Effects of Modulated Emotion and Facial Masking Encounter on Personal Distance

Sakuma, Natsuo; Ikeda, Kazunari

doi:10.1177/0031512520973515

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, as expected, participants were fastest when seeing individuals with a face mask, but not engaged in an interaction by shaking hands, slightly within and outside the peripersonal space (50–90 cm) as approaching the most appropriate distance for communication in Germany 63 . These results are in line with most of the previous studies 23 , 27 , 39 , 40 and only contradict the very early ones 36 , 37 . This can indicate that human perception of distances and masks has changed since the early days of the pandemic: the mask is no longer a symbol of danger but rather of protection.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…In accordance with the studies by Cartaud and colleagues 23 , Calbi and colleagues 39 , Sakuma and Ikeda 27 and Welsch and colleagues 38 , we predict that the further individuals are in the pictures, the faster participants’ reaction times will be (positivity bias) (H1). In addition, we predict faster reaction times for pictures with a face mask compared to pictures without a face mask (positivity bias) (H2).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Sakuma and Ikeda 27 found an unexpected increase in peripersonal space in a study with a masked face condition compared to an unmasked face condition. This suggests that the perceived interpersonal distance was shorter when the approaching face was unmasked rather than masked, which might reflect a wish to adopt a larger distance to an unmasked person, in order to keep safe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 2 more Smart Citations

During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance

Kühne

Fischer

Jeglinski-Mende

2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peripersonal space is the space surrounding our body, where multisensory integration of stimuli and action execution take place. The size of peripersonal space is flexible and subject to change by various personal and situational factors. The dynamic representation of our peripersonal space modulates our spatial behaviors towards other individuals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this spatial behavior was modified by two further factors: social distancing and wearing a face mask. Evidence from offline and online studies on the impact of a face mask on pro-social behavior is mixed. In an attempt to clarify the role of face masks as pro-social or anti-social signals, 235 observers participated in the present online study. They watched pictures of two models standing at three different distances from each other (50, 90 and 150 cm), who were either wearing a face mask or not and were either interacting by initiating a hand shake or just standing still. The observers’ task was to classify the model by gender. Our results show that observers react fastest, and therefore show least avoidance, for the shortest distances (50 and 90 cm) but only when models wear a face mask and do not interact. Thus, our results document both pro- and anti-social consequences of face masks as a result of the complex interplay between social distancing and interactive behavior. Practical implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance

Kühne

Fischer

Jeglinski-Mende

2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study reported that those who interacted with those who wore PPE experienced negative impacts on their psychological health, with increasing levels of anxiety. Additionally, four articles assessed for psychological factors and described similar findings (Kratzke et al 2021 ; Sakuma and Ikeda 2021 ; Thiagarajan et al 2021 ; Wong et al 2013 ). PPE that occluded a part of the face resulted in negative psychological impacts, specifically increasing stress, fatigue, and perceiving someone who wore PPE in a more negative light.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Most of these articles assessed the impact on speech intelligibility, facial and emotion recognition, and listening effort when PPE is worn. Studies also evaluated the impact on psychological health factors, such as stress, fatigue, and emotional state (5 articles, 19%) (Hoedl et al 2020 ; Kratzke et al 2021 ; Sakuma and Ikeda 2021 ; Thiagarajan et al 2021 ; Wong et al 2013 ). Two articles investigated the effect of PPE use on psychological illness symptoms, specifically anxiety and depression (2 articles, 8%) (Emanuel et al 2017 ; Tavakolizadeh et al 2019 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of respiratory and hearing protection use to psychological distress in the workplace: a scoping review

Leung

Cook

Capra

et al. 2022

Int Arch Occup Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Workers from various industries use personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks, respirators, and hearing protection to reduce their exposures to workplace hazards. Many studies have evaluated the physiological impacts of PPE use, but few have assessed the psychological impacts. The aim of the present study was to carry out a scoping review to compile existing evidence and determine the extent of knowledge on workplace mask, respirator or hearing protection use as a psychosocial hazard (stressor) that could result in a stress response and potentially lead to psychological injury. Methods The scoping review followed recognized methods and was conducted using Ovid Emcare, PubMed, Sage Journals, ScienceDirect, Scopus, SpringerLink, Google Scholar and preprint databases (OSF Preprints and medRxiv). Articles on the stressors associated with the use of masks, respirators, and hearing protection were included. The extracted data included author(s) name, year of publication, title of article, study design, population data, stressors assessed, and key findings. Results We retrieved 650 articles after removal of duplicates, of which 26 were deemed eligible for inclusion for review. Identified factors associated with PPE use that could potentially create a stress response were identified: communication impacts, physical impacts, psychological illness symptoms, cognitive impacts, and perceived PPE-related impacts. Evidence for respirators suggest that there may be psychological injury associated with their use. However, hearing protection appears to have a protective effect in reducing psychological symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and aggression. Conclusions Mask or respirator use may lead to an increase in work-related stress. Whereas hearing protection may have protective effects against psychological symptoms and improves speech intelligibility. More research is needed to better understand potential psychosocial impacts of mask, respirator and/or hearing protection use.

show abstract

Refraining from interaction can decrease fear of physical closeness during COVID-19

Kühne

Jeglinski-Mende

2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perception of peripersonal space (PPS) and interpersonal distance (IPD) has been shown to be modified by external factors such as perceived danger, the use of tools, and social factors. Especially in times of social distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is vital to study factors that modify PPS and IPD. The present work addresses the question of whether wearing a face mask as a protection tool and social interaction impact the perception of IPD. We tested estimated IPD in pictures at three distances: 50 cm, 90 cm, and 150 cm in both social interaction (shaking hands) and without interaction and when the two people in the pictures wore a face mask or not. Data from 60 subjects were analyzed in a linear mixed model (on both difference in distance estimation to the depicted distance and in absolute distance estimation) and in a 3 (distance: 50, 90, 150) × 2 (interaction: no interaction, shake hands), × 2 face mask (no mask, mask) rmANOVA on distance estimation difference. All analyses showed that at a distance of 50 and 90 cm, participants generally underestimated the IPD while at an IPD of 150 cm, participants overestimated the distance. This could be grounded in perceived danger and avoidance behavior at closer distances, while the wider distance between persons was not perceived as dangerous. Our findings at an IPD of 90 cm show that social interaction has the largest effect at the border of our PPS, while the face mask did not affect social interaction at either distance. In addition, the ANOVA results indicate that when no social interaction was displayed, participants felt less unsafe when depicted persons wore a face mask at distances of 90 and 150 cm. This shows that participants are on the one hand aware of the given safety measures and internalized them; on the other hand, that refraining from physical social interaction helps to get close to other persons.

show abstract

Effects of Modulated Emotion and Facial Masking Encounter on Personal Distance

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance

During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance

The contribution of respiratory and hearing protection use to psychological distress in the workplace: a scoping review

Refraining from interaction can decrease fear of physical closeness during COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About