conference Management Unit (CMU), and the Mail Operations and
Registry Unit (MOU). The participants in this study had different genders, ages, races,
marital status, levels of education and working positions. The number of participants
accurately represented employees’ backgrounds and they all had an equal chance of
being selected to participate in this study due to the use of simple random sampling
technique. All of the participants were asked to complete the questionnaires
distributed by the researcher. All the participants are representatives of their own
nationality and religion. For example, they may represent their own countries, such as
Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, etc. and also for their own religion, such as,
Buddhist, Christian, Islam, etc. All the personal information of the participants in this
study will be treated as confidential.
18
3.2
MATERIALS
The research instrument in this study was a questionnaire designed by the
researcher based on the theory of Edward T. Hall on Proxemics. The questionnaire
was written in both English and Thai language. The questionnaire included closedended questions and an opened-ended question, and was divided into three parts. The
first part of questionnaire contained closed-ended questions about the general
background or demography of the participants. There were seven questions asking for
gender, age, religion, race, marital status, level of education, and working position.
The second part was comprised of factors affecting the personal space perception of
employees, such as differences in gender, age, religion, race, marital status, level of
education, and working position. The participants were asked to answer or select the
appropriate personal distance perception during conversations and this distance is
depended on their own preferable ideas by using a Likert Scale as follows:
Strongly agree
=
5
Agree
=
4
Neutral
=
3
Disagree
=
2
Strongly disagree
=
1
The last part of the questionnaire was in the form of an opened-ended question
on the participants’ suggestions or comments on the personal space perception of
employees during conversations at work.
3.3
PROCEDURES
This section describes the procedures for data collection and analysis of the
study.
3.3.1
Research Design
The first step in the quantitative data collection process of this study
included the design of the questionnaire, which the researcher based on the Proxemics
theory of Edward T. Hall. This theory divides personal space into four categories:
19
intimate space (0-1.5 feet), personal space (1.5-4 feet), social space (4-12 feet), and
public space (12-25 feet). Then, the factors that may affect the perception of space
during conversations, such as gender, age, religion, etc. were surveyed in multiple
choice questions according to four spaces of Edward T. Hall’s theory. Each question
had four choices beginning with intimate space (Touching-1.5 feet) as answer (a),
personal space (1.5-4 feet) answer (b), social space (4-12 feet) answer (c), and public
space (12-25 feet) answer (d). All factors had a last question that asked the
respondents about the most appropriate distance; the respondents could respond by
strongly agreeing to strongly disagreeing by using the Likert scale (5-1) for the
selected answer (see Appendix A). All 200 questionnaires were printed into five
colors (White, Yellow, Purple, Green and Light blue) and distributed to each agency
mentioned in section 3.1. Most of the participants were security personnel in the
Security and Safety Section. The rest of the participants were staff members in the
international organizations within the UNESCAP compound.
3.3.2
Data Collection
The questionnaires were distributed to the participants by the
researcher and they had about 30 minutes in order to complete the questionnaires
during their free time. The questionnaire could be taken away and had to be returned
to the researcher after the participants completed it.
3.4
DATA ANALYSIS
The information obtained in this study was analyzed by using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences Program (SPSS version 17.0). Descriptive statistics
(Percentage and Frequency) were used to analyze all the factors affecting personal the
space perception of employees of various nationalities in International Organizations
during conversations at work in Thailand. Furthermore, a five-point Likert scale was
used to analyze the questionnaire in terms of factors that affected the personal space
perception of employees, with the scores on the five-point rating scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The previous chapter explained the research method and instrument used to
obtain the information from the respondents in this study. The results of this study are
divided into four parts: demographic information of the respondents, characteristics of
both male and female respondents, factors affecting the personal space perception of
employees during conversations, and comments or suggestions of the respondents on
the personal space perception of employees during conversations at work. The data
analysis in this study was made by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) version 17.0 to calculate the frequency and percentage.
4.1
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
The first part of the questionnaire sought the personal information concerning
the respondents, such as gender, age, religion, race, marital status, level of education
and working position. All information was displayed in the form of frequency and
percentage of the respondents as follows:
Table 1 Descriptive for Gender of the Respondents
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Frequency
89
95
184
Percent
48.4
51.6
100.0
Valid Percent
48.4
51.6
100.0
As shown in table 1, most of the respondents (n=184) were female employees
51.6% and the rest 48.4% were male employees.
Table 2 Descriptive for Age of the Respondents
Age
20-30 Years
31-40 Years
Over 41 Years
Total
Frequency
27
93
64
184
Percent
14.7
50.5
34.8
100.0
Valid Percent
14.7
50.5
34.8
100.0
21
As shown in table 2, in terms of age, the respondents (n=184) can be divided
into three age ranges: 20-30 years old, 31-40 years old and over 41 years old. Most of
the respondents fell into the age range of 31-40 years old (50.5%), followed by age
range over 41 years old (34.8%) and the last is the age range of 20-30 years old
(14.7%).
Table 3 Descriptive for Religion of the Respondents
Religion
Buddhist
Christian
Other
Total
Missing System
Total
Frequency
139
23
21
183
1
184
Percent
75.5
12.5
11.4
99.5
.5
100.0
Valid Percent
76.0
12.6
11.5
100.0
As shown in table 3, in terms of religion, the respondents (n=184) were
categorized into three main religious groups: Buddhist, Christian and others. Most of
the respondents were Buddhist 75.5%, Christian 12.6% and other 11.5% (some were
Muslim and some of the respondents did not identify their own religions).
Furthermore, one respondent did not answer this question in the questionnaire.
Table 4 Descriptive for Race of the Respondents
Race
Thai
Other
Total
Missing System
Total
Frequency
158
25
183
1
184
Percent
85.9
13.6
99.5
.5
100.0
Valid Percent
86.3
13.7
100.0
As shown in table 4, most of the respondents (n=184) were Thai 85.9% and
other 13.7% (this included Malaysian, Korean, Chinese, Filipino, American and
unidentified). One respondent did not answer this question in the questionnaire.
22
Table 5 Descriptive for Marital Status of the Respondents
Marital Status
Married
Never been Married
Total
Frequency
98
86
184
Percent
53.3
46.7
100.0
Valid Percent
53.3
46.7
100.0
As shown in table 5, most of the respondents (n=184) were married 53.3%, or
had never been married 46.7% (these included single, divorced, widowed or
separated).
Table 6 Descriptive for Level of Education of the Respondents
Level of Education
High School
Bachelor Degree
Master Degree or Higher
Total
Frequency
32
92
60
184
Percent
17.4
50.0
32.6
100.0
Valid Percent
17.4
50.0
32.6
100.0
In terms of level of education, the respondents (n=184) were categorized into
three levels: High school, bachelor’s degree and master’s degree or higher level. As
shown in table 6, most of the respondents had bachelor’s degrees 50.0%, master’s
degree 32.6% or high school diplomas 17.4 % (these included diploma education and
vocational education).
Table 7 Descriptive for Working Position of the Respondents
Working Position
GS 1-4
GS 5-7
Professional or above
Total
Frequency
107
67
10
184
Percent
58.2
36.4
5.4
100.0
Valid Percent
58.2
36.4
5.4
100.0
As shown in table 7, most of the respondents’ working position (n=184) was
at level GS 1-4 at about 58.2% followed by at level GS 5-7 at about 36.4%; the rest
were at the professional or above level at 5.4%.
23
4.2
CHARECTERISTICS OF BOTH MALE AND FEMALE
RESPONDENTS
Table 8 Descriptive for Characteristics of both Male and Female Respondents
Gender
Characteristics of the Respondents
Age
Female
20-30 years old
12
15
27
31-40 years old
43
50
93
Over 41 years old
34
30
64
89
95
184
Buddhist
74
65
139
Christian
6
17
23
Other
9
12
21
89
94
183
Thai
76
82
158
Other
13
12
25
89
94
183
Married
55
43
98
Never been Married
34
52
86
89
95
184
High School
24
8
32
Bachelor Degree
47
45
92
Master Degree or Higher
18
42
60
89
95
184
GS 1-4
61
46
107
GS 5-7
24
43
67
Professional or above
4
6
10
89
95
184
Total
Religion
Total
Race
Total
Marital Status
Total
Level of Education
Total
Working Position
Total
Male
Total
Table 8 presents the frequency of respondents in terms of the gender of both
male and female employees. All the respondents were divided into all the factors
affecting the personal space perception of employees of various nationalities in
international organizations during conversations at work in Thailand.
Most of the respondents were Thai – Buddhist female employees, aged
between 21-40 years old, who had never been married, with bachelor’s degrees, and
working at the position of GS 1-4 level.
24
4.3
FACTORS AFFECTING PERSONAL SPACE PERCEPTION OF
EMPLOYEES DURING CONVERSATIONS
The second part of the questionnaire intended to identify the most important
factor that affects personal space perception of employees of various nationalities in
international organizations during conversations at work in Thailand. Closed-ended
questions with Likert 5-point scales were used to measure the frequency of
employees’ appropriate distance perception during conversations at work. The
findings are shown in the form of frequency descriptive distribution.
4.3.1
Employees
Differences in Gender Affecting Personal Space Perception of
Table 9 Differences in Gender Affecting Personal Space Perception
With a person who is the opposite gender
Gender
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
Male
17
61
10
1
89
Female
11
68
16
0
95
28
129
26
1
With a person who is the same gender
184
Total
Gender
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
Total
Male
17
59
12
1
89
Female
34
50
11
0
95
Total
Gender
51
109
23
1
With a person both male and female
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree
Agree
184
Total
Male
0
2
14
56
17
89
Female
1
3
23
56
12
95
1
5
37
112
29
184
Total
Table 9, shows that 112 of 184 respondents agreed that the appropriate
distance during a conversation with both a male and female at work is 1.5 – 4 feet.
The frequencies of respondents were equal between 56 male respondents and 56
female respondents.
25
4.3.2
Employees
Differences in Age Affecting Personal Space Perception of
Table 10 Differences in Age Affecting Personal Space Perception
With a person who is younger than you
Age
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
20-30 Years
7
18
2
0
27
31-40 Years
20
69
4
0
93
Over 41 Years
15
39
10
0
64
42
126
16
0
With a person who is older than you
184
Total
Age
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
20-30 Years
2
18
7
0
27
31-40 Years
9
72
11
1
93
Over 41 Years
9
44
11
0
64
Total
Age
20
134
29
1
With a person both younger and older than you
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Agree
184
Total
20-30 Years
0
1
5
18
3
27
31-40 Years
0
3
17
63
10
93
Over 41 Years
1
1
14
39
9
64
1
5
36
120
22
184
Total
Table 10, shows that 120 of 184 respondents agreed that the appropriate
distance during a conversation with both a younger and older person at work is 1.5 – 4
feet. The age range 31-40 years old made up the majority of the respondents who
agreed with the appropriate distance during a conversation being 1.5-4 feet.
26
4.3.3
Employees
Differences in Religion Affecting Personal Space Perception of
Table 11 Differences in Religion Affecting Personal Space Perception
With a person of the same religion
Religion
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
Buddhist
15
107
17
0
139
Christian
7
13
3
0
23
Other
5
15
1
0
21
27
135
21
0
With a person of a different religion
183
Total
Religion
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
Buddhist
11
109
18
1
139
Christian
3
19
1
0
23
Other
4
17
0
0
21
Total
Religion
18
145
19
1
With a person of both same and different religion
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral
183
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Total
Buddhist
0
2
27
93
17
139
Christian
0
0
7
13
3
23
Other
0
0
5
13
3
21
0
2
39
119
23
183
Total
Table 11 shows that 119 of 183 respondents agreed that the appropriate
distance during a conversation with people from both same and different religions at
work is 1.5 – 4 feet and the majority of them were Buddhists. One respondent did not
answer this question in the questionnaire.
27
4.3.4
Employees
Difference in Race Affects Personal Space Perception of
Table 12 Differences in Race Affecting Personal Space Perception
With a person of the same race
Race
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
Thai
21
120
17
0
158
Other
1
23
1
0
25
0
183
Total
22
143
18
With a person of a different race
Race
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
Thai
13
124
21
0
158
Other
1
23
1
0
25
Total
Race
14
147
22
0
With all persons, both same and different races
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree
Agree
183
Total
Thai
0
5
32
101
19
157
Other
0
0
5
16
4
25
0
5
37
117
23
182
Total
Table 12 shows that 117 of 182 respondents agreed that the appropriate
distance during a conversation with a person of the same race or different race at work
is 1.5 – 4 feet and the majority of them were Thai. Two respondents did not answer
this question in the questionnaire.
28
4.3.5 Differences in Marital Status Affecting Personal Space Perception
of Employees
Table 4.13 Differences in Marital Status Affecting Personal Space Perception
With a person who has never been married
Marital Status
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
Married
10
75
12
0
97
Never been married
9
66
10
0
85
Total
19
0
182
141
22
With a person who is married
Marital Status
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12 ft
Married
6
77
14
0
97
Never been married
7
66
12
0
85
Total
Marital Status
13
143
26
0
With persons who are married or who have never
been married
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
182
Total
Married
0
2
22
58
15
97
Never been married
0
4
17
61
3
85
Total
0
6
39
119
18
182
Table 13 shows that 119 of 182 respondents agreed that the appropriate
distance during a conversation with a person who is married or had never been
married at work is 1.5 – 4 feet. Two respondents did not answer this question in the
questionnaire.
29
4.3.6 Differences in Level of Education Affecting Personal Space
Perception of Employees
Table 14 Differences in Level of Education Affecting Personal Space Perception
With a person who has a higher level of education
Level of Education
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
High School
3
23
6
0
32
Bachelor Degree
7
69
15
0
91
Master or higher
4
54
1
0
59
Total
14
146
22
0
With a person who has a lower level of education
Level of Education
182
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
High School
2
23
7
0
32
Bachelor Degree
8
69
14
0
91
Master or higher
4
54
1
0
59
Total
14
146
22
0
With a person who has the same level of education
Level of Education
182
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
High School
3
25
4
0
32
Bachelor Degree
8
70
13
0
91
Master or higher
5
53
1
0
59
16
148
18
0
With persons at all levels of education
182
Total
Level of Education
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Total
High School
0
0
8
18
6
32
Bachelor Degree
0
3
20
58
10
91
Master or higher
0
0
10
46
3
59
0
3
38
122
19
182
Total
Table 14 shows that 122 of 182 respondents agreed on the appropriate distance
during conversations with a person at all levels of education at work are 1.5 – 4 feet.
Two (2) respondents did not answer this question in the questionnaire.
30
4.3.7 Differences in Working Position Affecting Personal Space
Perception of Employees
Table 15 Differences in Working Position Affecting Personal Space Perception
With a person who has a higher working position
Working Position
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
GS 1-4
9
72
25
1
107
GS 5-7
1
57
9
0
67
Professional/above
0
9
0
0
9
Total
10
138
34
1
With a person who has a lower working position
Working Position
183
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
GS 1-4
13
78
16
0
107
GS 5-7
3
57
7
0
67
Professional/above
0
9
0
0
9
Total
16
144
23
0
With a person who has a same working position
Working Position
183
Total
Touching-1.5ft
1.5-4ft
4-12ft
Over12ft
GS 1-4
15
79
13
0
107
GS 5-7
7
58
2
0
67
Professional/above
0
9
0
0
9
Total
22
146
15
0
With persons at all working position levels
Working Position
Strongly
Disagree
GS 1-4
0
3
GS 5-7
0
Professional/above
Total
183
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Total
32
63
9
107
2
16
39
10
67
0
0
2
6
1
9
0
5
50
108
20
183
Disagree Neutral
Table 15 shows that 108 of 183 respondents agreed that the appropriate
distance during a conversation with a person at all working position at work is 1.5 – 4
feet and the majority of them were at working position level GS 1-4. One respondent
did not answer this question in the questionnaire.
31
Finally, the results of this study showed that the most appropriate distance or
space between interactants during conversations of employees in international
organizations was a distance of 1.5-4 feet. The results of this study supported the
theory of Edward T. Hall, who coined the terms of “Proxemics”. Hall describes four
interpersonal distance zones categorized by the type of communication relationship
involved. The four interpersonal zones are intimate space, personal-casual space,
social space, and public space. Personal space is used during conversations with
closed friends and interactions with relatives. This space can be considered to be an
appropriate distance during conversations with your colleagues and supervisors with
whom we have been working together at the workplace for a long time. Furthermore,
all the factors that sometimes might have an effect on the personal space perception of
employees in the workplace. On the other hand, the result of the study showed that
they did not have much effect on the personal space perception of the employees in
international organizations during conversations.
4.4
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FROM THE RESPONDENTS
The third part of the questionnaire provided space for respondents to express
their opinions on personal space perception during conversations. They suggested that
there are some factors affecting personal space, such as the relationship between
interactants, how they know each other, where the conversations take place, the topic
of the conversation, and the environment of those conversations. All these factors can
affect to the perception of the distance between interactants. Hence, depending on
how close their relationship is, comfortable personal space may be closer than the
distance of 1.5-4 feet. In fact, this space may be too far if they are friends. The
interactants may need to stand/sit closer to each other if there are very loud noises
around them during conversations, such as construction sites, in the theatre or on the
street. However, one should be aware of these factors in order to maintain good
relationships among employees within the organizations.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter presents (1) a summary of the study, (2) a summary of the
findings on factors affecting the personal space perception of employees of various
nationalities in international organizations during conversations at work in Thailand, (3)
the conclusion, and (4) recommendations for further study.
5.1
SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
This section summarizes the results of the study on the personal space
perception of employees of various nationalities in international organizations during
conversations at work in Thailand.
5.1.1
Objective of the study
This study aimed to identify the most important factor that affect the
personal space perception of employees of various nationalities in international
organizations during conversations at work in Thailand: how far is the distance between
interactants during conversations of employees of various nationalities in international
organizations and what is the most suitable or appropriate distance between interactants
during conversations of Thai employees. There are many factors that affect personal
space perceptions, such as differences in gender, age, religion, race, marital status, level
of education, and working position. The space of employees in the workplace is
classified as “Personal Space”, which is subject to invasion by others. If someone in the
working relationship breaks the boundary of the appropriate space or distance, the other
person will probably feel uncomfortable and become aware of the infraction. This
tendency is particularly problematic when we encounter people from another culture.
Without an understanding of nonverbal communication in one’s own culture, as well as
the culture of the person with whom you are communicating, extensive accidental
communication is highly probable. These problems not only affect their working
cooperation, but also destroy the relationships among colleagues and supervisors within
an organization.
33
5.1.2
Participants, materials, and procedures
The study included 184 participants (89 males, and 95 females). They
were randomly selected from the employees working for international organizations
within the UNESCAP compound. A questionnaire was used to obtain the information
and was divided into three parts: the first part was the demographic information of the
participants, the second part was the factors that affected the personal space perception
of employees, and the last part was the participant’s comments or suggestions on the
personal space perception of employees. The questionnaires were distributed to the
participants by the researcher. They were asked to answer all the questions in the
questionnaires and return the completed questionnaire to the researcher when they
finished. The information from the questionnaires was analyzed by using SPSS version
17.0 to calculate the frequency and percentage.
5.2
SUMMARY OF THE FINDING
The results of the study can be summarized as follows:
5.2.1
The Difference in Gender
The study found that the difference in gender did not strongly influence
personal space perception of employees during conversations. Most female employees
prefer to stand or sit at 1.5-4 feet apart from their interactants while having
conversations in the workplace. The frequency of female respondents was nearly equal
to the frequency of male respondents as shown in table 9. The result is close to
equilibrium between male and female respondents (n=184, female=89 and male=95),
with thirty-seven (37) respondents feeling neutral about this distance. Finally, this result
does not support the finding of Willis (1966) who concluded that both male and female
speakers always stood closer to women than men did in a conversation.
5.2.2
The Difference in Age
The results of this study showed that the difference in age did not play an
important role in personal space perception of employees during conversations. Most of
respondents at all level of age ranges showed that they prefer to stand or sit at 1.5-4 feet
during conversations in the workplace. (n= 184, agreed= 120, strongly agreed = 22)
34
Furthermore, 36 respondents felt neutral about this distance during a conversation.
Thus, this result supports the finding of Knapp and Hall (1992), who assumed that
people interact more closely with those in their age range. Children under 12 years old
are the real space invaders of everyone in society. All mature people accept this matter
without question. On the other hand, when these children grow up to be adolescents,
they will be treated as adults and expected to know better than to invade the space of
others.
5.2.3
The Difference in Religion
The results of this study showed that most of the respondents were
Buddhist. (Table 3) However, differences in religion were not shown to affect the
personal space perception of employees. This is because the number of the respondents
who were Christians or other religions was too small to compare with the Buddhist
employees. (n=183, Buddhist= 139, Christian=23 and others religions=21) However,
the results showed that employees of all religions prefer to stand or sit at 1.5-4 feet
away during conversations in the workplace.
5.2.4
The Difference in Race
The results of this study showed that most of the respondents were Thai.
(Table 4) The differences in race were not showed the effect on the personal space
perception of employees. This is because the number of the respondents who were not
Thai was too small to compare with the employees who were Thai. In this study, only
25 respondents were not Thai: 1 Korean, 1 Malaysian, 1 Indian, 1 Chinese, 1 American,
12 Filipinos, and 8 unidentified. However, the results of this study showed that all
employees prefer to stand or sit at 1.5-4 feet away during conversations in the
workplace. Table 12 shows that the total frequency of employees who agreed and
strongly agreed on a distance 1.5-4 feet was 140 respondents, followed by neutral about
this distance. There were 157 Thais and Non-Thai 25 respondents. (n=182, Thai=157,
Non- Thai=25)
5.2.5
The difference in marital status
The results of this study showed that both those who were married and
those who had never been married were quite similar in terms of the frequency as
35
shown in table 5 (n=184, married=98, and never been married=86). This does not show
that differences in marital status affected personal space perception of employees.
However, the results of this study showed that both prefer to stand or sit at 1.5-4 feet
away during conversations in the workplace. Table 13 shows that the total frequency of
Thai employees who agreed and strongly agreed on a distance 1.5-4 feet was 137
respondents from 184 respondents. (n=182, married=97, never been married=85)
5.2.6
The difference in level of education
The result of this study showed that the majority of the respondents had
graduated with a bachelor’s degree level as shown in table 6 (n=184, high school=32,
bachelor’s degree=92, and master’s degree or higher=60). However, the results of this
study showed that employees at all levels of education agreed with standing or sitting at
1.5-4 feet away during conversations. Table 14 shows that the total number of
employees at all levels of education agreed and strongly agreed on a distance 1.5-4 feet
was 141 respondents from 182 respondents.(n=182, agreed=122, and strongly
agreed=19), with thirty-eight (38) respondents being neutral on this distance.
5.2.7
The difference in working position
The results of this study showed that the majority of the respondents’
working position was at level GS 1-4 (n=184, GS 1-4=107, GS 5-7 =62, and
professional level=10). In this study, the researcher divided the working positions of
employees into two categories: subordinate level (GS1-4), and supervisor level (GS5-7
and professional level). Thus, the result of this study showed that the employees at all
working positions agreed with standing or sitting at 1.5-4 feet away during
conversations. As shown in table 15 (n=183, agreed=108, strongly agreed=20), 50
respondents were neutral about this distance during conversations. According to
Henley, touch can show the status of both parties in a conversation, with supervisors
initiating touch more than subordinates touch their supervisors.
36
5.3
DISCUSSION
This section concerns the factors that affected the personal space perception of
employees in international organizations during conversations at work.
The results of this study support the theory of Edward T. Hall in terms of
“personal space”, which is one of four categories of proxemics. All the factors were
investigated to identify how they would affect the personal space perception of
employees during conversations. The results of this study showed that these factors did
not have any significant to the personal space perception of employees as shown in the
chapter four. However, this study was conducted in Thailand and most of the
respondents were Thai-Buddhist females; it can thus be concluded that the employees
prefer to sit/stand at 1.5-4 feet away during a conversation.
5.4
CONCLUSION
The following conclusions can be drawn from the discussion above.
The findings of this study are unable to identify the most important factor
affecting the personal space perception of employees of various nationalities in
international organizations during conversations at work in Thailand. On the other hand,
the results show that most employees who worked at the UNESCAP agreed with the
personal space perception at 1.5-4 feet away during conversations. Furthermore, all the
factors in this study did not have any significant to the perception of personal distance
between interactants during conversations at workplace
5.5
RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following
recommendations are made for further study on the personal space perception of
employees. This study was conducted within the UNESCAP compound located in
Bangkok, Thailand. Its employees were categorized into two types: local staff and
international staff. Thus, the majority of employees were Thai-Buddhist females. Thus,
the results cannot be extrapolated to the population of Thai people as a whole. This
means that if we want to know the personal space perception of Thai people during
conversations, a study should be conducted with a greater number of participants. The
37
results of the study showed only that the majority of Thai employees working in the
UNESCAP agreed with the appropriate distance during conversations being 1.5 to 4
feet. Further study should be conducted on the difference between supervisors’ and
subordinates’ personal space perception during conversations. This is because the space
that we place between interactants may show the power or social status of the owners of
that space. Moreover, if we know the appropriate distance during conversations, it will
facilitate effective communication.
REFERENCES
Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2003). Understanding human communication.
New York: Oxford University.
Andersen, P. A., Hecht, M. L., Hoobler, G. D., & Smallwood, M. (2002). Nonverbal
communication across cultures. In W. B. Gundykunst & B. Moody (Eds.),
Handbook of international and intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily communication (2nd ed). New York: Methuen.
B. Aubrey Fisher, & Katherine L. Adams. (1994). Interpersonal Communication.
New York: McGrew-Hill
Barbara Westbrook Eakins, R. Gene Eakins (1978). Sex differences in human
Communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Baumeister, R. F., & Brad J. Bushman.(2008). Social psychology and human nature.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations
and their violations. Human Communication Research, 2, 131-146
Casey, A.Q. (2009, October 23). Communication at work – 3 ways to improve
communication and avoid misunderstanding. Retrieved September 8, 2010,
from http://ezinearticles.com/?Communication-at-Work---3-Ways-to-Improve-Communication-and-Avoid-Misunderstandings&id=3143825
Dosey, M. A., & Murray Meisels (1969). Personal space and self-protection. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 11.2
Ekman, P. (1982). Emotion in the human face(2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Goldman, E. (1994). As others see us. New York: Routledge. Hamilton, C., &
Parker, C. (1997). Communication for Result. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Harris, T. E. (2002). Applied organizational communication: Principles and
pragmatics for future practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
39
Henley, N. M. (1973). Status and sex: Some touching observation. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society, v.2, pp.91-93
Henley, N.M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hickson, M. L. III, & Stacks, D. W. (1993). NVC nonverbal communication studies
and applications. Dubuque, IA: Wm C. Brown Communications.
Julius Fast, (1970). Body language. New York: First Pocket Books.
Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2002). Nonverbal communication in human interaction.
Crawfordsville, IN: Thomson Learning.
Leathers, D. G. (1986). Successful nonverbalcCommunication. New York:
Macmillan.
Lewis, H. (1998). Body language: A guide for professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Mary Ritchie Key, (1980). The relationship of verbal and nonverbal communication.
New York: Mouton.
Mehrabian, A. (1968). Communication without words. Psychology Today, Volume 2,
no.9, pp.52-55
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2004). Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal
relations. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson Education.
Virginia P. Richmond, James C. McCroskey, & Steven K. Payne (1991). Nonverbal
behavior in interpersonal relations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Stewart L. Tubbs & Sylvia Moss (1977). Human communication. New York: Random
House.
Tuangporn Somsamai. (2005) Success though communication. Bangkok: Suan Dusit
Rajabhat University
Webbink, P. (1986). The power of eyes. New York: Springer.
Wolfgang A., (1979). Nonverbal behavior. New York: Academic Press.
APPENDIX A
Questionnaire (English Language)
Questionnaire
Research Topic: Personal Space Perception of Employees of Various
Nationalities in International Organizations during Conversations at Work in
Thailand
This survey research is a part of the Independent Study to be submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts in English for
Careers, Language Institute, Thammasat University.
This survey is conducted to investigate personal space perception of
employees in International Organizations during conversations at work in Thailand.
This survey research contains three main parts;
•
•
•
Part I:
Part II:
Part III:
Personal Information
The Factors Affecting Personal Space Perception
Suggestions or Comments on Personal Space
Perception
To accomplish this survey research, the researcher would like to ask you for
your kind cooperation in completing this questionnaire. The information obtained
from this survey will be kept confidential and used for academic purposes only.
☺ Thank you very much for your kind cooperation to answer this questionnaire. ☺
If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact me via my
cell phone or e-mail address.
Mr. Phethai Tulitatham
Tel.089-9393178
e-mail: [email protected]
41
Part I: Personal Information
Instruction: Please mark  in the box (□) on the selected answer.
1. Gender
□ Male
□ Female
2. Age
□ 20 – 30 Years
3. Religion
□ Buddhist
□ Christian
4. Race
□ Thai
□ Other (Please specify): ___________
5. Marital Status
□ Married
□ Never been married
6. Level of education
□ High School
7. Working Position
□ General Service
(GS level 1-4)
□ 31 - 40 Years
□ Over 41 Years
□ Other (Please specify):_____
□ Bachelor Degree
□ Supervisor
(GS level 5-7)
□ Master Degree or
Higher
□ Manager/ Chief
of Division
Part II: The Factors Affecting the Personal Space Perception
Instruction: Please mark  in the box (□) on the answer that you think most
appropriate.
•
The Difference in Gender
8. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person with the opposite
gender during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 ft. – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
9. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person with the same gender
during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft.
□ b) 1.5 ft. – 4ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
10. The appropriate distance during conversations with both male and female
in the workplace is 1.5 – 4 ft.
□ Strongly agree
□ Agree
□ Neutral
□ Disagree
□ Strongly disagree
42
•
The Difference in Age
11. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who is younger than
you during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
12. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who is older than you
during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
13. The appropriate distance during conversations with both younger and older
person in the workplace is 1.5 – 4 ft.
□ Strongly agree
•
□ Agree
□ Neutral
□ Disagree
□ Strongly disagree
The Difference in Religion
14. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who is of the same
religion during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
15. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who is of different
religion during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
16. The appropriate distance during conversations with both the same and
Different religion person in the workplace is 1.5 – 4 ft.
□ Strongly agree
•
□ Agree
□ Neutral
□ Disagree
□ Strongly disagree
The Difference in Race
17. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who is of the same
race during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
18. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who is of different
race during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
43
19. The appropriate distance during conversations with both the same and
different race in the workplace is 1.5 – 4 ft.
□ Strongly agree
•
□ Agree □ Neutral
□ Disagree
□ Strongly disagree
The Difference in Marital Status
20. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who has never been
married during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
21. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who is married
during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
22. The appropriate distance during conversations with both married and never
been married in the workplace is 1.5 – 4 ft.
□ Strongly agree
•
□ Agree □ Neutral
□ Disagree
□ Strongly disagree
The Difference in Education Level
23. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who has a higher level
of education during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
24. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who has a lower level
of education during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
25. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who has the same
level of education during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
26. The appropriate distance during conversations with those who is different in
education level in the workplace is 1.5 – 4 ft.
□ Strongly agree
□ Agree □ Neutral
□ Disagree
□ Strongly disagree
44
•
The Difference in Working Position
27. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who has a higher level
of working position during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
28. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who has a lower level
of working position during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
29. How far do you prefer to stand/sit away from a person who has the same
level of working position during conversations?
□ a) Touching – 1.5 ft
□ b) 1.5 f – 4 ft.
□ c) 4 ft. – 12 ft.
□ d) Over 12 ft.
30. The appropriate distance during conversations with all level of working
position in the workplace is 1.5 – 4 ft.
□ Strongly agree
□ Agree □ Neutral
□ Disagree
□ Strongly disagree
Part III: Suggestions or Comments on the Personal Space Perception
This is the end of the questionnaire.
☺Thank you very much for your kind cooperation.☺
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire (Thai Language)
แบบสอบถาม
เรื่อง ความพึงพอใจในระยะหางระหวางคูสนทนาในการทํางานของพนักงาน
ที่มีความหลากหลายทางเชื้อชาติในองคการระหวางประเทศในประเทศไทย
แบบสอบถามนี้มีวัตถุประสงคเพื่อ ศึกษาเรื่องความพึงพอใจในระยะหางระหวางคูสนทนา
ในการทํางานของพนักงาน ที่มีความหลากหลายทางเชื้อชาติในองคการระหวางประเทศในประเทศ
ไทย
งานวิจัยนี้เปนสวนหนึ่งของการศึกษาระดับปริญญาโท สาขาภาษาอังกฤษเพื่ออาชีพ
สถาบันภาษา มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร แบบสอบถามนี้ประกอบดวย 3 สวน คือ
• สวนที่ 1 ขอมูลทั่วไปของผูตอบแบบสอบถาม
• สวนที่ 2 ปจจัยที่มีผลตอความพึงพอใจในระยะหางระหวางคูสนทนา
• สวนที่ 3 ขอเสนอแนะและขอคิดเห็นที่ทานมีตอความพึงพอใจในระยะหาง
ระหวางคูสนทนา
ผูวิจัยขอความกรุณาตอทานในการตอบแบบสอบถามนี้ใหครบถวนทุกขอ ขอมูลที่ไดจาก
การสํารวจนี้จะถูกเก็บไวเปนความลับ และใชเพื่อการนําเสนอผลการวิจัยในลักษณะองครวมมิใช
รายบุคคล
☺ขอขอบพระคุณอยางยิง่ สําหรับความรวมมือและการเสียสละเวลาอันมีคา ของทาน☺
______________________________________________________________________________
หากทานมีขอสงสัยประการใดตอการทําวิจัยครั้งนี้ กรุณาติดตอสอบถามผูทําวิจัยไดที่
นาย เพทาย ตุลิตะธรรม
โทร.089-9393178
E-mail address: [email protected]
46
สวนที่ 1 ขอมูลทั่วไปของผูตอบแบบสอบถาม
คําชี้แจง กรุณาทําเครื่องหมาย  ลงในชองสี่เหลี่ยม (□) ตามความเปนจริงของตัวทาน
1. เพศ
2. อายุ
3. ศาสนา
4. เชือ้ ชาติ
5. สถานภาพการสมรส
6. การศึกษาชั้นสูงสุด
7. ตําแหนงงาน
□ ชาย
□ หญิง
□ 20 – 30 ป
□ 31 – 40 ป
□ มากกวา 41 ป
□ พุทธ
□ คริสต
□ อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ):___________
□ ไทย
□ อื่นๆ (โปรดระบุ): __________
□ สมรสแลว
□ ไมเคยสมรส
□ มัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย
□ ปริญญาตรี
□ ปริญญาโทหรือสูงกวา
□ พนักงานทัว่ ไป
□ หัวหนางาน □ ผูจัดการหรือหัวหนาแผนก
สวนที่ 2 ปจจัยที่มีผลตอความพึงพอใจในระยะหางระหวางคูส นทนา
คําชี้แจง กรุณาทําเครื่องหมาย  ลงในชองสี่เหลี่ยม (□) ตามทีท่ า นมีความเห็นวาเปนระยะหางทีเ่ หมาะสม
ระหวางคูส นทนาในการทํางานของพนักงานในองคการระหวางประเทศ
• ความแตกตางทางเพศ
8. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนเพศตรงขาม
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
9. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนเพศเดียวกัน
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
10. ระยะหางที่คุณคิดวาเหมาะสมในระหวางการสนทนากับทั้งคนเพศตรงขามและเพศเดียวกัน
ในที่ทํางานคือ 1.5 – 4 ฟุต
□ เห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
□ เห็นดวย
□ ไมมีความเห็น
□ ไมเห็นดวย □ ไมเห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
• ความแตกตางทางอายุ
11. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนที่มีอายุนอ ยกวา
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
12. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนที่มีอายุมากกวา
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
13.ระยะหางที่คุณคิดวาเหมาะสมในระหวางการสนทนากับทั้งคนที่มีอายุนอ ยกวาและมีอายุมากกวา
ในที่ทํางานคือ 1.5 – 4 ฟุต
□ เห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
□ เห็นดวย
□ ไมมีความเห็น
□ ไมเห็นดวย □ ไมเห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
47
• ความแตกตางทางศาสนา
14. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนทีน่ บั ถือศาสนาเดียวกัน
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
15. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนทีน่ บั ถือศาสนาตางกัน
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
16. ระยะหางที่คุณคิดวาเหมาะสมในระหวางการสนทนากับทั้งคนทีน่ บั ถือศาสนาเดียวกันหรือตางกัน
ในที่ทํางานคือ 1.5 – 4 ฟุต
□ เห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
□ เห็นดวย
□ ไมมีความเห็น
□ ไมเห็นดวย □ ไมเห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
• ความแตกตางทางเชื้อชาติ
17. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนเชื้อชาติเดียวกัน
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
18. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนตางเชื้อชาติ
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
19. ระยะหางที่คุณคิดวาเหมาะสมในระหวางการสนทนากับทั้งคนเชื้อชาติเดียวกันหรือตางกันในที่
ทํางานคือ 1.5 – 4 ฟุต
□ เห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
□ เห็นดวย
□ ไมมีความเห็น
□ ไมเห็นดวย □ ไมเห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
• ความแตกตางทางสถานภาพการสมรส
20. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนทีส่ มรสแลว
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
21. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนที่ไมเคยสมรส
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
22. ระยะหางที่คุณคิดวาเหมาะสมในระหวางการสนทนากับทั้งคนทีส่ มรสแลวหรือคนทีไ่ มเคยสมรส
ในที่ทํางานคือ 1.5 – 4 ฟุต
□ เห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
□ เห็นดวย
□ ไมมีความเห็น
□ ไมเห็นดวย □ ไมเห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
• ความแตกตางทางการศึกษา
23. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนทีม่ รี ะดับการศึกษาสูงกวา
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
48
24. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนทีม่ รี ะดับการศึกษาดอยกวา
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
25. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนทีม่ รี ะดับการศึกษาเทาเทียมกัน
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
26. ระยะหางที่คุณคิดวาเหมาะสมในระหวางการสนทนากับทั้งคนทุกระดับการศึกษาในที่ทํางานคือ 1.5 – 4 ฟุต
□ เห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
□ เห็นดวย
□ ไมมีความเห็น
□ ไมเห็นดวย □ ไมเห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
• ความแตกตางทางตําแหนงในการทํางาน
27. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนที่มีตําแหนงงานสูงกวา
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
28. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนที่มีตําแหนงงานดอยกวา
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
29. ระยะหางแคไหนที่คุณพอใจในขณะยืนหรือนั่ง เมื่อคุณกําลังสนทนา กับคนทีม่ ตี าํ แหนงงานเทากัน
□ ก. สัมผัสตัว – 1.5 ฟุต
□ ข. 1.5 ฟุต – 4 ฟุต
□ ค. 4 ฟุต – 12 ฟุต
□ ง. มากกวา 12 ฟุต
30. ระยะหางที่คณ
ุ คิดวาเหมาะสมในระหวางการสนทนากับคนในทุกตําแหนงงานในที่ทํางานคือ
1.5 – 4 ฟุต
□ เห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
□ เห็นดวย
□ ไมมีความเห็น
□ ไมเห็นดวย □ ไมเห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
สวนที่ 3 ขอเสนอแนะและขอคิดเห็นทีท่ า นมีตอ ความพึงพอใจในระยะหางระหวางคูส นทนา
จบแบบสอบถาม
ขอขอบพระคุณอยางยิ่งสําหรับความรวมมือและการเสียสละเวลาอันมีคาของทาน