Physical distance and attraction: An intensification effect

Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors

“…For conversational distance, rewarding communicators frequently accrue the most favorable communication outcomes by violating rather than conforming to expectancies. The beneficial consequences result from both close and far violations and not only benefit the violator in an absolute sense but also relative to another, nondeviating interactant (Baron, 1978;Burgoon, 1978;Burgoon & Aho, 1982;Burgoon et al, 1979;Donohue, Diez, Stahle, & Burgoon, 1983;Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982;Imada & Hakel, 1977;Schiffenbauer & Schiavo, 1976;Smith & Knowles, 1979;Stacks & Burgoon, 1981;Storms & Thomas, 1977).…”

“…Communicator behaviors and characteristics that contribute to interpersonal rewards mediate communication outcomes. All of the following have been defined as bases for reward and shown to influence outcomes: positive and negative feedback, physical attractiveness, smiling, head nods, task competence, socioeconomic status, purchasing power, and attitudinal similarity (Burgoon, 1978;Burgoon & Aho, 1982;Burgoon et al, 1979;Schiffenbauer & Schiavo, 1976;Smith & Knowles, 1979;Stacks & Burgoon, 1981;Storms & Thomas, 1977).…”

The Effects of Facial Close-Ups and Viewers' Sex on Empathy and Intentions to Help People in Need

“…Being physically close can intensify one's affective reactions to another person, regardless of the nature of the reactions (Schiffenbauer & Schiavo, 1976;Storms & Thomas, 1977). For instance, a study found that sitting closely induced greater liking for a confederate giving positive comments on subjects' work but caused more disliking for a confederate offering negative comments (Schiffenbauer & Schiavo, 1976).…”

“…Being physically close can intensify one's affective reactions to another person, regardless of the nature of the reactions (Schiffenbauer & Schiavo, 1976;Storms & Thomas, 1977). For instance, a study found that sitting closely induced greater liking for a confederate giving positive comments on subjects' work but caused more disliking for a confederate offering negative comments (Schiffenbauer & Schiavo, 1976). Such intensification occurs because greater physical closeness produces higher levels of emotional arousal (Middlemist, Knowles, & Matter, 1976;Smith & Knowles, 1979); higher levels of arousal signify greater intensity of emotional reactions, and the nature of the reactions (e.g., positive or negative) is used to label the intensification (Schachter & Singer, 1962).…”

Trigger videos on the Web: Impact of audiovisual design

“…Reeves, Lombard and Melwani (1992) vary the perceived distance between the viewer and video portrayals of persons with three within-subject factors: image size, viewing distance and camera shot length. Following Schiffenbauer and Schiavo (1976), they hypothesise that when social distance is shortened, the intensity of the responses will increase. The study shows that the perceived emotional valence responses were intensified: on-screen persons were judged more extremely on perceived happiness/sadness in close-up shots compared to long shots.…”