Perception of interpersonal distance and social distancing before and during COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19
Distance perception
Distance preference
Interpersonal distance
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Feb 2024
25 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
19
06
2023
accepted:
21
02
2024
medline:
26
2
2024
pubmed:
26
2
2024
entrez:
25
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Since COVID-19 is easily transmitted among people in close physical proximity, the focus of epidemiological policy during the COVID-19 crisis included major restrictions on interpersonal distance. However, the way in which distance restrictions affected spatial perception is unclear. In the current study, we examined interpersonal distance preferences and perceptions at three time points: pre-pandemic, early post-pandemic, and late post-pandemic. The results indicate that following the pandemic outbreak, people perceived others as farther away than they actually were, suggesting that the distance restrictions were associated with an enlargement of perceived interpersonal distance. Interestingly, however, people maintained the same distance from one another as before the outbreak, indicating no change in actual distance behavior due to the risk of infection. These findings suggest that COVID-19 was associated with a change in the way distance is perceived, while in practice, people maintain the same distance as before. In contrast, COVID-related anxiety predicted both a preference for maintaining a greater distance and a bias toward underestimating perceived distance from others. Thus, individuals who were highly fearful of COVID-19 perceived other people to be closer than they actually were and preferred to maintain a larger distance from them. The results suggest that subjective risk can lead to an increased perception of danger and a subsequent change in behavior. Taken together, even when behaviors should logically change, the decision-making process can be based on distorted perceptions. This insight may be used to predict public compliance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38403693
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-55218-y
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-55218-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4568Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Science & Technology, Israel & Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs (MEAE) and the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (MESRI) of France
ID : 100008363
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
International Monetary Fund (2020). World Economic Outlook, October.
Chu, D. K. et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 395(10242), 1973–1987 (2020).
pubmed: 32497510
pmcid: 7263814
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9
Cortellessa, G. et al. Close proximity risk assessment for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sci. Total Environ. 794, 148749 (2021).
pubmed: 34225157
pmcid: 8242194
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148749
Gokmen, Y., Turen, U., Erdem, H. & Tokmak, İ. National preferred interpersonal distance curbs the spread of COVID-19: A cross-country analysis. Disast. Med. Public Health Preparedness 15(6), e20–e26 (2021).
doi: 10.1017/dmp.2020.295
CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2020. Social distancing, quarantine, and isolation.
Hsiao, T. C., Chuang, H. C., Griffith, S. M., Chen, S. J. & Young, L. H. COVID-19: An aerosol’s point of view from expiration to transmission to viral-mechanism. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 20(5), 905–910 (2020).
doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2020.04.0154
Sun, C. & Zhai, Z. The efficacy of social distance and ventilation effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 transmission. Sustain. Cities Soc. 62, 102390 (2020).
pubmed: 32834937
pmcid: 7357531
doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102390
Kwon, S. et al. Association of social distancing and face mask use with risk of COVID-19. Nat. Commun. 12(1), 3737 (2021).
pubmed: 34145289
pmcid: 8213701
doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24115-7
World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the context of covid-19: interim guidance. 5 Jun 2020. https://www.who.int/publications-detail/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Using face masks in the community—reducing covid-19 transmission from potentially asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic people through the use of face masks. 2020. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/using-face-masks-community-reducing-covid-19-transmission .
Lazzarino, A. I., Steptoe, A., Hamer, M., & Michie, S. Covid-19: important potential side effects of wearing face masks that we should bear in mind. The BMJ, 369 (2020).
Cohen, A. & Einav, L. The effects of mandatory seat belt laws on driving behavior and traffic fatalities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 85(4), 828–843 (2003).
doi: 10.1162/003465303772815754
Evans, W. N. & Graham, J. D. Risk reduction or risk compensation? The case of mandatory safety-belt use laws. J. Risk Uncertain. 4(1), 61–73 (1991).
doi: 10.1007/BF00057886
Peltzman, S. The effects of automobile safety regulation. J. Polit. Econ. 83(4), 677–725 (1975).
doi: 10.1086/260352
Aranguren, M., Cartaud, A., Cissé, I., & Coello, Y. People interact closer when a face mask is worn but risk compensation is at best partial. Eur. J. Public Health, ckad161 (2023).
Hall, P. A. et al. Do the vaccinated perform less distancing, mask wearing and hand hygiene? A test of the risk compensation hypothesis in a representative sample during the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine 41(27), 4027–4030 (2023).
pubmed: 36336527
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.10.028
Seres, G., Balleyer, A., Cerutti, N., Friedrichsen, J. & Süer, M. Face mask use and physical distancing before and after mandatory masking: No evidence on risk compensation in public waiting lines. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 192, 765–781 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2021.10.032
Millest, A., Saeed, S., Symons, C., & Carter, H. (2023). Effect of face-covering use on adherence to other COVID-19 protective behaviours: A systematic review. medRxiv, 2023–04.
Sun, L. X. et al. Association between health behaviours and the COVID-19 vaccination: Risk compensation among healthcare workers in Taizhou, China. Hum. Vacc. Immunotherap. 18(1), 2029257 (2022).
doi: 10.1080/21645515.2022.2029257
Yang, M. G., Wang, L. J., Xu, L. Y., Ke, M., & Sun, L. X. (2023). Health behaviours among travellers regarding risk compensation following COVID-19 vaccination in Taizhou, China. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. (2023).
Welsch, R., Hecht, H., Chuang, L. & von Castell, C. Interpersonal distance in the SARS-CoV-2 crisis. Hum. Factors 62(7), 1095–1101 (2020).
pubmed: 32902338
pmcid: 7586001
doi: 10.1177/0018720820956858
Saporta, N. et al. Opposing association of situational and chronic loneliness with interpersonal distance. Brain Sci. 11(9), 1135 (2021).
pubmed: 34573157
pmcid: 8471414
doi: 10.3390/brainsci11091135
Welsch, R., Wessels, M., Bernhard, C., Thönes, S. & von Castell, C. Physical distancing and the perception of interpersonal distance in the COVID-19 crisis. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 1–9 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90714-5
Iachini, T. et al. Social distance during the COVID-19 pandemic reflects perceived rather than actual risk. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18(11), 5504 (2021).
pubmed: 34063754
pmcid: 8196577
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115504
Biggio, M., Bisio, A., Bruno, V., Garbarini, F. & Bove, M. Wearing a mask shapes interpersonal space during COVID-19 pandemic. Brain Sci. 12(5), 682 (2022).
pubmed: 35625068
pmcid: 9139907
doi: 10.3390/brainsci12050682
Cartaud, A., Quesque, F. & Coello, Y. Wearing a face mask against Covid-19 results in a reduction of social distancing. Plos One 15(12), e0243023 (2020).
pubmed: 33284812
pmcid: 7721169
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243023
Kühne, K., Fischer, M. H. & Jeglinski-Mende, M. A. During the COVID-19 pandemic participants prefer settings with a face mask, no interaction and at a closer distance. Sci. Rep. 12(1), 12777 (2022).
pubmed: 35896701
pmcid: 9326138
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-16730-1
Brosch, T., Pourtois, G. & Sander, D. The perception and categorisation of emotional stimuli: A review. Cognit. Emot. 24(3), 377–400 (2010).
doi: 10.1080/02699930902975754
Proffitt, D. R. Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 1(2), 110–122 (2006).
pubmed: 26151466
doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00008.x
Hansen, J. & Steinmetz, J. Motivated level of construal: How temperature affects the construal level of state-relevant stimuli. Motiv. Emot. 43, 434–446 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s11031-018-09750-w
Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T. & Epstein, W. The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychol. Sci. 14(2), 106–112 (2003).
pubmed: 12661670
doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01427
Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R. & Epstein, W. Perceiving distance: A role of effort and intent. Perception 33(5), 577–590 (2004).
pubmed: 15250663
doi: 10.1068/p5090
Balcetis, E. & Dunning, D. Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychol. Sci. 21(1), 147–152 (2010).
pubmed: 20424036
doi: 10.1177/0956797609356283
Alter, A. L. & Balcetis, E. Fondness makes the distance grow shorter: Desired locations seem closer because they seem more vivid. J. Exp. Social Psychol. 47(1), 16–21 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.018
Cole, S., Balcetis, E. & Zhang, S. Visual perception and regulatory conflict: Motivation and physiology influence distance perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Gener. 142(1), 18 (2013).
doi: 10.1037/a0027882
Givon-Benjio, N. & Okon-Singer, H. Biased estimations of interpersonal distance in non-clinical social anxiety. J. Anx. Disord. 69, 102171 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.102171
Givon-Benjio, N., Oren-Yagoda, R., Aderka, I. M. & Okon-Singer, H. Biased distance estimation in social anxiety disorder: A new avenue for understanding avoidance behavior. Depress. Anx. 37(12), 1243–1252 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/da.23086
Cartaud, A., Ruggiero, G., Ott, L., Iachini, T. & Coello, Y. Physiological response to facial expressions in peripersonal space determines interpersonal distance in a social interaction context. Front. Psychol. 9, 657 (2018).
pubmed: 29867639
pmcid: 5949865
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00657
Coello, Y., Bourgeois, J. & Iachini, T. Embodied perception of reachable space: How do we manage threatening objects?. Cognitiv. Process. 13, 131–135 (2012).
doi: 10.1007/s10339-012-0470-z
Ferri, F., Tajadura-Jiménez, A., Väljamäe, A., Vastano, R. & Costantini, M. Emotion-inducing approaching sounds shape the boundaries of multisensory peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia 70, 468–475 (2015).
pubmed: 25744869
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.03.001
Krpan, D. & Schnall, S. Close or far? Affect explains conflicting findings on motivated distance perception to rewards. Acta Psychol. 190, 188–198 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.008
Valdés-Conroy, B., Román, F. J., Hinojosa, J. A. & Shorkey, S. P. So far so good: Emotion in the peripersonal/extrapersonal space. PLoS One 7(11), e49162 (2012).
pubmed: 23185304
pmcid: 3504034
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049162
Serino, S. et al. Sharpening of peripersonal space during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr. Biol. 31(14), R889–R890 (2021).
pubmed: 34314711
pmcid: 8188303
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.001
Kühne, K. & Jeglinski-Mende, M. A. Refraining from interaction can decrease fear of physical closeness during COVID-19. Sci. Rep. 13(1), 7700 (2023).
pubmed: 37169840
pmcid: 10174619
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-34667-x
Silva, W. A. D., de Sampaio Brito, T. R., & Pereira, C. R. COVID-19 anxiety scale (CAS): Development and psychometric properties. Current Psychology, 1–10 (2020).
Spitzer, R. L. et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 166, 1092–1097 (2006).
pubmed: 16717171
doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
Monterrosa-Blanco, A., Cassiani-Miranda, C. A., Scoppetta, O. & Monterrosa-Castro, A. Generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) has adequate psychometric properties in Colombian general practitioners during COVID-19 pandemic. Gener. Hospital Psychiatry 70, 147 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2021.03.013
Kinney, A. R., Middleton, A. & Graham, J. E. A Bayesian analysis of non-significant rehabilitation findings: Evaluating the evidence in favour of truly absent treatment effects. Ann. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 64(4), 101425 (2021).
pubmed: 32805456
doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2020.07.008
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G. & Buchner, A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39(2), 175–191 (2007).
pubmed: 17695343
doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
Kang, H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G* Power software. J. Edu. Eval. Health Professions 18, 1149215 (2021).
Bouton, M. E. Why behavior change is difficult to sustain. Prevent. Med/ 68, 29–36 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.010
Kelly, M. P. & Barker, M. Why is changing health-related behaviour so difficult?. Public Health 136, 109–116 (2016).
pubmed: 27184821
doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2016.03.030
Casey, B. J. et al. Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108(36), 14998–15003 (2011).
pubmed: 21876169
pmcid: 3169162
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108561108
Marteau, T., Kelly, M., & Hollands, G. Changing population behavior and reducing health disparities: Exploring the potential of “choice architecture” interventions (2015).
Waters, A. M. et al. Augmenting one-session treatment of children’s specific phobias with attention training to positive stimuli. Behav. Res. Therapy 62, 107–119 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2014.07.020
Nguyen, L., Murphy, K. & Andrews, G. Immediate and long-term efficacy of executive functions cognitive training in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 145(7), 698 (2019).
pubmed: 30998045
doi: 10.1037/bul0000196
Larue, G. S. et al. Is it safe to cross? Identification of trains and their approach speed at level crossings. Saf. Sci. 103, 33–42 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.009
Leibowitz, H. W. Grade crossing accidents and human factors engineering: How a discipline combining technology and behavioral science can help reduce traffic fatalities. Am. Sci. 73(6), 558–562 (1985).
Shiomi, M., Kubota, A., Kimoto, M., Iio, T. & Shimohara, K. Stay away from me: Coughing increases social distance even in a virtual environment. Plos One 17(12), e0279717 (2022).
pubmed: 36576927
pmcid: 9797075
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279717
Riskind, J. H., & Calvete, E. Beyond logical errors: Preliminary evidence for the “looming vulnerability distortions questionnaire” of cognitive-perceptual distortions in anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1–21 (2023).
Leibovich, T., Cohen, N. & Henik, A. Itsy bitsy spider? Valence and self-relevance predict size estimation. Biol. Psychol. 121, 138–145 (2016).
pubmed: 26802365
pmcid: 5154329
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.01.009
Shiban, Y. et al. Treatment effect on biases in size estimation in spider phobia. Biol. Psychol. 121, 146–152 (2016).
pubmed: 26987423
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.03.005
Vasey, M. W. et al. It was as big as my head, I swear! Biased spider size estimation in spider phobia. J. Anx. Disord. 26(1), 20–24 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.08.009
Clerkin, E. M., Cody, M. W., Stefanucci, J. K., Proffitt, D. R. & Teachman, B. A. Imagery and fear influence height perception. J. Anx. Disord. 23(3), 381–386 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.12.002
Stefanucci, J. K. & Proffitt, D. R. The roles of altitude and fear in the perception of height. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percep. Perform. 35(2), 424 (2009).
doi: 10.1037/a0013894
Perry, A., Rubinsten, O., Peled, L. & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. Don’t stand so close to me: A behavioral and ERP study of preferred interpersonal distance. Neuroimage 83, 761–769 (2013).
pubmed: 23876246
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.042
Sorokowska, A. et al. Preferred interpersonal distances: A global comparison. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 48(4), 577–592 (2017).
doi: 10.1177/0022022117698039
Balcetis, E. & Dunning, D. See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 91(4), 612 (2006).
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612
Zadra, J. R. & Clore, G. L. Emotion and perception: The role of affective information. Wiley interdiscip. Rev. Cognit. Sci. 2(6), 676–685 (2011).
doi: 10.1002/wcs.147
Firestone, C. & Scholl, B. J. Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behav. Brain Sci. 39, e229 (2016).
pubmed: 26189677
doi: 10.1017/S0140525X15000965