The notion of bias, both for the authors as well as the observers plays a strong part in this study. Both authors have a preconceived idea of what to expect in the study. The authors have developed hypothesis's to back up their theories before the study has started. This type of bias would influence the way in which the study is carried out. As it is a single blind experiment, the observers know what the purpose of the study is. With the observers being aware of this, they also have a preconceived notion of what to expect. An example of this would be if 4 men pulled off first, to avoid brushing into a female. And there is a discrepancy in a 5th subject who

is also a man and who is walking towards a female; the observers would tend to say that the man pulled off first, because the 4 previous subjects adhered to the same criteria.

While this type of behavior pattern might be common in big metropolitan centers like NYC. The idea of people entering someone else personal space through the course of walking down a sidewalk is rare in small town settings. The authors are assuming that the findings that they receive with this study affect a broader middle group. Another key factor in this study is the cultural differences among groups. Each culture deals with violation of their personal space differently then others. The authors did not take cultural differences into account when doing this study. Since the study was done in 1974, racism was still very prevalent in the world and especially in the U.S. As a result of this, certain groups of people, may have changed there path of travel to avoid making contact with the experimenter, or vice versa. The authors ar

Some common words found in the essay are:
York City, Sobel Lillith's, personal space, authors assuming, cultural differences, status observers, age gender race, study authors, socioeconomic status, failed mention, age gender, summary study, gender race,
Approximate Word count = 680
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)