Refraining from interaction can decrease fear of physical closeness during COVID-19

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 13; no. 1; p. 7700
• Main Authors: Kühne, Katharina, Jeglinski-Mende, M. A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 11.05.2023; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 631/477/2811; 692/700/1538; Avoidance behavior; Awareness; Coronaviruses; COVID-19; COVID-19 - prevention & control; Emotions; Face; Fear; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; multidisciplinary; Pandemics; Perception; Perceptions; Protective equipment; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Social behavior; Social factors; Social interaction; Tool use; Tremor; Variance analysis
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-34667-x

Perception of peripersonal space (PPS) and interpersonal distance (IPD) has been shown to be modified by external factors such as perceived danger, the use of tools, and social factors. Especially in times of social distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is vital to study factors that modify PPS and IPD. The present work addresses the question of whether wearing a face mask as a protection tool and social interaction impact the perception of IPD. We tested estimated IPD in pictures at three distances: 50 cm, 90 cm, and 150 cm in both social interaction (shaking hands) and without interaction and when the two people in the pictures wore a face mask or not. Data from 60 subjects were analyzed in a linear mixed model (on both difference in distance estimation to the depicted distance and in absolute distance estimation) and in a 3 (distance: 50, 90, 150) × 2 (interaction: no interaction, shake hands), × 2 face mask (no mask, mask) rmANOVA on distance estimation difference. All analyses showed that at a distance of 50 and 90 cm, participants generally underestimated the IPD while at an IPD of 150 cm, participants overestimated the distance. This could be grounded in perceived danger and avoidance behavior at closer distances, while the wider distance between persons was not perceived as dangerous. Our findings at an IPD of 90 cm show that social interaction has the largest effect at the border of our PPS, while the face mask did not affect social interaction at either distance. In addition, the ANOVA results indicate that when no social interaction was displayed, participants felt less unsafe when depicted persons wore a face mask at distances of 90 and 150 cm. This shows that participants are on the one hand aware of the given safety measures and internalized them; on the other hand, that refraining from physical social interaction helps to get close to other persons.