Perry et al. (personal space) Flashcards
4 types of personal zones
- Intimate zone
- close friends, lovers, family, children (0-50cm) - Personal zone
- conversations with friends, group discussions, chatting with associates (0.5-1m) - Social zone
- reserved for strangers, newly formed groups, new acquaintances (1-4m) - Public zone
- speeches, lectures, theatres, larger audience (4m or more)
Interpersonal distance
This signals responsiveness and feeling comfortable with the person/s next to us
Role of OT (oxytocin)
It’s the regulation of social behavior and social recognition in pro-social and approach behavior
What does interpersonal space correlate with
- levels of friendship
- attraction
- amygdala damage
Factors related to interpersonal distance
- 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
What does OT depend on?
- OT doesn’t always promote approach behaviors
- OT depends on context and individual differences
- risk aversion
- envy
- lack of cooperation
Who are “in-group” and “out-group” members?
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
Social salience hypothesis
- 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
Predictions
- 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
2 experiments carried out - (experiment 1)
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
2 experiments carried out - (experiment 2)
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
Aim of this study
The study aims to investigate how OT administration influences interpersonal distance preferences in individuals with varying levels of empathy.
Psychology being investigated
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
Sample
- 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
Ethics
- 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
Assessment of empathy
- 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
What are the low and high scores of IRI?
- 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
Experiment 1 - CID flowchart
- circle was presented
- pps instructed to imagine themselves in center of room
- pps respond to imaginary protagonist approaching them and mark where they stop in radius
- pps shown name of figure (friend, stranger, ball, etc - 1 sec)
- fixation point 0.5 sec
- pp shown still picture of circular room
- figure at center, approaching figure at 1 of 8 entrances
- 3 sec animation showing figure approaching circle center
- pps imagine themselves in center of room and respond to figure approaching them
- responded by pressing space bar indicating where to stop
- animation stopped after 3 sec when two figures collided, before pps pressed space bar
- each 4 figures appeared 3 times from each 8 radii
- 24 trials each figure, 96 trials total
- responses were computed as % of remaining distance from total distance
- 0 represented approaching figure reaching inner figure
- 100 represented approaching figure being stopped immediately
- OT promotes closer distances (high empathy)
- farther distance (lower empathy)
- OT has differential effect depending on protagonist
- promotes only closeness with known figures (friend/authority)
- doesn’t promote closeness with non-human figures (ball)
IV
- treatment = OT and PL (oxytocin and placebo)
- condition = stranger/friend/ authority figure, ball
- empathy = high or low
DV
- interpersonal distance
(% of the remaining distance from total distance)
Predictions
- 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
What’s a placebo?
It’s a pill/procedure that has no active ingredient, but the patient believes it to be a real treatment
What’s the placebo used in the study?
- sterile saline solution instead of oxytocin
3 controls in the experiment
- placebo/oxytocin
- protagonist
- given a magazine during 45 min waiting period to avoid any interaction between pps
Placebo comparison results - High empathy and Low empathy group
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
Oxytocin comparison results - High empathy and Low empathy group
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
Results from OT and PL comparisons
- less CID with friend/authority figure (closer)
- more CID with a ball/non-authority figure (further)
- depends on the person and their empathy levels
Mean CID% - Exp 1
- close friend = 12.46
- rolling ball = 20.20
- authority figure = 34.12
- stranger = 39.82
Within groups comparison results - High empathy
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
Within groups comparison results - Low empathy
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
Evaluation of quantitative data
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?”
Exp 2 - choosing rooms (quantitative data)
- 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
Exp 2 - choosing rooms (information)
- 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
Examples of trials (math data)
- altogether, each pp was shown total pair of 84 pairs
- each pair repeated 2x
- total of 168 pairs
Predictions
- The table:
- plant distance + angle were used a a control of non-interpersonal distance (shouldn’t be affected by OT) - Measures would be affected by OT in interaction with empathy measures
Exp 2 procedure
- each trial, after 0.5s fixation point, pp was shown pair of 2 rooms simultaneously
- 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 - 2-picture set shown for 2s, followed by screen asking pp to choose preferred room (left/right)
- pictures displayed on computer screen 60cm from pps eyes, with 2 pics subtending visual angle of 8 degrees x 20 degrees
- E-prime used for stimulus representation
- each pp, average preferred distance between chairs was computed + average preferred table and plant distance + preferred angles for each of furniture pairs
- distance and angle between chairs represent potential distance from another individual in intimate situation of discussing personal topics
What was the technical error?
- 1 pp didn’t complete this task because of a technical problem
- analysis was conducted with 19 pps in high empathy group
Strengths and weaknesses of using computerized technology
STRENGTHS:
- less chance of human error
- tech is quicker + efficient
WEAKNESSES:
- possibility of having technical issues
- cultural bias
Strengths and weaknesses of using psychometric testing
STRENGTHS:
- standardized
- lots of quantitative data
WEAKNESSES:
- cultural bias
- no qualitative data
Research method
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
Results 1 - exp 2
- 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
Results 2 - exp 2
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
Results 3 - exp 2
- 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)
Conclusions and debate
Conclusions:
- pps with high empathy = closer CID
- opposite trend = low empathy traits
Debate:
- usefulness vs not useful
Both experiments
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
Limitations/weaknesses
- 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
Strengths
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
Clinical implications
- modest effects of OT on people suffering from social deficits (autism, social anxiety)
- OT has moderate correlation on people suffering from social deficits
Evaluation - methodology
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
Evaluation - ethics
STRENGTHS:
- informed consent
- approval from 2 committees
WEAKNESSES:
- deception
