5.2 Perry et al (Personal space)

Question 1

Psychology being investigated

Answer 1

interpersonal distance (personal space)
4 zones- intimate, personal, social and public
effect of the social hormone oxytocin on personal space depending on if the person is high or low in the trait of empathy
social salience

Question 2

What is an interpersonal distance (personal space)?

Answer 2

the relative distance between two people. It is the area of space in which they prefer not to have others enter. This distance may vary by relationship, cultural norms or social situation.
4 zones:
intimate- romantic partners, close family members
personal- everyday interactions
social- formal interactions
public- distance from public figures

Question 3

What is social salience?

Answer 3

the importance or attention someone gives to cues from other people, ex. body language, interpersonal distance and expressions

Question 4

What is oxytocin?

Answer 4

a social hormone found in humans that heightens the importance of social cues and is linked to positive social behaviours such as helping others

Question 5

What is the social salience hypothesis?

Answer 5

Hodder pg.157

Question 6

Aim

Answer 6

To investigate how oxytocin affects the preferred interpersonal distance of those scoring high or low in empathy traits

Question 7

Research method and design
IVs and DVs

Answer 7

laboratory experiment at University of Haifa
2 experiments took place half did experiment 1 first the other half did experiment 2 first

IV- empathy
participants were divided into high empathy or low empathy
independent measures design
The Interpersonal reactivity index, a 28-item online questionnaire, was used to operationalise the IV. High empathy scored 40 and above, low empathy scored 33 and under

IV- treatment
oxytocin administered or placebo administered
repeated measures design
randomised whether participants received OT or placebo, if they received a placebo then one week later they would come back and receive OT. The administration was double-blind

Experiment 1 had a third IV- condition
repeated measures design
levels: stranger, friend, authority and ball.

DV- personal space requirement of each participant
experiment 1- the preferred distance between the participant and the approaching person/object
experiment2- preferred distance and angle between two chairs

Question 8

Sample and Sampling technique

Answer 8

54 male undergraduates from the University of Haifa
19-32 years
Participated for course credit or payment
normal vision and no history of psychiatric or neurological disorders
5 left-handed

Question 9

How much OT was administered and the procedure for what happened after administration?

Answer 9

24 international units in 250ml of internasal OT or saline solution which was a placebo
3 droplets were self-administered to each nostril.
The following week they received an alternative solution.

After the solution was administered, they had to complete the IRI online questionnaire
After completing, they were given a nature magazine and waited in a quiet room for 45 minutes. This was so that the OT could stabilise before doing the two experiments

Question 10

Describe the procedure for experiments 1 and 2

Answer 10

pg.161- 162 Cambridge
pg.161 Hodder

Question 11

Results for experiment 1- CID

Answer 11

Mean preferred distance in the condition variable:
stranger- 39.82%
authority- 34.12%
ball- 20.20%
friend- 12.46%

effect of OT on high and low empathy group compared to control group- placebo:
pg.164 Cambridge

The high empathiser group showed a significant difference in mean % between friend and authority and friend and stranger. They also choose to be closer to the ball rather than strangers and authority after OT administration.

Question 12

Results for experiment 2: choosing rooms

Answer 12

high empathy group choose closer chair distances following OT
78.07cm (OT) and 80.58cm (placebo)

low empathy choose greater distance
80.14cm (OT) and 78.33 (placebo)

Question 13

Methodological strengths

Answer 13

High level of standardisation, pair of rooms shown for 2 seconds, same images used- reliability

use of widely validated paradigm- validity

double-blind technique- avoided demand characteristics and researcher bias and more valid

quantitative data from experiment 1- objective and more valid analysis

order of experiments counterbalanced to prevent order effects

extraneous variables like social interaction after OT administration were controlled as participants were put in a waiting room for 45 minutes

Question 14

Methodological weakness

Answer 14

only male participants- generalisability

lack of ecological validity as a laboratory experiment

low mundane realism

Participants completed the IRI themselves and may have demonstrated social desirability bias

Question 15

Ethical issues

Answer 15

ethically strong
informed consent was obtained

ensured no side effects from OT or placebo, protected from physical harm

fully debriefed

deception during experiment 2 as no personal discussion took place was unlikely to cause psychological distress

Question 16

Real-life application

Answer 16

the study showed the effect of OT to be more complex as it does not always have a positive effect.
Administering OT could cause further social difficulty ex. if using it on people with autism who already have a low empathy