Rationale for the study
This study was initiated to explore proxemics, a crucial element of nonverbal communication that significantly impacts human interactions Despite its importance, there has been a lack of comprehensive research on proxemics, particularly regarding conversational distances in Vietnamese culture This gap highlights the need for further investigation into how proximity influences communication among Vietnamese speakers.
Misbehavior in proxemics during cross-cultural communication, particularly in multicultural or multinational workplaces, can lead to misunderstandings, cultural shock, and even communication breakdowns Therefore, it is essential to review proxemic behaviors across different cultures to ensure successful communication.
As a researcher, I am keenly interested in nonverbal communication, particularly proxemics, and its impact on human interactions This study aims to explore conversational distances among Vietnamese informants and analyze their application in communication The anticipated findings will highlight the significance of nonverbal cues and the preferred conversational distances for Vietnamese speakers Additionally, the results will offer recommendations for American communicators to help them navigate cultural differences and minimize misunderstandings when interacting with Vietnamese individuals.
Aims of the study
This thesis builds upon Hall's framework, highlighting the need to investigate proxemic behaviors among Vietnamese dyads The study aims to identify key factors influencing these behaviors, including age, gender, marital status, power distance, living area, and the characteristics of the informants Additionally, it explores the preferred proxemic distances during communication among Vietnamese speakers.
Research questions
The study addresses the following research questions:
1 What are the factors that affect the conversational distance between Vietnamese dyads?
2 What is the proxemic distance preferred by Vietnamese speakers during communication process?
Scope of the study
This study examines conversational distance, a key component of proxemics, which encompasses space, distance, and territory The researcher provides a comprehensive overview of all these aspects.
This research focuses on conversational distance in American-Vietnamese cross-cultural nonverbal communication The baseline data will be derived from previous studies involving American informants, serving as secondary data from existing research, reports, and professional literature In contrast, the data collected from Vietnamese dyads will be original and primary, representing a novel contribution to the field.
Structure of the thesis
The study is divided into three main parts as follow:
Part A: Introduction covers the rationale for study, aims, research questions, the scope, and structure of the study
Part B: Development is organized around three chapters as follows:
Chapter I of the literature review establishes the theoretical framework for the study of proxemics behavior across various cultures, with a focus on English and Vietnamese contexts The author aims to elucidate the relevant proxemic frameworks that will be utilized in this research, providing essential insights into cultural differences in spatial behavior.
Chapter II - Methodology outlines the research context and design, detailing the data collection instruments used, such as questionnaires, informal interviews, and videotaped recordings, to assess conversational distance between communicative dyads The analysis employed one-way ANOVA and independent sample t-tests to interpret the data effectively This chapter also provides a brief overview of the study participants, the data collection procedures, and a summary of the overall methodology.
Chapter III – Findings and Discussions examines the key factors influencing conversational distances preferred by Vietnamese speakers, highlighting which factors hold the most significance This chapter also provides an in-depth analysis of the differences in preferred interpersonal distances between the two cultures.
Part C: Conclusion offers a summary of the findings, from which recommendations, limitations, and future directions for further related studies can also be drawn out
LITERATURE REVIEW
Factors affecting conversational distances
Research indicates that the distance animals maintain from one another is influenced by various factors, including age, body size, sex, and other variables (Hediger 1950, Tinbergen 1953, Hall 1966) Some researchers prefer the term "interpersonal distance" as it highlights the interactions between individuals (Aiello 1987, Bell et al 2001) Additionally, factors such as age, gender, culture, social status, personality, mood, marital status, and living environment can significantly affect our use of space.
Cultural background significantly impacts nonverbal communication, particularly in how individuals perceive personal space Different cultures have varying interpretations of what constitutes personal space, which influences how people interact within their environments Understanding these cultural differences is essential for minimizing misunderstandings and friction in cross-cultural communication.
Cultures can be categorized into three types: high-contact, moderate-contact, and low-contact cultures In high-contact cultures, individuals tend to prefer closer physical proximity during interactions, leading to a greater sensory experience.
Cultural upbringing significantly shapes individual identity, often unconsciously A key aspect of this influence is the personal proxemics distance, which varies across different cultures.
"Distant" cultures prioritize personal space and minimal physical contact, while "warm" cultures exhibit closer physical interactions In contrast, Asian cultures tend to adopt a more accommodating approach to personal distance, which is often attributed to their densely populated living environments.
Different cultures, including American, are often perceived as "warmer" due to their acceptance of touch and close proximity in social interactions However, it's important to recognize that generalizations can be misleading; the researcher does not claim that all Europeans are distant or that all Asians prefer close contact Instead, these observations reflect overarching cultural norms.
Edward Hall categorized cultures into contact and non-contact to highlight differences in non-verbal communication In contact cultures, such as those found in parts of Europe and Latin America, physical touch and close proximity are essential for building interpersonal relationships Conversely, non-contact cultures, including the U.S., Norway, Japan, and many Southeast Asian societies, reserve touch and personal space for only the closest relationships.
Women are generally more sociable than men, as they are better at picking up social cues and expressing emotions This emotional communication proficiency allows women to feel more comfortable with one another An observational study on conversational distance revealed that pairs of women tend to stand closer together than pairs of men, highlighting their natural inclination towards social connection.
Men tend to be more territorial and aggressive, maintaining greater distance from other men, while they often prefer closer proximity to women Research by Willis (1966) indicates that both men and women approach women more closely Burgoon (1991) found that men photographed at close range were perceived as more dominant compared to those at normal or far distances, whereas no significant distance-related differences were observed for women These findings suggest notable gender differences in proxemic relational messages.
Research indicates that same-sex dyads maintain a closer interpersonal distance compared to opposite-sex dyads According to Vrugt and Ketstra (1984), women tend to interact with each other at a smaller distance than that observed between men and women.
Research indicates notable sex differences in personal space, revealing that women's personal bubbles are generally smaller than men's Observational studies in public settings demonstrate that female pairs tend to stand closer together than male pairs, while male-female pairs maintain the closest proximity Additionally, in a waiting room scenario, female pairs exhibited a shorter interpersonal distance compared to male pairs Further supporting this, Willis found that women are approached more closely than men by individuals of both genders when initiating conversation.
Power distance is a concept that describes the level of hierarchy within organizations and its impact on communication styles In individualistic cultures, there tends to be a smaller power distance, while collectivist cultures exhibit a larger power distance This cultural variation influences how power is distributed among individuals Research by Altman & Vinsel (1977) indicates that dominant individuals enjoy greater personal space compared to those with lower status or submissive roles.
Social status significantly influences personal space and interaction dynamics Individuals with higher status tend to perceive and utilize more personal space, distinguishing their interactions from those of lower-status individuals, such as the differences in space between bosses and employees For instance, first-class seating offers more room per passenger, reflecting this hierarchy In dominant-subordinate relationships, higher-status individuals often feel entitled to invade the personal space of those with lower status, facing little resistance and, at times, even receiving implicit encouragement to do so.
Dominant individuals are granted more personal space compared to submissive or low-status individuals, as noted by Altman & Vinsel (1977) and Burgoon (1987) Research by Burgoon et al (1984) identified proximity as the strongest predictor of dominance interpretations among five immediacy cues This indicates that dominant individuals can breach conversational distance norms, with both close and far distances being linked to higher perceptions of dominance than intermediate distances, according to studies by Burgoon (1991) and others.
Children naturally stand closer to others due to their openness and lack of social boundaries, often expressing affection through hugs during conversations As individuals enter their teenage years, they become more aware of gender differences, leading to an increased personal space during interactions In contrast, older adults may revert to closer interactions, as societal perceptions suggest they require support and connection due to their vulnerability.
METHODOLOGY
Data-collection instruments
This section outlines the study's participants and the data collection instruments used, which included questionnaires, interviews, and video recordings, as part of a mixed-methods research approach combining both qualitative and quantitative methods.
To test theoretical predictions regarding proxemic behaviors and the factors influencing preferred interpersonal distance among Vietnamese individuals, a variety of methods were employed Each method, including questionnaires, video recordings, and informal interviews, has distinct strengths and weaknesses that will be explored further Overall, these approaches proved to be feasible for gathering relevant data.
Questionnaires were chosen as the primary method for data collection, prompting a thorough examination of their essential characteristics, including length, layout, and subject matter Key components analyzed included the title, instructions, questionnaire items, supplementary information, and a concluding "thank you." Additionally, the content and various types of questionnaire items were carefully considered to ensure effective data gathering.
The survey was conducted within a group of Vietnamese people The participants included 50 native Vietnamese living both in rural and urban areas in
The study focused on Hanoi and several northern provinces of Vietnam, ensuring participant anonymity under all circumstances Questionnaires were crafted to explore various factors influencing conversational distances between the two selected cultures, including age, gender, personality, social relationships, living areas, social status, mood, and communication settings The author opted to design the questionnaire in Vietnamese, as data from American speakers was not required.
The survey questionnaire, detailed in the appendix, is divided into two main sections focusing on conversational distances The first section gathers individual information such as age, gender, personality, living area, and social status to provide context for the study's data The second section includes 20 items: 3 items assess preferred interpersonal distances during conversations, while the remaining 17 items utilize a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate factors influencing interpersonal distance among Vietnamese individuals, drawing on the framework established by West & Turner (2009).
This study uses the conversational distance ranges of American culture as a comparative baseline, focusing on four main zones: intimate, personal, social, and public These zones serve as general guidelines for comparing and contrasting with the conversational distances observed in Vietnamese culture.
There would be the involvements of human subjects during research process Vietnamese and American speakers (as participants at baseline‟s) are selected because they are considered collectivistic and individualistic manifestations
The researcher plans to utilize convenience sampling to select participants for the study, inviting all readily available individuals to take part The study will involve 50 native Vietnamese individuals residing in Northern Vietnam, encompassing both rural and urban areas Key characteristics of the participants, such as age, gender, marital status, social status, living environment, and personality traits, will be thoroughly described.
To gather cooperation for the survey, I initially reached out to my acquaintances, including friends, colleagues, and students residing in Hanoi and nearby provinces Ultimately, 50 individuals agreed to participate in the questionnaire Upon completion of the questionnaires, these participants were also invited to take part in interviews and video recordings.
The research process begins with data collection, followed by analysis and synthesis to identify commonalities among documents The researcher will categorize the data based on a theory-driven hypothesis, prioritizing it according to relevance and significance to the topic Finally, the findings will be presented through comments, evaluations, or arguments, primarily supported by survey questionnaire results A detailed description of this procedure is provided below.
To ensure the collection of valid data, survey questionnaires will be created in both English and Vietnamese Additionally, the researcher will pilot the questionnaires to evaluate their effectiveness in the data collection process before distributing them to participants.
In December 2017, the data collection process began with the distribution of 50 printed survey questionnaires to Vietnamese native participants residing in both rural and urban areas of Northern Vietnam The collection period was planned to last approximately one month, utilizing convenience sampling methods that included the researcher’s students, colleagues, and acquaintances, such as the researcher’s husband’s colleagues, to participate in the survey.
Apparently, the survey questionnaires will be conducted with the assistance of
50 native Vietnamese informants living in the North of Vietnam, consisting of three parts:
Part I: In this initial part, the informants involved might be asked to give personal information in case they do not find it disturbing Participants was required to complete demographic questions (age, sex, marital status, social status, living area and personality)
A In this main part, the informants will be asked about the distance at which they feel most comfortable when having conversation with the other communicators by marking on three graphic questions concerning their preferred conversational distance when having a conversation with others Especially, the questions will be based on some factors affecting conversational distances between Vietnamese dyads as gender, age, social power, and personality of the informants There will also be questions which are directly concerning to space violence Bases on the classic Hall‟s (1966) theory, we measured three separate categories of preferred interpersonal distances – distance to (a) stranger, (b) an acquaintance, and (c) a close person These measures reflected the previously defined categories of interpersonal distance: (a) social distance (1.2-3.7m), (b) personal distance (46cm- 1.2m), and (c) intimate distance (0-46cm) (Hall, 1966), respectively The author decided to use a very simple graphic task so that it will be easy for the participants to imagine the distance which they prefer during the process of communication
Then, the participants will be asked to imagine that he or she should be
Participants will evaluate the optimal distance for Person B to approach them during a conversation, ensuring maximum comfort They will indicate this preferred distance on a provided scale It is recommended that the questionnaires be completed using paper and pencil for accuracy.
B The author designs 17 questions in which the participants will have to circle one answer in each line across to show their degree of agreement with each statement These questions are designed to collect the participants‟ general opinions about the conversational distance and the factors which can leave some certain influence on the preferred interpersonal distance of the communicators
Data analysis
The data from the questionnaires and video recordings were systematically managed and analyzed using IBM's SPSS software (version 20, 64 Bit), which enables effective comparison of data across various groups SPSS is known for its flexibility in handling data and its accuracy in performing statistical procedures In this analysis, independent variables such as Age, Gender, Marital Status, Social Status, Living Area, and Personality of the communicators were inputted, while Conversational Distances served as the dependent variables.
After entering the data, I applied formulas to extract the necessary information I calculated the means of conversational distance for each communication scenario to identify which hypothesis best predicts preferred interpersonal distance and the factors influencing it To analyze the independence of variables such as Gender, Living Area, Social Status, Marital Status, and Personality, I planned to use an Independent-Samples t-Test.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess statistically significant differences in the means among three age groups regarding their preferred interpersonal distances This analysis aims to identify whether variations in age influence the preferred interpersonal distance among different groups.
Qualitative analysis was performed through one-on-one interviews with the researcher's colleagues, serving as the primary data collection method This process involved asking questions, actively listening, and recording responses, followed by data interpretation, transcription, and verification The analysis aimed to determine if participants' experiences aligned with their chosen responses regarding interpersonal distance in survey questionnaires Ultimately, the goal was to identify common patterns in their answer selection and its correlation to real-life situations.
The data collection process utilized audio recordings that were accurately transcribed prior to analysis Participants' perspectives were interpreted and reported for educational purposes The data was systematically managed, analyzed, and presented in a coherent manner The interpretation relied on the theoretical frameworks selected by the researcher, as these theories guided the focus towards the participants' relevant viewpoints.
In this study, interviews were audio-recorded to facilitate accurate transcription, which involved converting spoken dialogue into written text for analysis To ensure clarity and prevent misunderstandings, the transcripts were subsequently reviewed by the interviewees This process included correcting spelling and other errors, as well as anonymizing specific details to protect participant identities.
Video recordings serve as a valuable resource for analyzing the relationships between behaviors that occur in close temporal proximity To enhance the reliability of the behavioral data collected through video recording, I employed specific techniques and strategies This approach allowed me to effectively capture the naturally occurring proxemic behavior of participants.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Research question 1: What are the factors that affect the conversational
Questionnaires were distributed to measure the interpersonal distances among communicators, focusing on Vietnamese dyads An SPSS (version 20) analysis was conducted, utilizing one-way ANOVA and Independent Sample T-tests to examine the data The analysis considered various factors, including age, gender, marital status, social status, living areas, and the personalities of the participants who completed the questionnaires.
The study categorized participants into three age groups: under 20, 20 to 40, and over 40, to assess potential statistical differences among them A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to evaluate whether significant differences exist between the means of these independent age groups Prior to conducting the ANOVA, specific assumptions were verified using SPSS The following table presents descriptive statistics regarding the interpersonal distance selected by the three groups during communication with various informants.
Stranger under 20 11 2.1818 40452 12197 1.9101 2.4536 2.00 3.00 from 20 to 40 23 2.6522 57277 11943 2.4045 2.8999 2.00 4.00 above 40 16 2.7500 44721 11180 2.5117 2.9883 2.00 3.00
Acquaintance under 20 11 2.0000 00000 00000 2.0000 2.0000 2.00 2.00 from 20 to 40 23 2.0000 30151 06287 1.8696 2.1304 1.00 3.00 above 40 16 1.8125 40311 10078 1.5977 2.0273 1.00 2.00
Close_person under 20 11 1.4545 52223 15746 1.1037 1.8054 1.00 2.00 from 20 to 40 23 1.7391 54082 11277 1.5053 1.9730 1.00 3.00 above 40 16 1.5000 51640 12910 1.2248 1.7752 1.00 2.00
Table 1 ANOVA descriptions of data on conversational distance measured for three age-groups
The table presents key descriptive statistics, including the mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence intervals for the dependent variable across three groups of communicators The sample size indicates that all expected participants were included, with 11 speakers under 20 years old, 23 participants aged 20 to 40, and 16 individuals over 40 Notably, the minimum number of subjects was 11 in the under-20 age group, highlighting an equal distribution of participants across the age groups (Ellis and Yuan, 2004).
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig
Table 2 Test of Homogeneity of Variances of Age-Factor
The test of Homogeneity of variances reveals that the null hypothesis, which posits equal interpersonal distances preferred by three age groups when communicating with strangers, acquaintances, and close relationships, holds true for close relationships but not for the other two categories Specifically, the Levene Statistic indicates significance values of 0.041 and 0.005 for interpersonal distances with strangers and acquaintances, respectively, both of which are below the 0.05 threshold In contrast, the significance value for close relationships is 0.685, exceeding 0.05, thereby justifying comparisons among the three age groups in this communication category.
The study reveals significant differences in preferred interpersonal distance during conversations between strangers and acquaintances, with a significance value of less than 0.05, indicating that the null hypothesis can be rejected This suggests that individuals of different ages exhibit varying preferences for interpersonal distance when engaging with others classified as strangers or acquaintances Consequently, it can be concluded that these preferences differ across three distinct age groups.
The second assumption examines interpersonal distance among three distinct age groups during conversations with close individuals, including family members, friends, and spouses The significance value exceeding 0.05 indicates that the null hypothesis of equal variances among the groups can be accepted, thereby satisfying the assumption of homogeneity Consequently, the author proceeds to utilize the ANOVA results for further analysis.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig
Table 3 ANOVA results of statistical analyses of different relationships
The ANOVA analysis results indicate that there is no significant difference in interpersonal distance between different age groups when interacting with acquaintances and close relationships, as the significance values for both scenarios exceed 0.05 This suggests that age does not affect the conversational distance maintained by individuals in these contexts.
The p-value for the significance of conversational distance among strangers is 0.015, indicating a statistically significant difference in mean distances across three age groups The data shows that communicators prefer the greatest distance when interacting with strangers, highlighting a clear main effect among the groups This suggests that age influences the preferred interpersonal distance during conversations with strangers A post-hoc analysis was conducted using the Test of Homogeneity of Variances to pinpoint the specific differences among the groups.
40 under 20 47036* 18410 036 0248 9159 above 40 -.09783 16349 822 -.4935 2978 above 40 under 20 56818* 19670 016 0921 1.0442 from 20 to 40
40 under 20 00000 11264 1.000 -.2726 2726 above 40 18750 10003 157 0546 4296 above 40 under 20 -.18750 12035 274 -.4788 1038 from 20 to 40
Close person under 20 from 20 to 40 -.28458 19400 316 -.7541 1849 above 40 -.04545 20727 974 -.5471 4562 from 20 to
40 under 20 28458 19400 316 -.1849 7541 above 40 23913 17227 355 -.1778 6561 above 40 under 20 04545 20727 974 -.4562 5471 from 20 to 40
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
Table 4 The Post hoc tests result of the three different age groups
Post hoc tests reveal significant differences in communication distances among various age groups when interacting with strangers, with a p-value of 0.036 This indicates a statistically significant variation in preferred distance between informants under 20 and those aged 20 to 40, as well as between the under-20 group and the over-40 group However, the comparison between the 20 to 40 age group and the over-40 group shows a p-value of 0.822, suggesting that these two groups prefer similar interpersonal distances.
There is no significant difference in communication styles among the three age groups when interacting with acquaintances and close relationships, as indicated by the ANOVA test results This suggests that all age groups maintain a similar level of engagement in these personal interactions.
Robust Tests of Equality of Means b
Close Person Welch 1.448 2 25.703 254 a Asymptotically F distributed b Robust tests of equality of means cannot be performed for Acquaintance because at least one group has 0 variance
Table 5 The Robust Tests of Equality of Means of Different Relationships
The Robust Tests indicated that individuals of varying ages prefer different interpersonal distances when conversing with strangers However, no significant differences in preferred distance were observed among the three age groups during interactions with acquaintances and close friends.
The Independent-Samples t-Test will be utilized to analyze the differences in conversational distance preferences based on gender This statistical method aims to determine whether communicators of different genders exhibit varying preferences in their conversational distances.
Gender N Mean Std Deviation Std Error
Table 6 Group Statistics of data on conversational distance measured for Gender
The table presents descriptive statistics on preferred interpersonal distance, highlighting gender as a significant factor Participants were categorized into three relationship groups: strangers, acquaintances, and close individuals In total, 27 males engaged in conversations with 23 females across these relationship categories.
Levene‟s-Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Stranger Equal variances assumed 2.483 122 -3.267 48 002 -.45572 13950 -.73619 -.17524 Equal variances not assumed
Close person Equal variances assumed
Table 7 Independent Samples Test of data on conversational distance measured by male and female communicators
Table 7 presents the outcomes of two tests on gender differences (male and female), featuring columns for significance (Sig and Sig (2-tailed)) The first significance level pertains to Levene's test for equality of variances, which will not be interpreted here The Independent Samples Test displays two rows: one for equal variances and another for unequal variances Since the p-value from Levene's test exceeds 05, it is appropriate to utilize the row labeled "Equal variances assumed."
The results in Table 7 indicate that the p-value for Levene's test of stranger is p = 122, suggesting that the variances of conversational distance between males and females when interacting with strangers are not equal This implies a significant difference in the preferred interpersonal distance between male and female informants during conversations with strangers.
Research question 2: What is the proxemic distance preferred by
Video recordings provide insights into the research question by involving 40 pairs of informants, selected through convenience sampling from students, colleagues, and acquaintances This resulted in a total of 80 participants engaged in 40 dyad trials During the recordings, participants were instructed to converse naturally, with one member of each dyad remaining still while the other adjusted their distance to ensure comfort during the conversation.
After a few minutes of conversation between subjects, observations commenced with recording their interactions The author aimed to film each conversation for a minimum of five minutes Distances between the informants were measured using a tape measure, with specific spots marked at 45 cm, and these measurements were later converted into centimeters for data analysis and presentation.
120 cm, denoting the intimate and social conversational distance zones (Hall,
1966) The conversational distance measured, then, would be the distance between the two shoes‟ tips (see the figure below)
The data analysis examined the preferred interpersonal distance by Vietnamese and its relationships with gender, social status and age range
Figure 2 Conversational distance measured for Dyads within each variable group
A detailed look at the bar graph reveals that the preferable distance between strangers was entirely social distance None of the participant chose to be closer
Conversational Distance measured for Dyads within each variable group
When meeting someone for the first time, individuals typically maintain a social distance of more than 120 cm In contrast, for acquaintances and colleagues, over 80% of people prefer to engage within a personal distance zone Interestingly, nearly 16% of respondents are comfortable standing closer than this personal distance.
45 cm from each other when the conversation occurred
The dynamics of communication can become complex when there is a disparity in social status between informants In such cases, over half of the dyads preferred to maintain a distance of 45 cm to 120 cm during conversations, while approximately one-third exhibited a social distance when interacting with managers or subordinates Notably, only 8.5 percent of communicators felt at ease in the intimate zone while engaging with their superiors or those of lower status.
A study involving pairs of close friends revealed that approximately 12.5 percent of participants had maintained their friendships for 2-4 years The findings indicated that 80 percent of close friends preferred to stand within a distance of 45-120 cm from each other, with variations primarily influenced by gender Specifically, female participants tended to stand closer together than their male counterparts Notably, individuals in intimate relationships did not select social distance as their preferred interpersonal distance.
The data below reports the percentage of Vietnamese informants deciding their favorite proxemic space during the communication with different relationships
3.2.1 Conversational distances in Vietnamese nonverbal communication between Strangers:
The data indicates that gender plays a significant role in social interactions among Vietnamese strangers, with individuals opting for social distance nearly twice as often compared to interactions between males and females Notably, the social zone emerged as the preferred distance for initial conversations, while neither intimate nor personal distances were selected.
3.2.2 Conversational distances in Vietnamese nonverbal communication between Acquaintances:
Intimate Distance Personal Distance Social Distance
In conversations among acquaintances, none of the informants opted for social space; instead, they predominantly preferred personal distance, particularly in same-sex interactions Interestingly, when engaging with acquaintances of the opposite sex, only 5% of Vietnamese informants felt comfortable with intimate distance, indicating a clear preference for maintaining personal space in such contexts.
3.2.3 Conversational distances in Vietnamese nonverbal communication between a Superior and an Inferior:
In a study on spatial preferences, only 2.0% of different-sex participants opted for the intimate zone when interacting with their superiors or subordinates In contrast, personal space emerged as the most favored choice, with 40% of same-sex dyads choosing to communicate within this zone in workplace or educational settings.
3.2.4 Conversational distances in Vietnamese nonverbal communication between Close Persons:
In this scenario, social distancing is largely disregarded, as 60% of same-sex participants opted for a personal zone during interactions with close individuals Only 20% chose to engage in an intimate zone when conversing with same-sex friends, while nearly none preferred such closeness with opposite-sex friends or family members.
3.2.5 Proxemics Distance preferred by Vietnamese and Major cross-cultural similarities and differences:
The proxemic distance observed in Vietnamese dyads exhibits both similarities and differences when compared to American dyads According to Hall, interpersonal distance can be categorized into four distinct zones: intimate space, personal space, social space, and public space These zones define the relative distance individuals maintain during interactions, highlighting cultural variations in proximity preferences.
Private situations with people who are emotionally close If others invade this space, we feel threatened
The lower end is handshake distance – the distance most couples stand in public
The lower end is the distance salespeople and customers and between people who work together in business
Situations such as teaching in a classroom or delivering a speech
Vietnamese individuals, similar to Americans, exhibit a preference for maintaining a social distance of over 120 cm when conversing with strangers A 2017 study highlighted that this personal space requirement for interactions with unfamiliar individuals aligns closely across both cultures.
In Vietnamese culture, the proxemic distance between acquaintances and colleagues typically ranges from 45 cm to 1.2 meters, indicating a personal distance zone In contrast, American culture maintains a greater distance, with colleagues at work often standing more than 120 cm apart This highlights the preference for more personal space among Americans compared to their Vietnamese counterparts.
In Vietnam, individuals typically establish three distinct conversational distances when interacting with someone of higher social status Approximately 60% prefer a personal distance of 60 cm to 1.5 meters, while around one-third engage at a social distance of over 120 cm Notably, less than 10% of Vietnamese individuals opt for an intimate distance when conversing with those perceived as lower in status.
In Vietnamese culture, the personal distance zone typically ranges from 46 to 120 cm, with 80% of individuals preferring this space for conversations with close friends and family Conversely, 20% of people are comfortable with even closer intimacy during interactions This preference for personal distance aligns closely with American cultural norms, where similar distances are maintained when engaging in conversations with loved ones.
Hence, the proxemic distance preferred by a majority Vietnamese speakers can be summarized as below:
Superiors-Inferiors 60 cm – 150 cm (Personal)
Close Persons 45 cm – 120 cm (Personal)
The analysis of video recordings and questionnaires revealed a consistent finding: the proxemic distance between strangers consistently fell within the social distance zone This distance was influenced by various factors, including age, gender, marital status, social status, living area, and personality traits among Vietnamese dyads However, when the relationship between the individuals remained unchanged, such as during conversations between close acquaintances, the proxemic distance varied independently of these factors.
Discussions
Differences in interpersonal distance preferences can be largely attributed to the influences of high context (HC) and low context (LC) cultures This analysis is grounded in Edward T Hall's foundational concepts of HC and LC cultures, as well as Hofstede's collectivism-individualism dimension.
High-context (HC) communication, prevalent in cultures like Vietnam, emphasizes the importance of physical context and relationships, relying heavily on nonverbal cues to convey meaning In contrast, low-context (LC) cultures prioritize explicit verbal codes for communication In HC cultures, information is intertwined with various factors, making nonverbal communication highly situational and dependent on the environment and context.
This article aims to explore the differences in interpersonal distance between high-context and low-context cultures, as defined by Hall (1976) Understanding these cultural constructs is essential for grasping the fundamental differences in communication styles and cultural nuances Communication style encompasses the various ways individuals express themselves and the patterns that are considered typical within each culture.
Cultural dimensions, particularly Hofstede's individualism vs collectivism, significantly influence interpersonal distance preferences Vietnamese culture, characterized as a high-context culture, is stable and slow to evolve, with individuals relying on personal narratives, social status, and relationships to interpret events and meanings In Vietnam, communal space is valued, leading people to stand close together However, research indicates that Vietnamese speakers maintain greater physical distance from members of the opposite sex compared to same-gender interactions; for example, a man will typically keep a larger distance from an unfamiliar woman than from an unfamiliar man, a pattern that holds true for women as well.
In Vietnamese culture, there is a notable distinction in interpersonal distance based on marital status, with individuals maintaining a greater physical space from married people compared to those who are single This behavior reflects the non-contact nature of Vietnamese society, where communicators typically avoid close proximity with members of the opposite sex, particularly in dual-gender interactions.
Cultural differences significantly influence the degree of individualism versus collectivism, shaping how people interact within families, communities, and society Western cultures, particularly American culture, prioritize individualism, promoting values such as liberalism, democracy, and personal freedom, while also fostering economic motivation However, this focus on individualism can lead to feelings of loneliness, egoism, and pride, as it often results in social isolation In contrast, collectivist cultures encourage closer relationships among individuals, fostering a sense of community that enhances collaboration in work, entertainment, and daily life.
Cultural individualism or collectivism significantly influences nonverbal behaviors, particularly in conversational proximity In individualistic cultures like the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, people tend to maintain greater physical distance during interactions In contrast, Vietnamese culture exemplifies collectivism, where individuals are more interdependent and prefer close proximity in social settings This inclination is evident as Vietnamese people engage in conversations without choosing intimate spaces when interacting with those of higher social status or older age Collectivist societies, such as Vietnam, exhibit heightened social awareness, adjusting nonverbal communication based on various factors like power distance, relationship dynamics, gender, age, and marital status.
This part gives a summary of the main findings, recommendation, limitations and suggestion for further study.
Summary of major findings
This study explores the preferred interpersonal distance among Vietnamese individuals, utilizing a mixed-methods approach that includes questionnaires, video recordings, and interviews The findings reveal that Vietnamese people commonly maintain a personal distance of 45-120 cm during typical conversations.
This study focuses on conversational distance, a key aspect of proxemics, to explore the factors influencing interpersonal distance among Vietnamese communicators It examines how various preferences, including age, acquaintance level, and gender roles, affect distancing in dyads Key factors investigated include Age, Gender, Marital Status, Social Status, Living Areas, and Personality, highlighting the complexity of interpersonal communication in this cultural context.
The study reveals that age significantly influences the interpersonal distance maintained by Vietnamese communicators Specifically, there is no notable difference in conversational distance among three distinct age groups when interacting with acquaintances and close relationships However, communicators over the age of 40 tend to prefer a greater distance when engaging with strangers.
Research indicates that gender significantly influences the interpersonal distance between communicators in Vietnam Findings from questionnaires and interviews suggest that Vietnamese individuals adhere to specific standards for appropriate public distance, which are often influenced by gender-related tendencies Notably, Vietnamese people tend to maintain closer proximity with same-sex communicative partners Additionally, there is a marked difference in the preferred interpersonal distance between male and female informants when conversing with strangers.
The marital status of speakers influences their conversational distance, with married and unmarried individuals exhibiting different interpersonal distances when interacting with strangers However, both single and married individuals tend to prefer similar conversational distances when engaging with acquaintances and close relationships, such as friends, family members, and spouses.
The interview data revealed that social status significantly influences conversational distance, aligning with findings from questionnaires and video recordings Specifically, managers (high-status individuals) and employees (low-status individuals) exhibit different preferences for interpersonal space when interacting with strangers However, this dynamic shifts in the context of acquaintances and close relationships, where both high and low-status communicators prefer similar personal space during interactions.
There is a notable difference in nonverbal communication between urban citizens and rural residents when interacting with strangers It is believed that both groups maintain similar interpersonal distances during conversations with friends and close acquaintances.
Research indicates that communicators' personalities significantly impact their preferred conversational distance Extroverts tend to maintain a closer distance when interacting with strangers compared to introverts Additionally, the interpersonal distances between introverts and their acquaintances or close individuals are similar to those observed between extroverts and the same types of speakers.
Research indicates that communicators often maintain the same conversational distance with acquaintances as they do with close friends and family However, when interacting with strangers, particularly during initial encounters, they tend to adjust their personal space.
Implications
Nonverbal aspects of communication differ from cultures to cultures Each culture has their own ways of interacting nonverbally This section will discuss some main nonverbal implications for communicators
This study offers valuable insights for foreigners visiting Vietnam for the first time, helping them navigate cultural differences and avoid potential culture shock during conversations with Vietnamese speakers For instance, British colleagues at my English center expressed their surprise at seeing women walking hand in hand, a gesture they found unusual and potentially taboo in their own country Therefore, this research highlights the importance of understanding nonverbal communication cues to facilitate smoother interactions and cultural adaptation for expatriates living or working in Vietnam.
This paper aims to assist individuals working in multinational or multicultural environments where misunderstandings may arise from a lack of mutual understanding The diverse cultural backgrounds can lead to communication breakdowns among colleagues, highlighting the importance of recognizing cultural differences Both Vietnamese and foreign professionals can benefit from the findings regarding preferred conversational distances between the two cultures, enabling them to implement strategies that minimize misunderstandings and enhance collaboration.
Limitations of the study
Besides the objectives were achieved in the current study, there are two existing limitations as under:
1 This paper has examined the factors affecting the conversational distances of
This study explores the dominant factors influencing Vietnamese dyads while acknowledging the extensive nature of conversational distance within proxemics, which limits the scope of the research Given the author's limited expertise, some errors and shortcomings may be present Constructive feedback, including remarks and suggestions, is highly encouraged to enhance the study's quality.
2 The study was conducted in the form of mixed research method but there are a limited number of participants, only 5 teachers were willing to participate in the interview, resulting in a small sample size Therefore, if there are more participants in the study, the results might have been more reliable then the reliability of results can be likely increased What is more, it could be tested how reliably the sample like ours represents the conversational distance on the worldwide cultural level in future researches
3 The videotape-recording as a data collection method can bring some disadvantages to this research, that is, the investigator must be aware of some limitations concerning A major limitation in the use of videotape technique must be its technical problems and its negative influence on participants‟ behaviour as it might concern personal privacy Accordingly, being observed and video-recorded may alter the behaviour of the participants during the recording process, and it possible that the people who are video-recorded could be influenced by the presence of the camera then they can change their behaviour during the recording process Sequentially, the validity of the research findings can be affected
4 Another difficulty that I have encountered during the qualitative data collection process must be the ways to complement interview audio-recordings As I stated in the methodology part, the one-to-one interviews were conducted via Skype, a communication tool which allows users make free video calls and chat Hence, the participants‟ impressions, environmental contexts, participants‟ behaviors and a number of nonverbal cues would not be captured and identified through this method of data collection Although the researcher tried to exploit “field notes” to take some important cues as listed above, the limitation of this method seemed to unexpectedly emerge.
Suggestions for further study
This study offers a preliminary exploration of proxemics and recommends future research to delve deeper into spatial perceptions within this field A specific focus is suggested on Vietnamese territorial proxemic behavior, emphasizing the need for larger sample sizes to enhance the validity of findings Observing these behaviors in naturalistic settings could provide richer insights Despite its limitations, this paper aims to serve as a valuable resource for subsequent studies related to proxemics.
1 Nguyễn Hoà, (2010) Khác biệt văn hóa Đông-Tây và giao tiếp liên văn hóa
Tạp chí Khoa học ĐHQGHN, Ngoại ngữ 26 (2010) 69-76 Retrieved from: http://luanvan.co/luan-van/khac-biet-van-hoa-dong-tay-va-giao-tiep-lien-van- hoa-49749/
2 Nguyễn Hòa, (2011) Phân tích giao tiếp liên văn hóa Tạp chí Khoa học ĐHQGHN, Ngoại ngữ 27 (2011) 77-87 Retrieved from: http://js.vnu.edu.vn/index.php/FS/article/viewFile/1466/1430
3 Nguyễn Hòa, (2009) Một số đối lập giá trị văn hóa và quan niệm phổ biến trong giao tiếp liên văn hóa Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ Số 5 2009 Retrieved from: http://tailieuso.udn.vn/bitstream/TTHL_125/1351/1/NN_0060.pdf
4 Nguyễn Quang, (2002) Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa NXB Đại học
5 Nguyễn Quang, (2003) Giao tiếp nội văn hóa và giao tiếp giao văn hóa NXB Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội
6 Nguyễn Quang, (2008) Giao tiếp ngôn từ và giao tiếp phi ngôn từ qua các nền văn hóa NXB Đại học Quốc gia
1 A Xie, et al (2008) Cross-cultural influence on communication effectiveness and user interface design International Journal of Intercultural Relations
2 Beamer, L & Varner, I (2010) Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace McGraw-Hill Education
3 Beisler, F., Scheeres, H., & Pinner, D (1997) Communication Skills 2 nd
4 Judee K Burgoon & Jerold L Hale (1987) Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication, Communication Monographs, 54:1, 19-41, DOI: 10.1080/03637758709390214
5 Jandt, F E (2015) An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community 8 th Edition SAGE Publications
6 Hall, E.T (1959) The Silent Language Garden City New York: Doubleday
7 Hall, E.T (1963) Proxemics–The Study of Man’s Spacial Relations and Boundaries In Man‟s Image in Medicine and Anthropology, pp 422-45 New
8 Hall, E.T (1966) The Hidden Dimension London: The Bodley Hea Ltd
9 Hall, E.T (1968) Proxemics In Current Anthropology, 9, pp 83-108
10 Hall, E.T (1976) Beyond Cultural Garden City New York: Doubleplay
11 Hall, E.T (1988) The Hidden Dimensions of Time and Space in Today’s World Cross-cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication Ed Fernando
Poyatos Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
12 Hall, E.T (1988) Cross-cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication
13 Harrison, R.P (1973) Nonverbal Communication – Handbook of Communication Chicago: Rand McNally
14 Hybels, S & Weaver, R.L (1992) Communicating Effectively McGraw Hill
15 Knapp, M L (1972) Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc
16 Leather, D (1978) Nonverbal Communication Systems Boston: Allyn and
17 Levine, D.R., & Adelman, M.B (1982) Beyond Language – Intercultural Communication for English as a Second Language Prentice-Hall Inc.,
18 Lyons, J (1972) Nonverbal Communication Cambridge: Cambridge
19 Manusov, Valerie Lynn, and Miles L Patterson (2006) The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication Sage Publications, Inc
20 McCardle, E S (1974) Nonverbal Communication New York: Marcel
21 Nguyen Quang (1994) Intercultural communication Vietnam National
22 Nguyen Quang (1998) Cross-cultural Communication CFL-Vietnam National University – Hanoi
23 Nguyen Quang (2009) Cross-cultural Communication for ELT CFL-Vietnam
24 Saunders M., Lewis P & Thornhill A (2007) Research Methods for Business Fourth edition Pearson Education Limited
25 Spencer-Oatey, H (2004) Cultural Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures A & C Black
BẢN CÂU HỎI KHẢO SÁT
Bản câu hỏi khảo sát này được thiết kế để làm cơ sở dữ liệu phục vụ cho đề tài nghiên cứu
Khám phá khoảng cách tham thoại trong giao tiếp văn hóa Anh-Việt cho thấy sự khác biệt rõ rệt về văn hóa phi ngôn từ Chúng tôi trân trọng sự tham gia của anh/chị trong việc trả lời câu hỏi này và cam kết bảo mật danh tính cũng như thông tin cá nhân của người tham gia.
Xin anh/chị cho biết thông tin về bản thân mình (bằng cách đánh dấu () vào ô thích hợp hoặc điền vào chỗ trống):
- Độ tuổi hiện nay: Dưới 20
- Tình trạng hôn nhân: Đã lập gia đình
- Nơi sinh sống chủ yếu: Thành thị
- Tính cách nổi bật: Sôi nổi, hướng ngoại
II Câu hỏi khảo sát:
A Anh/chị hãy tưởng tượng mình là A, và B đang tiến lại gần anh/chị để trò chuyện Hãy ước lượng vị trí mà B sẽ phải dừng lại (miễn sao anh chị có thể cảm thấy thoải mái nhất khi trò chuyện) bằng cách đánh dấu vào thước đo bên dưới hai hình minh hoạ A, B trong các trường hợp sau:
1 Anh/ chị là A và người lạ là B:
2 Anh/ chị A và người quen (đồng nghiệp, cấp trên, cấp dưới) là B:
3 Anh/ chị là A và người thân (thành viên trong gia đình, bạn thân) là B:
B Anh/ Chị đồng ý hay không đồng ý với những trường hợp dưới đây? (Hãy khoanh tròn vào đáp án mà anh/ chị thấy phù hợp nhất):
4 Giới tính quyết định đến khoảng cách giao tiếp 1 2 3 4 5
5 Khoảng cách giao tiếp không phụ thuộc vào không gian xung quanh
6 Khi tâm trạng tích cực, các đối tượng giao tiếp thường có xu hướng thu ngắn khoảng cách giao tiếp
7 Khoảng cách khi giao tiếp với các đối tượng có địa vị thấp thường có xu hướng ngắn hơn khoảng cách khi giao tiếp với các đối tượng có địa vị cao
8 Đối tượng giao tiếp sinh ra và lớn lên ở thành thị thường có nhu cầu về không gian giao tiếp rộng lớn hơn các đối tượng sinh ra và lớn lên ở nông thôn
9 Những đối tượng giao tiếp với tính cách hướng ngoại thường có xu hướng đứng gần hơn khi giao tiếp
1 2 3 4 5 so với những đối tượng giao tiếp có tính cách hướng nội
10 Khoảng cách giao tiếp tỉ lệ thuận với mức độ thân thiết của các đối tượng giao tiếp
11 Những người có ưu thế xứng đáng có được nhiều không gian giao tiếp hơn những người yếu thế
12 Những người có ưu thế thường được phép vi phạm các quy tắc thông thường trong khoảng cách giao tiếp
13 Mối quan hệ giữa các đối tượng giao tiếp là yếu tố quyết định nhất của khoảng cách giao tiếp
14 Các cặp giới tính nữ-nữ tương tác ở khoảng cách gần hơn so với các cặp đôi giới tính khác, đặc biệt là các cặp giới tính nam-nam
15 Người Việt Nam thường hạn chế khoảng cách thân mật khi giao tiếp với người lớn tuổi hơn mình
16 Duy trì một khoảng cách thân mật giữa các đối tượng giao tiếp cùng giới được cho là một điều cấm kỵ trong văn hoá Việt Nam
17 Đối với người Việt Nam, quyền lực đóng một vai trò quyết định trong việc lựa chọn các vùng khoảng cách khi giao tiếp
18 Khoảng cách xã hội dường như không ảnh hưởng đến khoảng cách giao tiếp
19 Nam giới thường sử dụng khoảng cách thân mật ít hơn và khoảng cách công cộng nhiều hơn so hơn nữ giới
20 Không gian càng đông thì khoảng cách giao tiếp càng bị thu hẹp
Xin chân thành cảm ơn sự giúp đỡ nhiệt tình của anh/chị!
This survey questionnaire aims to explore "English-Vietnamese cross-cultural nonverbal communication," focusing on proxemics across different cultures Your participation in this questionnaire is greatly valued, as your insights will contribute significantly to my MA thesis at the University of Languages and International Studies Rest assured, your responses will remain anonymous and confidential.
Thank you very much for your time!
I Personal information (for statistical purposes):
Please put a tick () where appropriate or answer the question:
A Imagine that you are person A Person B is approaching to have a conversation with you Rate how close a person B could approach, so that you would feel comfortable in a conversation with her or him You can mark the distance at which person B should stop on the scale below the figures in the following cases:
1 You are person A and person B is a stranger:
2 You are person A and person B is an acquaintance (colleague, superior, inferior):
3 You are person A and person B is a close person (family member, close friend):
B To what extend do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?
(Please circle one answer in each line across):
4 The communicators‟ gender decides the distance of conversation
5 The conversational distance does not depend on the surrounding space
6 When people are in positive mood, they are likely to stand closer
7 People tend to stand closer to inferiors than to superiors
8 Those who were brought up in urban require more space than those in rural
9 Extroverted people are likely to stand closer than introverted people
10 The more intimate, the smaller the physical distance tends to be
11 Dominant individuals command more space than submissive individuals
12 Dominant people are allowed to violate conversational distance norms
13 Relationship is the most powerful determinant of conversational distance
14 Female-female dyads interact at closer distances 1 2 3 4 5 than do other sex-pairings, particularly male-male dyads
15 Vietnamese respondents refuse to choose intimate zone when communicating with older people
16 Maintaining an intimate distance between partners of the same sex is claimed to be a taboo in Vietnamese community
17 Power plays a decisive role in the choice of proxemic zones in Vietnamese communication
18 Social status is not seemingly influential to conversational distance
19 Males seem to use less intimate distance and more public distance than females
20 The more crowded it is, the closer distance people are at
If you are willing to participate in an interview after completing this questionnaire, please give me your name and your contact details:
Thank you very much for your cooperation!
1 Theo anh/chị thế nào là khoảng cách giao tiếp (khoảng cách vật lý)?
2 Theo anh/chị, những yếu tố nào có ảnh hưởng đến khoảng cách giao tiếp (Văn hoá, độ tuổi, giới tính, mối quan hệ, tình trạng hôn nhân, địa vị xã hội, tính cách, nơi sinh sống chủ yếu và nghề nghiệp)? Và yếu tố nào, theo anh/chị, có ảnh hưởng nhiều nhất đến khoảng cách giao tiếp?
3 Anh/Chị có thể chia sẻ kinh nghiệm về khoảng cách giao tiếp của anh chị khi tiếp với những người đến từ các nền văn hoá khác (nếu có)? Anh/chị hãy cho biết mình sẽ phản ứng hoặc giải thích như thế nào khi một người nước ngoài phàn nàn với anh chị về việc người Việt Nam thường đứng quá xa/gần đối phương khi giao tiếp?
4 Anh/Chị có cho rằng giao tiếp phi ngôn từ (ví dụ như khoảng cách giao tiếp) có thể gây xung đột về văn hoá? Tại sao?
5 Ở Việt Nam có quy tắc nào về khoảng cách giao tiếp không, nếu có, mọi người thường áp dụng những quy tắc ấy khi giao tiếp như thế nào? Bản thân anh/chị có quy tắc riêng nào muốn chia sẻ không?
6 Anh/ Chị sẽ cảm thấy như thế nào khi một người lạ đứng quá gần (dưới 40 cm) khi giao tiếp với anh/chị? Anh chị sẽ phản ứng như thế nào?
7 Khoảng cách giao tiếp với người thân trong gia đình (bố, mẹ, vợ, chồng, người yêu) của anh/chị có thay đổi khi không gian giao tiếp thay đổi không (ví dụ như khi ở trong nhà và khi đến những nơi công cộng?
8 Anh chị đã từng học tập hoặc sinh sống ở nước ngoài chưa? Nếu có cơ hội học tập và sinh sống ở nước ngoài một thời gian đủ dài, anh chị có muốn tìm hiểu trước về khoảng cách giao tiếp thông thường hoặc những nguyên tắc bất thành văn về khoảng cách giao tiếp của đất nước đó không? Tại sao?
This study aims to investigate the conversational distances that arise during interactions between individuals from high-context cultures and how these distances contrast with those experienced by communicators from low-context cultures.
1 What, according to you, is conversational distance (physically)?
2 What factors have the influence on conversational distance (Cultures, age, gender, relationships, marital status, social status, personality, living area and occupation)? Which factors do you think have the most influence on conversational distance?
3 Would you mind sharing you first-hand experience on your favorite conversational distance which occurs when you interact with the people coming from different countries? How will you react or explain when foreigners complain that the Vietnamese tends to stand too far or too close during the communication, which can make them upset
4 Do you think that nonverbal communication (conversational distance – as mentioned) can be one of the causes leading to the cultural conflict?
5 Is there any rule of conversational distance in Vietnam? If any, how can Vietnamese informants apply these rules during communication? Do you have any your own rules?
6 How would you feel and react when being approached too closely (less than 40 cm) by a stranger?
7 Will the conversational distance between you and your spouse (husband, wife, lover) change since the communication setting changes (home setting and public place setting)?
8 Have you ever been abroad? If you had a chance, would you spend time exploring about conversational distance in that country? Why?
Participant: T (she is the researcher‟s colleague at workplace)
Researcher: I would like to interview you seven questions related to conversational distance which I am doing a research on Can we start right now?
Conversational distance refers to the barriers that hinder effective communication This distance can manifest when there are significant age gaps between individuals or when their viewpoints differ greatly As interactions unfold, these barriers may become more pronounced, making communication increasingly challenging.
Researcher: Great! What factors have the influence on conversational distance (Cultures, age, gender, relationships, marital status, social status, personality, living area and occupation)?
T: From my own experience, all the factors mentioned can have the influence on conversational distance
Researcher: So which factors do you think have the most influence on conversational distance?
T: Well, I think it is the personality of the communication that weighed strongly with interpersonal distance
Researcher: Ok Can you tell me how will the personality affect the conversational distance?
T: Err… For example, there would be less space between extroverted communicators and vice versa
In cross-cultural interactions, understanding the preferred conversational distance can significantly enhance communication Researchers emphasize the importance of sharing personal experiences to better grasp how different cultures perceive personal space By discussing individual preferences for conversational distance, we can foster more effective and respectful interactions with people from diverse backgrounds.
T: Let‟s me see Yes There are two types of foreigners whom I had chance to communicate with: the people who are older than me, they can be the experts in education or some other related field The other group can be the people at the same age, they can be overseas students or tourists Well, when interacting with the the first type, I tend to talk about some…
Researcher: Sorry to interrupt but what I wish to focus on is not the verbal, I am only keen on nonverbal…
T: Oh, alright, I see… So, I almost hardly see any difference, just the feeling What
I mean is that I would feel somehow more comfortable when interacting with foreigners, in compare to the interaction with Vietnamese
Researcher: Is that the distance will be somehow closer when you have conversations with foreigners?
T: Yes, that‟s what I mean At least I can feel that It seems that they are more open to talk to…
When addressing concerns from foreigners about the Vietnamese communication style, it's important to acknowledge that cultural differences play a significant role in personal space preferences Vietnamese individuals may stand closer or further away during conversations based on their cultural norms, which can sometimes lead to misunderstandings To foster better communication, it's essential to encourage awareness and sensitivity towards these differences, helping both parties to adapt and find a comfortable distance that respects each other's boundaries.
T: Well, I have chance to study on cross-cultures so the distance created by the two communicators might be a matter to me I mean, I am a kind of open-minded and flexible When being complained, I will try to explain so that they can have more understanding For example, I can tell them that the way Vietnamese culture work, and the people who are not Vietnamese can not do anything but adapt it and get used to it It is not something like the Vietnamese do not like the foreigners…” Researcher: Ok I see Do you think this issue can be considered cultural breadown or conflict? For example, the foreigners can be shoecked when they have the first time communicate with Vietnamese, just because Vietnamese always keep a considerable distance whiling having conversations, which never happen in their culture Then, there can be misunderstanding leading to misinterpretation…
T: Yes, I agree There would be, as you have mentioned Then, they, the people who do not know anything about Vietnamese culture, can misinterpret negatively
Researcher: Have you known that there are any unwritten rules of conversational distance when Vietnamese communicate?
T: Yes, there arre For example, the distance between females can be smaller than that between males, or the distance between male teacher and female teacher to students can vary
Researcher: Do you have anything more you would like to add?
T: No, that‟s all experience that are relevance for you I think
Researcher: Thank you very much for your time I really appreciate your help.