Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Milgram Study > Perry et al. (personal space) > Flashcards

Perry et al. (personal space) Flashcards

1
Q

4 types of personal zones

A
  1. Intimate zone
    - close friends, lovers, family, children (0-50cm)
  2. Personal zone
    - conversations with friends, group discussions, chatting with associates (0.5-1m)
  3. Social zone
    - reserved for strangers, newly formed groups, new acquaintances (1-4m)
  4. Public zone
    - speeches, lectures, theatres, larger audience (4m or more)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Interpersonal distance

A

This signals responsiveness and feeling comfortable with the person/s next to us

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Role of OT (oxytocin)

A

It’s the regulation of social behavior and social recognition in pro-social and approach behavior

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does interpersonal space correlate with

A
  • levels of friendship
  • attraction
  • amygdala damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Factors related to interpersonal distance

A
  • high amygdala damage = low distance
  • high OT = distance varies
  • high friendship = low distance
  • high attraction = low distance
  • high social anxiety = high distance
  • cultural differences = distance varies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does OT depend on?

A
  • OT doesn’t always promote approach behaviors
  • OT depends on context and individual differences
  • risk aversion
  • envy
  • lack of cooperation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Who are “in-group” and “out-group” members?

A

In-group members:
- people you trust/love
- you’re close with these people
- core group

Out-group members:
- people who you’re not as bonded with
- not core group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Social salience hypothesis

A
  • Social salience = when a particular target draws attention of an observer/group

Hypothesis:
- mechanism underlying social effects of OT
- OT alters perceptual salience and/or processing ques
- OT alters the way you perceive and process environmental cues
- studies show different activation in amygdala regions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Predictions

A
  • highly empathetic people prefer closer distances following OT administration
  • less empathetic people show opposite effect as they prefer to maintain greater distance
  • controlling for empathetic traits/reactivity to others = reveals effect of OT on interpersonal distance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

2 experiments carried out - (experiment 1)

A

EXPERIMENT 1: CID (comfortable interpersonal distance)
- measured interpersonal distance preferences in approach-avoidance context

  • Protagonists:
    –> approaches pp standing in computer visualized room
    –> pp asked to indicate where he likes for protagonist to stop
  • High validity:
    –> previously tested on different sex + age groups
    –>regulated using different protagonists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

2 experiments carried out - (experiment 2)

A

EXPERIMENT 2: Choosing rooms
- measures interpersonal distance preferences in context of intimacy
- pps asked to choose which of several computer-visualized rooms they would later prefer to sit in to discuss intimate topics with another pp

  • High predictive validity:
    –> previously tested in lab (in preparation) and shown to significantly predict CID scores

ROOM 1, ROOM 2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Aim of this study

A

The study aims to investigate how OT administration influences interpersonal distance preferences in individuals with varying levels of empathy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Psychology being investigated

A

Interpersonal distance:
- refers to the physical space between people during interactions.

Role of OT:
- how OT might alter social salience cues and how individuals process these cues based on empathic abilities​​

Empathy and social behavior:
- examines how different levels of empathy might influence pps responses to social cues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Sample

A
  • 54 male pps
  • age: 19-32 yrs
  • mean age: 25.29 yrs
  • undergraduates
  • university of Haifa
  • written consent given
  • no history of psychiatric/neurological disorders
  • Hadassah medical center’s ethics committee and ethics committee of University of Haifa gave approval
  • participated in exchange for course credit/payment
  • normal vision, normal pps
  • 5 pps left-handed
  • SD = 2.74
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Ethics

A
  • no physical side effects
    observed in both groups
  • double blind study
  • written consent
  • signed informed consent
  • OT administered
  • pps visited twice - 1 week apart (same day, same time)
  • drops applied with medical dropper
  • 3 drops to each nostril
  • random administration of either OT/saline
    OT = 24 units in 250ml of intranasal (IN) OT
  • saline = sterile saline as placebo treatment
  • self-administered but experimenter present
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Assessment of empathy

A
  • order of experiments was counterbalanced among pps
  • IRI = 28 item self-report measure
  • four 7 item sub-scales
  • each taps different aspect of concept of empathy
  • after solution is administered, online IRI questionnaire is completed
  • after questionnaire, pps asked to wait 45 mins (ensure OT levels in nervous system reached plateau)
  • in waiting period, pps sat in comfortable, quiet room
  • given 3 issues of popular Israeli nature magazine to keep social interactions minimum
  • after 45 mins, experiments began
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What are the low and high scores of IRI?

A
  • determined by half standard deviation from mean IRI
  • mean = 36.25
  • SD = 7.7
  • high IRI scores = high empathy (IRI>40)
  • N = 20
  • mean age = 23
  • SD = 2.5
  • low IRI scores = low empathy (IRI<33)
  • N = 20
  • mean age = 25.9
  • SD = 3
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Experiment 1 - CID flowchart

A
  1. circle was presented
  2. pps instructed to imagine themselves in center of room
  3. pps respond to imaginary protagonist approaching them and mark where they stop in radius
  4. pps shown name of figure (friend, stranger, ball, etc - 1 sec)
  5. fixation point 0.5 sec
  6. pp shown still picture of circular room
  7. figure at center, approaching figure at 1 of 8 entrances
  8. 3 sec animation showing figure approaching circle center
  9. pps imagine themselves in center of room and respond to figure approaching them
  10. responded by pressing space bar indicating where to stop
  11. animation stopped after 3 sec when two figures collided, before pps pressed space bar
  12. each 4 figures appeared 3 times from each 8 radii
  13. 24 trials each figure, 96 trials total
  14. responses were computed as % of remaining distance from total distance
  15. 0 represented approaching figure reaching inner figure
  16. 100 represented approaching figure being stopped immediately
  17. OT promotes closer distances (high empathy)
  18. farther distance (lower empathy)
  19. OT has differential effect depending on protagonist
  20. promotes only closeness with known figures (friend/authority)
  21. doesn’t promote closeness with non-human figures (ball)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

IV

A
  • treatment = OT and PL (oxytocin and placebo)
  • condition = stranger/friend/ authority figure, ball
  • empathy = high or low
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

DV

A
  • interpersonal distance
    (% of the remaining distance from total distance)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Predictions

A
  • OT would have impact on CID
  • closer distances = highly empathetic individuals
  • farther distances = low empathetic individuals
  • OT would have different effects depending on protagonist
  • might promote closeness with only known figures and not rolling ball
22
Q

What’s a placebo?

A

It’s a pill/procedure that has no active ingredient, but the patient believes it to be a real treatment

23
Q

What’s the placebo used in the study?

A
  • sterile saline solution instead of oxytocin
24
Q

3 controls in the experiment

A
  • placebo/oxytocin
  • protagonist
  • given a magazine during 45 min waiting period to avoid any interaction between pps
25
Q

Placebo comparison results - High empathy and Low empathy group

A

Friend:
- high empathy = 11.028
- low empathy = 14.000

Ball:
- high empathy = 20.956
- low empathy = 18.630

Authority figure:
- high empathy = 33.920
- low empathy = 35.178

Stranger:
- high empathy = 38.552
low empathy = 40.136

26
Q

Oxytocin comparison results - High empathy and Low empathy group

A

Friend:
- high empathy = 8.486
- low empathy = 16.318

Ball:
- high empathy = 14.418
- low empathy = 26.806

Authority:
- high empathy = 30.554
- low empathy = 36.826

Stranger:
- high empathy = 39.734
- low empathy = 40.836

27
Q

Results from OT and PL comparisons

A
  • less CID with friend/authority figure (closer)
  • more CID with a ball/non-authority figure (further)
  • depends on the person and their empathy levels
28
Q

Mean CID% - Exp 1

A
  1. close friend = 12.46
  2. rolling ball = 20.20
  3. authority figure = 34.12
  4. stranger = 39.82
29
Q

Within groups comparison results - High empathy

A

High empathy - PL / OT comparison:
Friend:
- PL = 11.028
- OT = 8.486

Ball:
- PL = 20.956
- OT = 14.418

Authority figure:
- PL = 33.920
- OT = 30.554

Stranger:
- PL = 38.552
- OT = 39.734

30
Q

Within groups comparison results - Low empathy

A

Low empathy - PL / OT comparison:
Friend:
- PL = 14.000
- OT = 16.318

Ball:
- PL = 18.630
- OT = 26.806

Authority figure:
- PL = 35.178
- OT = 36.826

Stranger:
- PL = 40.136
- OT = 40.836

31
Q

Evaluation of quantitative data

A

STRENGTHS:
- easy comparisons
- PL vs OT
- mean CID for strangers
- objective (no interpretations)

WEAKNESSES:
- reductionist
- no detail (reduces validity of researcher)
- open-ended question:
“Why did you press the space bar?”
“Why were you hiding from the authority figure?”

32
Q

Exp 2 - choosing rooms (quantitative data)

A
  • angle of the table/plant (0, 45, 90)
  • angle of chairs (0, 45, 90)
  • distance between chairs (20-140cm)
  • distance between table and plant (200-320cm)
  • 21 angles
  • 21 distances
33
Q

Exp 2 - choosing rooms (information)

A
  • end of 2-week exp, computer calculates average room based on pp preferences and personal conversation would be held in room designed according to preferences
  • in reality, no such stage of discussing personal topics took place

END OF 2 WEEKS:
- pps were informed of purpose of the study
- deceive: demand characteristics of pp
- changed behavior in pp means low validity of study

34
Q

Examples of trials (math data)

A
  • altogether, each pp was shown total pair of 84 pairs
  • each pair repeated 2x
  • total of 168 pairs
35
Q

Predictions

A
  1. The table:
    - plant distance + angle were used a a control of non-interpersonal distance (shouldn’t be affected by OT)
  2. Measures would be affected by OT in interaction with empathy measures
36
Q

Exp 2 procedure

A
  1. each trial, after 0.5s fixation point, pp was shown pair of 2 rooms simultaneously
  2. 3 rooms differed from each other on one of following parameters
    –> distance between chairs
    –> distance between table + plant
    –> angle between chairs
    –> angle between table + plant
  3. 2-picture set shown for 2s, followed by screen asking pp to choose preferred room (left/right)
  4. pictures displayed on computer screen 60cm from pps eyes, with 2 pics subtending visual angle of 8 degrees x 20 degrees
  5. E-prime used for stimulus representation
  6. each pp, average preferred distance between chairs was computed + average preferred table and plant distance + preferred angles for each of furniture pairs
  7. distance and angle between chairs represent potential distance from another individual in intimate situation of discussing personal topics
37
Q

What was the technical error?

A
  • 1 pp didn’t complete this task because of a technical problem
  • analysis was conducted with 19 pps in high empathy group
38
Q

Strengths and weaknesses of using computerized technology

A

STRENGTHS:
- less chance of human error
- tech is quicker + efficient

WEAKNESSES:
- possibility of having technical issues
- cultural bias

39
Q

Strengths and weaknesses of using psychometric testing

A

STRENGTHS:
- standardized
- lots of quantitative data

WEAKNESSES:
- cultural bias
- no qualitative data

40
Q

Research method

A

Research method: lab experiment

Mixed measures:
- exp 1 = independent measures design
–> empathy was naturally occurring and not manipulated

  • exp 2 = repeated measures design
    –> OT/PL was manipulated
41
Q

Results 1 - exp 2

A
  • pps in high empathy group chose closer chair distances following OT administration
  • difference approached significantly only in HIGH empathy group, not low empathy group
  • treatment (OT/PL) x empathy (high/low) interaction was significant ONLY FOR CHAIRS CONDITION, not for tables

Average preferred chair distances (cm):
High empathy:
- OT = 78.07cm
- PL = 80.58cm

Low empathy:
- OT = 80.14cm
- PL = 78.33cm

42
Q

Results 2 - exp 2

A

Between - subject factor:
- levels of the IV
- empathy high/low

Within - subject factor:
- repeated measures
- angles between plants + tables

  • no significant effects of interaction between plants + tables and empathy
  • there was significant effect for third-order interaction, condition x treatment x empathy
43
Q

Results 3 - exp 2

A
  • two experiments are related
  • correlation between average distance chosen in the CID task under PL and average chair distance chosen under PL in choosing rooms task was significant
  • there was moderate correlation between them
  • r = 0.278 (correlation)
43
Q

Conclusions and debate

A

Conclusions:
- pps with high empathy = closer CID
- opposite trend = low empathy traits

Debate:
- usefulness vs not useful

43
Q

Both experiments

A

Exp 1:
–> CID task involves dynamic figure approaching and may be related to approach-avoidance mechanism and threat perceptions

Exp 2:
–> choosing task enables pp to choose his preferred room in advance (brings less threats)

  • current findings substantially support the social salience hypothesis
  • highlights notion that individual difference moderators play crucial role in determining what type of effect OT will have on social cognition and behavior
  • social salience hypothesis = OT regulates attention to social cues
44
Q

Limitations/weaknesses

A
  • treatment x empathy was significant in choosing rooms exp, but was significant in CID exp
  • significant results only emerged in high empathy groups in interaction with different conditions (makes results harder to interpret when considering complexity of design + no. of pps in study
  • only used MALE pps
  • women’s gynecological factors effect their health and bodies because of OT chemicals (lactation in fems)
  • can’t conclude from study how OT would effect CID preferences in females
  • use of computerized exp rather than real life setting may reduce ecological validity
45
Q

Strengths

A

High reliability:
- plenty of controls so trials could be replicated
- exp 1: 96 total trials
- exp 2: 168 trials completed for each of pps

Validity (mundane realism present):
- exp 2: pps told end of 2 weeks, computer would calculate averge room based on preferences
- personal communication would be held in room designed according to these preferences

Reduced pp variables:
- repeated measures design

46
Q

Clinical implications

A
  • modest effects of OT on people suffering from social deficits (autism, social anxiety)
  • OT has moderate correlation on people suffering from social deficits
47
Q

Evaluation - methodology

A

STRENGTHS:
- quantitative data
- decreased pp variables
- high reliability
- informative/useful (applying or using findings of the research)

WEAKNESSES:
- low generalizability (only males, sample size)
- low eco validity
- lack of qualitative data
- demand characteristics (possible, comes with repeated measures design)
- psychometrics

48
Q

Evaluation - ethics

A

STRENGTHS:
- informed consent
- approval from 2 committees

WEAKNESSES:
- deception

Milgram Study (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions