Large Gatherings? No, Thank You. Devaluation of Crowded Social Scenes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
COVID-19
arousal
perceived physical distance
social distancing
social gatherings
valence
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
31
03
2021
accepted:
28
04
2021
entrez:
17
6
2021
pubmed:
18
6
2021
medline:
18
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In most European countries, the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (spring 2020) led to the imposition of physical distancing rules, resulting in a drastic and sudden reduction of real-life social interactions. Even people not directly affected by the virus itself were impacted in their physical and/or mental health, as well as in their financial security, by governmental lockdown measures. We investigated whether the combination of these events had changed people's appraisal of social scenes by testing 241 participants recruited mainly in Italy, Austria, and Germany in an online, preregistered study conducted about 50 days after the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in Europe. Images depicting individuals alone, in small groups (up to four people), and in large groups (more than seven people) were rated in terms of valence, arousal, and perceived physical distance. Pre-pandemic normative ratings were obtained from a validated database (OASIS). Several self-report measures were also taken, and condensed into four factors through factor analysis. All images were rated as more arousing compared to the pre-pandemic period, and the greater the decrease in real-life physical interactions reported by participants, the higher the ratings of arousal. As expected, only images depicting large gatherings of people were rated less positively during, compared to before, the pandemic. These ratings of valence were, however, moderated by a factor that included participants' number of days in isolation, relationship closeness, and perceived COVID-19 threat. Higher scores on this factor were associated with more positive ratings of images of individuals alone and in small groups, suggesting an increased appreciation of safer social situations, such as intimate and small-group contacts. The same factor was inversely related to the perceived physical distance between individuals in images of small and large groups, suggesting an impact of lockdown measures and contagion-related worries on the representation of interpersonal space. These findings point to rapid and compelling psychological and social consequences of the lockdown measures imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic on the perception of social groups. Further studies should assess the long-term impact of such events as typical everyday life is restored.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34135838
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689162
pmc: PMC8201791
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
689162Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Massaccesi, Chiappini, Paracampo and Korb.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Br J Health Psychol. 2021 May;26(2):553-569
pubmed: 33099800
Science. 2020 May 22;368(6493):
pubmed: 32439765
Front Psychol. 2016 Jul 28;7:1038
pubmed: 27516744
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Apr;49(2):457-470
pubmed: 26907748
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70
pubmed: 3397865
Trends Immunol. 2014 Oct;35(10):457-64
pubmed: 25256957
Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 25;11:566886
pubmed: 33101135
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Dec 12;366(1583):3418-26
pubmed: 22042918
Psychol Sci. 2010 Jan;21(1):147-52
pubmed: 20424036
Psychol Bull. 1985 Sep;98(2):310-57
pubmed: 3901065
Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:733-67
pubmed: 25148851
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2021 Mar;271(2):283-291
pubmed: 32691135
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011 Aug;1231:17-22
pubmed: 21651565
J Cogn Neurosci. 2009 Jan;21(1):83-92
pubmed: 18476760
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Sep;291:113216
pubmed: 32544705
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 23;15(7):e0236337
pubmed: 32702065
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 10;11(1):5577
pubmed: 33692417
Int J Public Health. 2020 Apr;65(3):231
pubmed: 32239256
Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 21;10(1):22344
pubmed: 33349645
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014 Apr 25;40(7):910-922
pubmed: 24769739
Int J Psychophysiol. 2000 Mar;35(2-3):143-54
pubmed: 10677643
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 31;17(7):
pubmed: 32244498
J Pers Assess. 1996 Feb;66(1):20-40
pubmed: 8576833
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jan 1;24(1):34-40
pubmed: 23160204
Gerontologist. 2006 Aug;46(4):503-13
pubmed: 16921004
Psychol Bull. 1995 May;117(3):497-529
pubmed: 7777651
Can J Public Health. 2020 Aug;111(4):488-489
pubmed: 32602042
J Infect. 2006 Aug;53(2):114-24
pubmed: 16343636