3 - Arousal and affect approaches

Summary

The prior chapter examined those processes that have some biological basis or innate drive as the motivating force behind interactional adaptation. Whereas biological “drives” and forces are also prevalent in the theories reviewed in this chapter, there is a greater emphasis on arousal and psychological needs, elements derived initially from work on general human spatial behavior. Aiello (1987) identifies the needs undergirding spatially based arousal and affect theories as follows:

Overstimulation models of stress, arousal, and overload suggest that an individual maintains a preferred interaction distance from others in order to avoid excessive arousal, stimulation, and a variety of stressors associated with proximity that is too close. Behavioral constraint models maintain that adequate personal space prevents our behavioral freedom from being threatened, (p. 393)

Although the theories to be presented here by no means focus exclusively on proxemics, they share in common an emphasis on immediacy and intimacy phenomena, with most focusing on nonverbal behavior. Frequently cited theories in this category are Affiliative Conflict Theory, Arousal–Labeling Theory, Bidimensional Theory, Discrepancy – Arousal Theory, and dialectical models.

AFFILIATIVE CONFLICT THEORY

The original theory

Affiliative Conflict Theory (ACT), also referred to as Equilibrium Theory, was first introduced by Argyle and Dean (1965) to account for the functions of gaze and for the role of gaze in relation to other intimacy behaviors during interpersonal encounters. Originally, ACT postulated that people have competing needs or desires for intimacy and autonomy.