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

Abstract

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.

Perception of interpersonal distance and social distancing before and during COVID-19 pandemic

“…This finding underscores that this bias occurs only when interpersonal distance poses a threat. This interpretation is also supported by the research of Kühne and Jeglinski-Mende 44 , who found that at close proximity (i.e., 50 and 90 cm) people underestimated interpersonal distance in a third-party perspective. These researchers also interpreted this underestimation as a mechanism that is triggered by fear of infection and that promotes avoidance.…”

“…Future studies should further investigate the role of subjective versus objective risk to clarify this point. Another inconsistency arises with Kühne and Jeglinski-Mende 44 , who demonstrated an underestimation of short distances and an overestimation of long distances. In the current study, however, the perception bias was calculated as an average of randomly chosen distances.…”

“…In the current study, however, the perception bias was calculated as an average of randomly chosen distances. Additionally, Kühne and Jeglinski-Mende 44 focused on perception biases in a third-person perspective (e.g., observing two other people from the side), whereas the current study examined the perceptual distance from the self. Therefore, this discrepancy could be attributed to differences in task design.…”

“…During the COVID-19 pandemic, one study found that restrictions on physical distance led to a reduced sense of peripersonal space 43 . In the context of interpersonal distance perception, a recent study indicated that interpersonal distance from a third-party perspective (i.e., distance between two strangers) was underestimated for close proximity (50 cm and 90 cm) and overestimated for large distances (150 cm) 44 . Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, this was the only study that examined changes in perceived interpersonal distance in the context of COVID-19.…”

Perceived Interpersonal Distances: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Young Taiwanese and Young Southeast Asians during the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Another factor influencing IPD was the disparity between actual measurement and online simulation. Kühne and Jeglinski-Mende [29] found that participants tended to overestimate the distance in pictures at an IPD of 150 cm compared to 50 and 90 cm. This discrepancy may be due to the wider distance between individuals not being perceived as dangerous.…”