The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1 - 57

Stay Out

lack of positive affect and relaxation. The findings of this study have several implications for residential life professionals. First, the data suggest that roommates who are satisfied with one another demonstrate more visual signs of interest and concern for each other (i.e., involvement) such as smiling and facial pleasantness. These nonverbal indicators may be evidence that, when roommates are satisfied with each other, it will be evident in their nonverbal behavior. Previous research suggests that smiling and facial pleasantness are related to liking and a willingness to communicate (Andersen et al., 1979). The current data extends previous research by suggesting that smiling and facial pleasantness are related to relationship satisfaction as well. The second implication is that roommates who both have clearly defined concepts of “my” space (i.e., bed, desk, and personal items) versus “your” space (i.e., firmness of boundaries) were less satisfied with their roommates. When both roommates have difficulty conceptualizing shared space, the relationship appears to be less satisfying for both. The same was not true, however, for personalization and claiming. Perhaps a sense of private space is more important to satisfaction than the personalization of that space. In other words, roommates may care more about having a desk for their exclusive use than they care about the kinds of posters or personalized pictures that are displayed in or on that space. Residential life staff may be able to utilize this information to enhance their roommate matching procedures. For example, a territoriality scale could be included in the roommate questionnaire, and residential life staff could try to avoid matching two people who both score high on firm-

ness of boundaries. This could make firmness of boundaries a meaningful screening tool for potential roommates. Finally, it was predicted that territoriality would be negatively related to nonverbal involvement. This prediction was partially supported, as only two of the factors that make up nonverbal involvement were significantly related to territoriality. Firmness of boundaries and personalization correlated negatively with body relaxation and positive affect. This is consistent with the data answering research question two (RQ2), which asked whether roommates who displayed similar nonverbal signs of immediacy were more satisfied. Roommates who both scored high on firmness of boundaries were less satisfied. Additionally, roommates who scored high on firmness of boundaries were also tenser and had less positive affect toward each other. This data may suggest that a roommate’s dissatisfaction is being expressed nonverbally through two very specific non-involvement behaviors: positive affect and relaxation. The data seem to suggest that roommates who are highly concerned about sharing their living space are also less relaxed and less positive in their interactions with their roommate.

LIMITATIONS
There are several limitations to this study. First, it is difficult to generalize the findings to a larger sample. All the students involved in this study were at a small residential liberal arts college in the Midwest. Additionally, the population of students attending a smaller school may have differences related to the variables in the study, such as a desire for the intimate atmosphere of a small school. Second, room-

V o l u m e 3 8 , No. 2 • 2 0 1 2

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 38, No. 2 & Volume 39, No. 1