Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Merged Report 1 EP
Merged Report 1 EP
Environmental Psychology
Abstract
Personal space violations are associated with discomfort. However, the precise
determined. In this study, we investigate whether interpersonal distance and discomfort are
isotropic concerning uncomfortably far or close distances. We also extend previous findings
regarding intrusions into personal space and distance maintenance outside of personal space.
upon entering personal space, the gradient was less steep for distances that exceeded the
discomfort.
When a stranger approaches us, we begin to feel uneasy and intruded upon. Our
Personal space was first studied in animals to see how it extends and shapes distance
behavior. Animals in captivity, for example, claim a smaller territory and flight zone than
wild animals. Sommer pioneered human proxemic research. When interacting with others in
distances by proposing four distinct intimate spaces (0-45 cm), personal space (45-120 cm),
social space (120-365 cm), and public space is defined by their radius, which is primarily
These ranges have been replicated across a wide range of nationalities and cultures, as well as
Leslie Hayduk provides the most prominent definition of personal space: "... we can
define personal space as the area individual humans actively maintain around themselves into
which others cannot intrude without causing discomfort." This definition organized proxemic
identification.
4
Method
21.66, SD = 6.92, 6 male), with an average body height of 170.96 cm (SD = 7.25 cm) (Robin
Welsch et al, 2019). Before testing, a consensual survey was held in Helsinki following the
for conversation [11]. These distances were marked—but not labeled—on the floor with tape.
On any given trial, both the subject and the confederate were placed on a random pairing of
these marks that were aligned with their body center. The body's center was estimated to be in
the middle of the foot, as indicated by dots on the shoes. Throughout the experiment, subjects
and the confederate were instructed to look each other in the eyes. Both of the confederates in
this study were young females. One of the confederates was 165 cm tall. Subjects were
which corresponds to Williams' necessarily imply minimum and maximum distance for
conversation. These distances were marked—but not labeled—on the floor with tape. On any
given trial, both the subject and the confederate were placed on a random pairing of these
marks that were aligned with their body center. The body's center was estimated to be in the
middle of the foot, as indicated by dots on the shoes. Throughout the experiment, subjects
and the confederate were instructed to look each other in the eyes. Both of the confederates in
this study were young females. One of the confederates was 165 cm tall. The other was 167
cm tall with brown hair and blond hair. The two collaborators alternated between sessions to
5
account for potential confounding variables such as fatigue, poor concentration, and so on.
Procedure
We standardized the social situation for all testing blocks to reduce situational effects
on IPD [3]. Subjects were asked to imagine themselves in an open space in an unfamiliar city,
asking a stranger for directions. In a fixed-distance task, subjects were placed at 15 different
IPDs and asked to rate subjective discomfort verbally on a rating scale ranging from -100
(maximum discomfort, too close) to 0 (ideal distance) to +100. (maximum discomfort, too
far). In Block 1, the experimenter directed the subject while the confederate remained
stationary. In Block 2, the subject remained stationary while the confederate switched
positions between trials. During the positioning, the subjects were blindfolded. The blindfold
Block 3 was similar to Block 2, but subjects rated discomfort by positioning a joystick.
Because the confederate couldn't see the exact tilt of the joystick, this was done to control
social desirability. When IPD was deemed too close, subjects were instructed to tilt the
joystick away from themselves as a function of discomfort or to tilt the joystick towards
themselves when the distance was deemed insufficient. All possible Blocks 1, 2, and 3 orders
were used and counterbalanced between subjects. The order of distances within each block
was randomized. To estimate the preferred IPD, subjects completed two repetitions of an
active and a passive stop-distance task. In the active stop-distance task, the subject
approached the confederate until he or she reached a comfortable IPD. In the passive
stop-distance task, the confederate approached the subject slowly until the subject signaled
the confederate to stop. Subjects were given the option of fine-tuning this distance by
instructing the confederate to move forward or backward. The preferred IPD was measured
6
on the floor with a tape measure and recorded as the distance between the subject's and the
confederate's body centers. Within the sample, the order of the passive and active
stop-distance tasks was counterbalanced. Individual 60-minute sessions were used to test the
subjects. There were no time constraints in any of the trials. The subjects were thanked and
debriefed following the procedure. In this study, we report on all measures and scale
manipulations. We did not exclude any of the experimental trials from data analysis, and we
the Null-hypothesis. The Bayes Factor (BF) is used for statistical inference and is calculated
in R using the BayesFactor-package. Given the observed data, the BF quantifies the relative
likelihood of the Null-model versus the alternative model. We either give the likelihood of the
Null model in comparison to the alternative model (BF01) or the reverse fraction (BF10). In a
prior-sensitivity analysis, we compared various weakly informative priors. The priors used in
this study had no effect on statistical inference because the data obtained clearly outweighed
the priors when computing the Bayes Factors. As a result, in t-tests, we used the
confidence interval median estimates of parameters with high-density intervals from the
posterior distribution. We used BRMS, a wrapper for the STAN-sampler for R, to calculate a
Bayesian linear mixed model (BLMM) to model the relationship between IPD and
with Cholesky priors on the residual correlation ( = 1) and a t-distributed prior to allow for
thicker tails (df = 3, M = 0, SD = 10) on the centred intercept, variance parameters, and
sigma. These priors are only very weakly informative and serve primarily to regularise the
iterations and 20% warm-up samples. Divergent transitions were identified using trace plots
Results. First, we will consider relative reliability, which refers to the stability of rank
order and differences within the sample, and then we will consider absolute reliability, which
Test-retest reliability, and thus relative reliability, as measured across two repetitions, was
high in both the passive, =.85 [.70;.93], BF10 > 100, and active conditions of the
stop-distance tasks, =.94 [.87;.97], BF10 > 100. In terms of absolute reliability, Figure 2
shows that the individual mean IPD of both trials, as well as the differences between
repetitions 1 and 2, were largely independent in both tasks (panels A and B). This implies that
within-subject variation was unrelated to variation between subjects, and thus within-subject
An intrusion into PS of 15 cm or more beyond the comfort point causes a sharp increase in
discomfort. Movement in the opposite direction away from the other person causes a similar
8
but shallower increase in discomfort. As a result, the reaction to intrusion and extrusion is
anisotropic. Equal distances from PS's border result in unequal increases in discomfort. The
gradient of intrusion is steeper than that of extrusion. Let us illustrate this point with the
example of a conversation between two people, A and B. If person A reduces IPD toward
person B, the likelihood of B taking a corrective action away from person A should increase
immediately.
In other words, we anticipate hysteresis in the following sense. In both active and passive
approaches, we have always used an approach scenario in which the initial IPD was greater
than the ideal IPD. We would expect a slightly larger preferred IPD in the latter case if the
stop-distance task was started from a position well within the intrusion zone and once from a
position well within the extrusion zone. It is worth noting that the anisotropy of PS holds true
for intrusion/extrusion but not for active/passive approach. They found no differences
between active and passive approaches, contrary to Iachini et al. This could be due to
subjects' habituation to our stimulus. While our colleague completed all experimental trials,
their stimuli changed at random throughout the experiment. Thus, the effects of perceived
dominance or potential fear of the approaching target, which may be especially noticeable in
active approach, may have faded in our experiment. This could also explain their
experiments' relatively large (i.e. more conservative) judgments of preferred IPD. We can
generate qualified hypotheses about the effects of a given person variable or a given
environment variable within this field-theoretical framework. For example, based on what is
known about psychopathy, it might make sense to hypothesise that the equilibrium-point is
unaltered in psychopathic subjects, but the gradient is much shallower on the intrusion side
than it is in less psychopathic subjects when confronted with social threat. External factors,
such as the crowdedness of the space, on the other hand, could simply shift the equilibrium
9
point without affecting the gradient's steepness. In a crowded market, for example, the
equilibrium-point should be closer to the person. Future research should refine this
field-theoretical model and test the novel predictions it allows for in terms of discomfort and
IPD.
10
References
Welsch, R. (2019, June 4). The anisotropy of personal space. PLOS ONE. Retrieved October
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217587
Hayduk, L. A. (1983). Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological Bulletin, 94(2),
293–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.293
1
Environmental Psychology
Abstract
Personal space violations are associated with discomfort. However, the precise
determined. In this study, we investigate whether interpersonal distance and discomfort are
isotropic concerning uncomfortably far or close distances. We also extend previous findings
regarding intrusions into personal space and distance maintenance outside of personal space.
upon entering personal space, the gradient was less steep for distances that exceeded the
discomfort.
When a stranger approaches us, we begin to feel uneasy and intruded upon. Our
Personal space was first studied in animals to see how it extends and shapes distance
behavior. Animals in captivity, for example, claim a smaller territory and flight zone than
wild animals. Sommer pioneered human proxemic research. When interacting with others in
distances by proposing four distinct intimate spaces (0-45 cm), personal space (45-120 cm),
social space (120-365 cm), and public space is defined by their radius, which is primarily
These ranges have been replicated across a wide range of nationalities and cultures, as well as
Leslie Hayduk provides the most prominent definition of personal space: "... we can
define personal space as the area individual humans actively maintain around themselves into
which others cannot intrude without causing discomfort." This definition organized proxemic
identification.
4
Method
21.66, SD = 6.92, 6 male), with an average body height of 170.96 cm (SD = 7.25 cm) (Robin
Welsch et al, 2019). Before testing, a consensual survey was held in Helsinki following the
for conversation [11]. These distances were marked—but not labeled—on the floor with tape.
On any given trial, both the subject and the confederate were placed on a random pairing of
these marks that were aligned with their body center. The body's center was estimated to be in
the middle of the foot, as indicated by dots on the shoes. Throughout the experiment, subjects
and the confederate were instructed to look each other in the eyes. Both of the confederates in
this study were young females. One of the confederates was 165 cm tall. Subjects were
which corresponds to Williams' necessarily imply minimum and maximum distance for
conversation. These distances were marked—but not labeled—on the floor with tape. On any
given trial, both the subject and the confederate were placed on a random pairing of these
marks that were aligned with their body center. The body's center was estimated to be in the
middle of the foot, as indicated by dots on the shoes. Throughout the experiment, subjects
and the confederate were instructed to look each other in the eyes. Both of the confederates in
this study were young females. One of the confederates was 165 cm tall. The other was 167
cm tall with brown hair and blond hair. The two collaborators alternated between sessions to
5
account for potential confounding variables such as fatigue, poor concentration, and so on.
Procedure
We standardized the social situation for all testing blocks to reduce situational effects
on IPD [3]. Subjects were asked to imagine themselves in an open space in an unfamiliar city,
asking a stranger for directions. In a fixed-distance task, subjects were placed at 15 different
IPDs and asked to rate subjective discomfort verbally on a rating scale ranging from -100
(maximum discomfort, too close) to 0 (ideal distance) to +100. (maximum discomfort, too
far). In Block 1, the experimenter directed the subject while the confederate remained
stationary. In Block 2, the subject remained stationary while the confederate switched
positions between trials. During the positioning, the subjects were blindfolded. The blindfold
Block 3 was similar to Block 2, but subjects rated discomfort by positioning a joystick.
Because the confederate couldn't see the exact tilt of the joystick, this was done to control
social desirability. When IPD was deemed too close, subjects were instructed to tilt the
joystick away from themselves as a function of discomfort or to tilt the joystick towards
themselves when the distance was deemed insufficient. All possible Blocks 1, 2, and 3 orders
were used and counterbalanced between subjects. The order of distances within each block
was randomized. To estimate the preferred IPD, subjects completed two repetitions of an
active and a passive stop-distance task. In the active stop-distance task, the subject
approached the confederate until he or she reached a comfortable IPD. In the passive
stop-distance task, the confederate approached the subject slowly until the subject signaled
the confederate to stop. Subjects were given the option of fine-tuning this distance by
instructing the confederate to move forward or backward. The preferred IPD was measured
6
on the floor with a tape measure and recorded as the distance between the subject's and the
confederate's body centers. Within the sample, the order of the passive and active
stop-distance tasks was counterbalanced. Individual 60-minute sessions were used to test the
subjects. There were no time constraints in any of the trials. The subjects were thanked and
debriefed following the procedure. In this study, we report on all measures and scale
manipulations. We did not exclude any of the experimental trials from data analysis, and we
the Null-hypothesis. The Bayes Factor (BF) is used for statistical inference and is calculated
in R using the BayesFactor-package. Given the observed data, the BF quantifies the relative
likelihood of the Null-model versus the alternative model. We either give the likelihood of the
Null model in comparison to the alternative model (BF01) or the reverse fraction (BF10). In a
prior-sensitivity analysis, we compared various weakly informative priors. The priors used in
this study had no effect on statistical inference because the data obtained clearly outweighed
the priors when computing the Bayes Factors. As a result, in t-tests, we used the
confidence interval median estimates of parameters with high-density intervals from the
posterior distribution. We used BRMS, a wrapper for the STAN-sampler for R, to calculate a
Bayesian linear mixed model (BLMM) to model the relationship between IPD and
with Cholesky priors on the residual correlation ( = 1) and a t-distributed prior to allow for
thicker tails (df = 3, M = 0, SD = 10) on the centred intercept, variance parameters, and
sigma. These priors are only very weakly informative and serve primarily to regularise the
iterations and 20% warm-up samples. Divergent transitions were identified using trace plots
Results. First, we will consider relative reliability, which refers to the stability of rank
order and differences within the sample, and then we will consider absolute reliability, which
Test-retest reliability, and thus relative reliability, as measured across two repetitions, was
high in both the passive, =.85 [.70;.93], BF10 > 100, and active conditions of the
stop-distance tasks, =.94 [.87;.97], BF10 > 100. In terms of absolute reliability, Figure 2
shows that the individual mean IPD of both trials, as well as the differences between
repetitions 1 and 2, were largely independent in both tasks (panels A and B). This implies that
within-subject variation was unrelated to variation between subjects, and thus within-subject
An intrusion into PS of 15 cm or more beyond the comfort point causes a sharp increase in
discomfort. Movement in the opposite direction away from the other person causes a similar
8
but shallower increase in discomfort. As a result, the reaction to intrusion and extrusion is
anisotropic. Equal distances from PS's border result in unequal increases in discomfort. The
gradient of intrusion is steeper than that of extrusion. Let us illustrate this point with the
example of a conversation between two people, A and B. If person A reduces IPD toward
person B, the likelihood of B taking a corrective action away from person A should increase
immediately.
In other words, we anticipate hysteresis in the following sense. In both active and passive
approaches, we have always used an approach scenario in which the initial IPD was greater
than the ideal IPD. We would expect a slightly larger preferred IPD in the latter case if the
stop-distance task was started from a position well within the intrusion zone and once from a
position well within the extrusion zone. It is worth noting that the anisotropy of PS holds true
for intrusion/extrusion but not for active/passive approach. They found no differences
between active and passive approaches, contrary to Iachini et al. This could be due to
subjects' habituation to our stimulus. While our colleague completed all experimental trials,
their stimuli changed at random throughout the experiment. Thus, the effects of perceived
dominance or potential fear of the approaching target, which may be especially noticeable in
active approach, may have faded in our experiment. This could also explain their
experiments' relatively large (i.e. more conservative) judgments of preferred IPD. We can
generate qualified hypotheses about the effects of a given person variable or a given
environment variable within this field-theoretical framework. For example, based on what is
known about psychopathy, it might make sense to hypothesise that the equilibrium-point is
unaltered in psychopathic subjects, but the gradient is much shallower on the intrusion side
than it is in less psychopathic subjects when confronted with social threat. External factors,
such as the crowdedness of the space, on the other hand, could simply shift the equilibrium
9
point without affecting the gradient's steepness. In a crowded market, for example, the
equilibrium-point should be closer to the person. Future research should refine this
field-theoretical model and test the novel predictions it allows for in terms of discomfort and
IPD.
10
References
Welsch, R. (2019, June 4). The anisotropy of personal space. PLOS ONE. Retrieved October
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217587
Hayduk, L. A. (1983). Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological Bulletin, 94(2),
293–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.293
1
Environmental Psychology
Abstract
Personal space violations are associated with discomfort. However, the precise
determined. In this study, we investigate whether interpersonal distance and discomfort are
isotropic concerning uncomfortably far or close distances. We also extend previous findings
regarding intrusions into personal space and distance maintenance outside of personal space.
upon entering personal space, the gradient was less steep for distances that exceeded the
discomfort.
When a stranger approaches us, we begin to feel uneasy and intruded upon. Our
Personal space was first studied in animals to see how it extends and shapes distance
behavior. Animals in captivity, for example, claim a smaller territory and flight zone than
wild animals. Sommer pioneered human proxemic research. When interacting with others in
distances by proposing four distinct intimate spaces (0-45 cm), personal space (45-120 cm),
social space (120-365 cm), and public space is defined by their radius, which is primarily
These ranges have been replicated across a wide range of nationalities and cultures, as well as
Leslie Hayduk provides the most prominent definition of personal space: "... we can
define personal space as the area individual humans actively maintain around themselves into
which others cannot intrude without causing discomfort." This definition organized proxemic
identification.
4
Method
21.66, SD = 6.92, 6 male), with an average body height of 170.96 cm (SD = 7.25 cm) (Robin
Welsch et al, 2019). Before testing, a consensual survey was held in Helsinki following the
for conversation [11]. These distances were marked—but not labeled—on the floor with tape.
On any given trial, both the subject and the confederate were placed on a random pairing of
these marks that were aligned with their body center. The body's center was estimated to be in
the middle of the foot, as indicated by dots on the shoes. Throughout the experiment, subjects
and the confederate were instructed to look each other in the eyes. Both of the confederates in
this study were young females. One of the confederates was 165 cm tall. Subjects were
which corresponds to Williams' necessarily imply minimum and maximum distance for
conversation. These distances were marked—but not labeled—on the floor with tape. On any
given trial, both the subject and the confederate were placed on a random pairing of these
marks that were aligned with their body center. The body's center was estimated to be in the
middle of the foot, as indicated by dots on the shoes. Throughout the experiment, subjects
and the confederate were instructed to look each other in the eyes. Both of the confederates in
this study were young females. One of the confederates was 165 cm tall. The other was 167
cm tall with brown hair and blond hair. The two collaborators alternated between sessions to
5
account for potential confounding variables such as fatigue, poor concentration, and so on.
Procedure
We standardized the social situation for all testing blocks to reduce situational effects
on IPD [3]. Subjects were asked to imagine themselves in an open space in an unfamiliar city,
asking a stranger for directions. In a fixed-distance task, subjects were placed at 15 different
IPDs and asked to rate subjective discomfort verbally on a rating scale ranging from -100
(maximum discomfort, too close) to 0 (ideal distance) to +100. (maximum discomfort, too
far). In Block 1, the experimenter directed the subject while the confederate remained
stationary. In Block 2, the subject remained stationary while the confederate switched
positions between trials. During the positioning, the subjects were blindfolded. The blindfold
Block 3 was similar to Block 2, but subjects rated discomfort by positioning a joystick.
Because the confederate couldn't see the exact tilt of the joystick, this was done to control
social desirability. When IPD was deemed too close, subjects were instructed to tilt the
joystick away from themselves as a function of discomfort or to tilt the joystick towards
themselves when the distance was deemed insufficient. All possible Blocks 1, 2, and 3 orders
were used and counterbalanced between subjects. The order of distances within each block
was randomized. To estimate the preferred IPD, subjects completed two repetitions of an
active and a passive stop-distance task. In the active stop-distance task, the subject
approached the confederate until he or she reached a comfortable IPD. In the passive
stop-distance task, the confederate approached the subject slowly until the subject signaled
the confederate to stop. Subjects were given the option of fine-tuning this distance by
instructing the confederate to move forward or backward. The preferred IPD was measured
6
on the floor with a tape measure and recorded as the distance between the subject's and the
confederate's body centers. Within the sample, the order of the passive and active
stop-distance tasks was counterbalanced. Individual 60-minute sessions were used to test the
subjects. There were no time constraints in any of the trials. The subjects were thanked and
debriefed following the procedure. In this study, we report on all measures and scale
manipulations. We did not exclude any of the experimental trials from data analysis, and we
the Null-hypothesis. The Bayes Factor (BF) is used for statistical inference and is calculated
in R using the BayesFactor-package. Given the observed data, the BF quantifies the relative
likelihood of the Null-model versus the alternative model. We either give the likelihood of the
Null model in comparison to the alternative model (BF01) or the reverse fraction (BF10). In a
prior-sensitivity analysis, we compared various weakly informative priors. The priors used in
this study had no effect on statistical inference because the data obtained clearly outweighed
the priors when computing the Bayes Factors. As a result, in t-tests, we used the
confidence interval median estimates of parameters with high-density intervals from the
posterior distribution. We used BRMS, a wrapper for the STAN-sampler for R, to calculate a
Bayesian linear mixed model (BLMM) to model the relationship between IPD and
with Cholesky priors on the residual correlation ( = 1) and a t-distributed prior to allow for
thicker tails (df = 3, M = 0, SD = 10) on the centred intercept, variance parameters, and
sigma. These priors are only very weakly informative and serve primarily to regularise the
iterations and 20% warm-up samples. Divergent transitions were identified using trace plots
Results. First, we will consider relative reliability, which refers to the stability of rank
order and differences within the sample, and then we will consider absolute reliability, which
Test-retest reliability, and thus relative reliability, as measured across two repetitions, was
high in both the passive, =.85 [.70;.93], BF10 > 100, and active conditions of the
stop-distance tasks, =.94 [.87;.97], BF10 > 100. In terms of absolute reliability, Figure 2
shows that the individual mean IPD of both trials, as well as the differences between
repetitions 1 and 2, were largely independent in both tasks (panels A and B). This implies that
within-subject variation was unrelated to variation between subjects, and thus within-subject
An intrusion into PS of 15 cm or more beyond the comfort point causes a sharp increase in
discomfort. Movement in the opposite direction away from the other person causes a similar
8
but shallower increase in discomfort. As a result, the reaction to intrusion and extrusion is
anisotropic. Equal distances from PS's border result in unequal increases in discomfort. The
gradient of intrusion is steeper than that of extrusion. Let us illustrate this point with the
example of a conversation between two people, A and B. If person A reduces IPD toward
person B, the likelihood of B taking a corrective action away from person A should increase
immediately.
In other words, we anticipate hysteresis in the following sense. In both active and passive
approaches, we have always used an approach scenario in which the initial IPD was greater
than the ideal IPD. We would expect a slightly larger preferred IPD in the latter case if the
stop-distance task was started from a position well within the intrusion zone and once from a
position well within the extrusion zone. It is worth noting that the anisotropy of PS holds true
for intrusion/extrusion but not for active/passive approach. They found no differences
between active and passive approaches, contrary to Iachini et al. This could be due to
subjects' habituation to our stimulus. While our colleague completed all experimental trials,
their stimuli changed at random throughout the experiment. Thus, the effects of perceived
dominance or potential fear of the approaching target, which may be especially noticeable in
active approach, may have faded in our experiment. This could also explain their
experiments' relatively large (i.e. more conservative) judgments of preferred IPD. We can
generate qualified hypotheses about the effects of a given person variable or a given
environment variable within this field-theoretical framework. For example, based on what is
known about psychopathy, it might make sense to hypothesise that the equilibrium-point is
unaltered in psychopathic subjects, but the gradient is much shallower on the intrusion side
than it is in less psychopathic subjects when confronted with social threat. External factors,
such as the crowdedness of the space, on the other hand, could simply shift the equilibrium
9
point without affecting the gradient's steepness. In a crowded market, for example, the
equilibrium-point should be closer to the person. Future research should refine this
field-theoretical model and test the novel predictions it allows for in terms of discomfort and
IPD.
10
References
Welsch, R. (2019, June 4). The anisotropy of personal space. PLOS ONE. Retrieved October
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217587
Hayduk, L. A. (1983). Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological Bulletin, 94(2),
293–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.293
1
Environmental Psychology
Abstract
evidence opposes the use of projective measurement strategies, while the interrelationships
between the various real-life measures are poorly documented. To reorient the investigation
reconceptualization is proposed. Other findings show that when data based on projective
measures are excluded, personal space gradually increases in size between the ages of 3 and
21. The evidence for cultural and subcultural differences in personal space is far weaker than
commonly assumed. The current review also reveals that previously unspoken links between
personal space and crowding have solidified into specific and fruitful theoretical parallels.
interpretation of personal space research findings is discussed, as are the causes and
acquaintanceship.
3
Introduction
Personal space is defined as the area individuals maintain around themselves into
which others cannot intrude without arousing discomfort (Hayduk, 1983). Most authors
inter-personal distances (Evans & Howard, 1973) . Personal space is important in social
interactions because it serves as a "security zone" that, when violated, creates a perception of
Clinical observations show that schizophrenic patients frequently have a reduced ability to
form and maintain interpersonal relationships with their surroundings (Uallace, 1984). Some
separate dimension of schizophrenia (Troisi et al., 1998). A number of clinical studies have
shown that schizophrenia patients' interpersonal incompetence may stem from their early
childhood experience in the family, where interpersonal relationships are severely disrupted,
often with divisive, aggressive, and conflictual undertones (Blumenthal & MeltzoR, 1967).
The importance of emotions in a subject's evaluation of his or her social environment has
long been recognized (Izard, 1990; Izard et al., 2001). The divided world of good and bad is a
fundamental pattern for patterning experience as well as a strategy for locating oneself in
negative features (affective flattering and emotional withdrawal), the emotional disturbance
may affect the patient's comfortable interpersonal distance, which may serve as an important
indicator for the patient's emotional deficits. Unfortunately, no studies have been conducted
to estimate the relationship between comfortable psychological distances and affective tone
4
The purpose of this study was to determine 1) how schizophrenic patients and normal
subjects differ in terms of psychological distancing from various emotional stimuli, and 2)
Methods
Thirty patients with schizophrenia were recruited from different hospital settings at
Sha'ar Menashe Mental Health Center (Hadera) after providing written informed consent for
participation in the study, which was approved by the Institutional Review Board for human
studies.
The senior psychiatrist made chronic schizophrenia diagnoses using DSM-IV criteria
(YN). There were 13 patients with the paranoid type (295.30), seven with the undifferentiated
type (295.90), five with the disorganized type (295.10), and five with the residual type
(295.60) of schizophrenia. Throughout the study, all patients received the same antipsychotic
medication. Thirty healthy volunteers with no history of mental disorders, matched by gender
and age, were recruited as a comparison group from the same hospital's staff.
Measures
The Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale (CID; Duke & Nowicki, 1972) was
original instrument depicts a plane with eight radii radiating from a common point, each 80
room.' Subjects are instructed to imagine themselves at the diagram's center point (room) and
making a mark on the radius indicating where they would prefer the specific stimulus's
closeness. The distance in millimeters between the mark on a specific radius and the center of
measured by this projective technique was found to be highly correlated with physical
distance (Little, 1965; Gottheil et al., 1968; Duke & Hiebach, 1974). We modified CID in this
study by increasing the number of imaginary stimuli to 20 and developing five subscales that
assigned specific distances from 1) close family members (mother, father, sibling, child), 2)
significant others (friend, doctor, neighbour, chief), 3) emotionally neutral people (builder,
and 5) self-images (oneself in the childhood, recent past, present and future). Internal
consistency reliability of the CID subscales was satisfactory in the entire sample (N 60)
(Cronbach's ranged from 0.84 for family members to 0.68 for neutral people distances).
Test-retest reliability was also high, with all 60 measures assessed twice with a one-month
interval (Spearman's correlations ranging from 0.83 for self-image to 0.74 for neutral person
distances).
Results. The basic characteristics of the patient and comparison groups are shown in
Table 1. Patients were comparable to control subjects in terms of age and education level, but
had twice the number of people without a spouse. There were typical hospitalised patients
suffering from long-term severe mental illness, with predominantly delusional disorders and
Table 2 compares the mean CID subscale scores of schizophrenia patients and healthy
controls. There were both between-group similarities and differences in the rank order and
relative sizes of preferable interpersonal distances. As a result, both groups identified distance
from family members as the closest, and distance from neutral (and threat-related) figures as
the farthest. However, the distances between patients and family members, and especially
between patients and self-images, were significantly greater than those between control
subjects.
Table 3 compares the sizes of interpersonal distances from different objects for the
schizophrenic and nonpatient groups. Similarly, the distance from family members was
7
significantly closer than the distance from self-images and significant others in both groups.
Similarly, distances from significant others were significantly and positively related to family
between any interpersonal distance and age at testing, age at illness onset, or cumulative time
Another significant finding of this study is the relationship between the different
psychological distances and the two basic schizophrenia syndromes. While positive
syndrome was not associated with any type of interpersonal distance, negative syndrome
manifestations showed significant correlations with all distances investigated. The latter
finding is consistent with previous research linking the negative syndrome of schizophrenia
to increased desired social distance (Penn et al., 2000), interpersonal incompetence (Semple
et al., 1999), and poor social skills performance (Semple et al., 1999). (Jackson et al., 1989;
Hoffmann et al., 1998). Most intriguing was the discovery that the direction of these
correlations inverted depending on the emotional colouring of the object: distances from
generally close objects (family members and self-images) increased with severity of the
negative syndrome, while distances from commonly remote objects (neutral people and
threatening images) decreased. Thus, our second hypothesis, that psychological distancing
among patients would be associated with schizophrenia syndrome, was completely supported
8
by correlational analysis data, demonstrating that the negative syndrome attenuates the
differences between interpersonal distances from generally close and distant figures. These
findings support Bion's (1988) hypothesis that one of the central ways the mind of a
schizophrenic patient attacks its own processes to break the connections between things,
thoughts, feelings, and people is through 'attacks on linking.' Not only is there a fictitious
attack on the object, but there is also an attack on the patient's own perceptual and cognitive
apparatus, destroying his or her ability to make meaningful connections with others. In this
or'remoteness,' lose their primary meaning and become inverted. In other words, primary
distant objects (strangers, threatening people) get closer, while primary close objects (family
References
Nechamkin, Y., Salganik, I., Modai, I., & Ponizovsky, A. M. (2003). Interpersonal distance in
schizophrenic patients: relationship to negative syndrome. The International journal of social
psychiatry, 49(3), 166–174.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00207640030493002
Brown, P., & Yantis, J. (1996). Personal space intrusion and PTSD. Journal of psychosocial
nursing and mental health services, 34(7), 23–28.
https://doi.org/10.3928/0279-3695-19960701-12