AS Psych: Perry et al. (personal space)

Psychology Being Investigated
1. Interpersonal distance (personal space) is the relative distance between people
4 zones of personal space
– Intimate (romantic partners/close family)
– Personal (used with other people in everyday interactions
– Social (formal interactions)
– Public (distance with public figures)
2. Social hormones such as oxytocin heighten the importance of social cues and is linked to prosocial behaviors like helping others
3. Empathy is a person’s ability to understand the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of another and comprises 2 dimensions → cognitive and affective empathy

Background
– Studies have shown the amygdala plays a roles in preference for interpersonal distances

Perry et al.
– Interested in investigating how people’s personal space preferences are affected by several factors
– Believed people’s preference for interpersonal distance between different social figures could be influenced by action of social hormones on individual’s preferences
– Looked at the effect of OT (oxytocin)

Aims
1. To test the differential effect of the social hormone oxytocin (OT) on personal space preference of people of different empathic abilities.

Method
Research method: Laboratory experiment
Research design: Repeated measures
Sampling technique: Volunteer

IV
– Empathy level (high/low)
– Treatment (saline/OT)
– Condition (friend, authority figure, ball, stranger) → mnemonic: “FABS” for fabulous 4

DV: personal space preference
– Exp 1: preferred distance between participant (P) and approaching figure
– Exp 2: preferred distance and angle between 2 chairs in a room

Sample
– 54M
– Undergrads at University of Haifa
– 19-32 years old
– Normal vision
– No history of psychiatric + neurological disorders
– 5 left handed

Procedure
– P went to university twice, 1 week apart, same day and time
– Complete Experiment 1 (Ex1) and Experiment 2 (Ex2)
– Ex1 and Ex2 counterbalanced → half complete Ex1 first, half complete Ex 2 first
– Signed informed consent form
– Each P randomly administered 3 drops of intranasal oxytocin OR a sterile saline solution to each nostril
– Self-administered in presence of an experimenter
– Double-blind: neither P not experimenter (E) knew which solution they received
– P then completed online Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) only at first appointment
– P waited 45 mins since OT had been administered, ensures OT levels stabilized
– Waiting room: comfortable, quiet, 3 Israeli nature magazines to minimize social interaction
– After 45 mins, experiment began

Ex1
– 4 protagonists: ball, stranger, close friend, authority (REMEMBER: fabs!)
– Name of approaching figure shown for 1 sec, then fixation point for 0.5 sec
– P shown still picture of circular room with figure at the center and an approaching figure from one of the 8 entrances (1 sec)
– 3 sec animation of figure outside approaching center of circle
– P instructed to imagine themselves as the figure at the center of the room + indicate at what point they want the approaching figure to stop by pressing spacebar
– Animation stopped when figures collided (3 secs) OR when P pressed spacebar
– Each figure appeared 3x from each of the 8 entrances → 24 trials per figure, 96 trials total
– Responses computed as % of remaining distance from the total distance (0 means figures collided, 100 means figure stopped immediately)

Ex2
– After participating in 2 runs of experiment (OT/placebo), P shown colored pictures of pairs of very similar rooms
– Told they would be asked to sit in a room with another participant and discuss personal topics, given to them at the time of interaction (ethics: deception)
– Each had two identical chairs in the middle, a closet, clock, plant and table on opposite sides, lamp, → mnemonic: “3C’s PaT L”
– Created using Google Sketchup tools
– After a 0.5s fixation point, the participant was shown two rooms simultaneously for 2 seconds
– Distance between screen and P’s eyes: 60cm
– 4 DVs, each pair differed on one of these parameters:
1. Distance between chairs (20-140cm, in intervals of 20cm)
2. Angle of chairs (0, 45, 90 degrees)
3. Distance between table and plant (200-320 cm, in intervals of 20cm)
4. Angle of table and the plant (0, 45, 90 degrees)
– Each distance was compared to every other distance BUT other 3 DVs chosen randomly + same for both rooms in the pair
– 21 chair distances, 21 plant-table distances, 3 angles repeated 7 times to give 21 trials
– Total: 84 pairs, repeated twice each, giving 168 pairs

Results
Ex1
OT increased mean preferred distance in the low empathy group (26.98% control vs. 30.2% OT)
OT decreased mean preferred distance in the high empathy group (26.11% control vs. 23.29% OT)
OT increased the distance for stranger (38% vs. 39%) for high empathic individuals

Ex2
Chairs
– No difference in preferred angle
– OT High empathy group chose closer chair distances compared to their placebo condition (approx. 78 cm vs. 80 cm)
– OT Low empathy group chose farther chair distances compared to their placebo condition (approx. 80 cm vs. 78cm)

Plant and table
– OT has no effect on choices for angle and distance between plant and table

Conclusion
1. The administration of OT enhances social cues in opposite ways for individuals of different empathetic abilities, supporting the idea of social salience.

Ethical Issues
✘ Deception: P were made to believe they would be asked to sit in a room with another participant, but this was not the case (only shown pictures of the room)
✘ Protection from harm: P may have been psychologically distressed or anxious when told they would be sitting in the room with another P OR embarrassed when they found out they were tricked into believing this
✔ Informed consent: P gave informed consent to take part in the study
✔ Debriefing: P were debriefed and informed of the full aims of the study

Application to Daily Life
1. Administration of oxytocin should be carefully considered as it was shown to increase preferred personal distance for individuals in the low empathy group → affect/worsen social interactions for those with low empathy
2. Oxytocin may not be an effective treatment for individuals with social deficit disorders e.g. Autism Spectrum Disorder