perry et al.

• what is perry et al's (2015) study about?

  personal space
• what is the psychology being investigated?

  • interpersonal distance
  • four zones of personal space: intimate, personal, social, public
  • oxytocin
  • empathy
  • social salience
  • social cues
  • social salience hypothesis
• what is interpersonal distance (personal space)?

   refers to the distance between two people and an individual’s preferred distance may vary depending on their relationship with others
• what is the four zones of space according to Edward T.Hall in 1966?

  • intimate: used between romantic partners or very close family members and involves all senses
  • personal: used with other people in everyday interactions, in which we can see, touch and hear the other person
  • social: used in formal interactions with others in which we may use louder voices, body movements and eye contact
  • public: used to keep distance from public figures (e.g. someone making a speech), in which a loud voice and body movements can usually feature
• what is oxytocin?

  a social hormone found in humans that plays a role in social bonding, childbirth and breastfeeding and has been seen to promote prosocial behaviour
• what is empathy?

  understanding someone else’s experience by perceiving it from their point of view
• what is social salience?

  the importance or attention someone gives to cues from
• what is social cues?

  facial expressions or body language people use to send messages across to one another, e.g. smiling to indicate happiness
• what is social salience hypothesis?

  this predicts that oxytocin increases attention to social cues which affects the way a person may process these cues and respond in different ways depending on the social setting
• what are the aims of the study?

  • to investigate how oxytocin affects preferred interpersonal distance for those scoring high or low in empathy traits
  • to test the differential effect of the social hormone oxytocin on personal space preference in relation to a person’s empathy ability
• what is the research method technique used in the study?

  • lab experiment: conducted at a lab at the University of Haifa, Isr*el
  • self-report: IRI online questionnaires
• what are the IVs of experiment 1?

  • empathy: operationalised as being “high” (over 40) or “low” (under 33)
  • treatment: operationalised by giving oxytocin or placebo
  • condition: operationalised by “stranger”, “authority”, “friend” or “ball”
• what are the DVs of experiment 1?

  • preferred interpersonal distance: operationalised using the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) paradigm
• what is the experimental design of experiment 1?

  • for IV of empathy: independent measures design
  • for IV of treatment: repeated measures design
  • for IV of condition: repeated measures design
• what are the IVs of experiment 2?


  • empathy: operationalised as being “high” or “low”
  • treatment: operationalised by giving oxytocin or control
  • condition: operationalised by positioning of chairs (experimental condition) or positioning of table and plant (control condition)
• what are the DVs of experiment 2?


  • task of 'choosing rooms': operationalised by mean average preferred distance between the two chairs (in centimeters) and mean average preferred angle of the two chairs (in degrees)
• what is the experimental design of experiment 2?


  • for IV of empathy: independent measures design
  • for IV of treatment: repeated measures design
  • for IV of condition: repeated measures design
• what is the sample of the study?

  • 54 male participants
  • undergraduates from the University of Haifa, Isr*el
  • age range 19 to 32 years, with a mean age of 25 years
  • they received either course credit or payment for participation
  • 5 of the participants were left handed, with normal or corrected-to-normal eyesight and no history of psychiatric or neurological disorders
• what is the sampling method used in the study?

  volunteer sampling
• what is the apparatus used in the study?

  online questionnaire

  
• what is the procedure of the study?

  • participants attended the university for experiment 1, then returned one week later for experiment 2. The order of the experiments was counterbalanced, with half completing experiment 1 in week 1 and experiment 2 in week 2, and the other half doing the reverse.
• what is the procedure of the study? (oxytocin administration)

  • participants were randomly assigned to receive either 24 international units of intranasal (IN) oxytocin in 250ml or a placebo (saline solution).
  • participants self-administered the drops using a nasal dropper, with 3 drops in each nostril, under the supervision of the experimenter.
  • a double-blind technique was used, meaning neither the participants nor the experimenters knew which condition the participant was in, to avoid demand characteristics and researcher bias, thus improving validity.
• what is the procedure of the study? (assessment of empathy)

  • After administering the solution, participants completed the IRI online questionnaire to assess their level of empathy.
  • The questionnaire was a 28-item self-report rated on a 5-point Likert scale (A = does not describe me well, to E = does describe me well).
  • The questionnaire included four 7-item subscales, all related to empathy:
  • Perspective Taking (cognitive empathy)
  • Fantasy (empathy for fictional characters)
  • Empathic Concern (emotional empathy)
  • Personal Distress (self-focused responses to others' suffering)
• what is the procedure of the study? (part 2)

  • Based on IRI results, participants were assigned to one of two conditions:
  • High empathy: 20 participants with an IRI score over 40 and a mean age of 24.
  • Low empathy: 20 participants with an IRI score under 33 and a mean age of 26.
  • After completing the IRI, participants were given three issues of a popular Israeli nature magazine and asked to wait in a quiet room for 45 minutes to allow the oxytocin to be absorbed and reach a plateau.
  • This waiting period minimised social interaction.
• what is the procedure in experiment 1 of the study?

  • experiment 1 is the comfortable distance (ID)
  • the experiment used a modified version of an older, validated paper-and-pencil measure of CID (Circular Interaction Distance).
  • a circle was displayed on a computer screen, and participants were instructed to imagine themselves at the center with another person approaching along the radius.
  • participants were asked to press the space bar at the point on the radius where they would want the person to stop approaching.
• what is the procedure in experiment 1 of the study? (part 2)

  • the approaching imaginary individual was referred to as a "protagonist."
  • the computer animation included options for the protagonist to be: a close friend, stranger, authority figure (boss or teacher), or a rolling ball.
  • each participant saw the name of the approaching person for 1 second, followed by a fixation point for 0.5 seconds.
• what is the procedure in experiment 1 of the study? (part 3)

  • participants were shown a still picture of a circular room with a figure at the center and an approaching figure at one of eight entrances.
  • a 3-second animation followed, showing the figure approaching the centre of the circle.
  • participants had to imagine themselves in the center and press the spacebar to stop the protagonist from approaching.
  • the animation stopped when the participant pressed the spacebar or after 3 seconds when the two figures collided.
• what is the procedure in experiment 1 of the study? (part 4)

  • each of the four figures appeared three times from each of the eight radii, resulting in 24 trials per figure and 96 trials in total.
  • responses were calculated as the percentage of the remaining distance from the total distance.
  • 0% indicated the approaching figure reached the inner figure, and 100% indicated the approaching figure was stopped immediately.
• what is the procedure in experiment 1 of the study? (part 5)

  • the social salience hypothesis predicts that oxytocin would cause participants with higher empathy to choose closer distances, while those with lower empathy would choose farther distances.
  • oxytocin's effect would vary depending on the protagonist (e.g., friend, authority figure, stranger, or ball).
  • some participants may prefer closeness with known figures like friends or authority, but not with strangers or the ball, or may prefer closeness with humans but not the ball.
  • the experiment is testing personal space preference in the context of approach-avoidance.

  
• what is the procedure in experiment 2 of the study? (part 1)

  • after completing the two runs of the experiment (placebo and oxytocin), participants were told they would discuss personal/intimate topics with another person (this was not true, thus involving deception).
  • the experiment is testing personal space preference in the context of intimacy.
• what is the procedure in experiment 2 of the study? (part 2)

  • participants were informed they would be shown pairs of similar rooms and asked to choose their preferred room from each pair.
  • they were told that at the end of the 2 weeks of experiments, the computer would calculate an average room based on their preferences.
  • the personal conversation would then be held in a room designed according to these preferences.
• what is the procedure in experiment 2 of the study? (part 3)

  • the computerised stimuli consisted of coloured pictures featuring two identical chairs in the middle, a table on one side, a cupboard, a plant, a lamp, and a clock.
  • experimental condition: "Preferred distance between chairs" involved stimuli with varying distances (20-140 cm in 20 cm intervals) and chair angles (0º: both facing forwards, 45º each, or 90º: facing each other).
  • control condition: "Preferred distance between table and plant" involved stimuli with varying distances (200-320 cm in 20 cm intervals) and angle positions (0º, 45º, or 90º between the table and plant).
• what is the procedure in experiment 2 of the study? (part 4)

  • the experiment included 21 different pairs of chair distances, 21 pairs of table-plant distances, and three angle options for each, repeated seven times, resulting in 21 pairs of comparative angles.
  • each participant was shown a total of 84 pairs, each repeated twice, making it 168 pairs overall, with two rooms shown simultaneously in each trial.
  • the two picture sets were displayed on a computer screen for 2 seconds, and participants had to select their preference.
  • participants were then debriefed.
  • the mean preferred distance between chairs, between table and plant, and the preferred angle for these furniture pairs was calculated.

  
• what are the controls used in the study?

  • all participants were administered the same amount of oxytocin or placebo in each condition of 3 sprays in each nostril
  • all participants were shown the same CID paradigm for the same amount of time and the same number of trials (96 in each week), with the same order of the figure approaching every time
  • all participants were shown the same pairs of rooms twice in experiment 2
  • all participants took the same IRI online questionnaire with the same rating scales
  • they were all given the same magazines and were told to wait for 45 minutes
• what are the results of the first experiment? (CID, part 1)

  • The mean preferred distance of the participants for the IV of the four conditions of protagonists was as follows: 
  • Stranger 39.8%
  • Authority 34.1%
  • Ball 20.2%
  • Friend 12.4%
  • This suggests that overall, the participants preferred closer personal space with a friend the most and least with a stranger
• what are the results of the first experiment? (CID, part 2)

  • When we discuss the interaction effect of two IV’s (treatment and empathy combined) on preferred distance, the participants mean percentage of preferred distance on the CID was as follows: 
  • Oxytocin Group with High Empathy 23.2%
  • Oxytocin Group with Low Empathy 30.2%
  • Placebo Group with High Empathy 26.1%
  • Placebo Group with Low Empathy 26.9%
  • This suggests that people with high empathy prefer a closer personal space overall compared to those with low empathy and when combined with oxytocin, the preferred distance is reduced for high empathisers, but increased for low empathisers
• what are the results of the first experiment? (CID, part 3)

  • When we talk about the interaction effect of all 3 IV’s (treatment x empathy x condition), the CID mean percentage of preferred distance was as follows:
  • High Empathy Participants in Oxytocin Group: Stranger 39.7%, Authority 30.5%, Ball 14.4% and Friend 8.5%
  • High Empathy Participants in Placebo Group: Stranger 38.5%, Authority 33.9%, Ball 20.9% and Friend 11%
  • Low Empathy Participants in Oxytocin Group: Stranger 40.8%, Authority 36.8%, Ball 26.8% and Friend 16.3%
  • Low Empathy Participants in Placebo Group: Stranger 40.1%, Authority 35.1%, Ball 18.6% and Friend 14%
  • high empathy individuals, when given oxytocin, prefer less personal space with familiar people, while low empathy individuals prefer more space. Oxytocin influences personal space differently based on empathy levels.
• what are the results of the second experiment? (choosing rooms, part 1)

  • there were differences in preferences for chair distance but not for preferred angles
  • participants in the high empathy group chose closer chair distances following oxytocin administration than placebo administration
  • oxytocin had the opposite effect on those in the low empathy group
• what are the results of the second experiment? (choosing rooms, part 2)

  • The preferred distance between chairs for the groups was as follows:
  • High Empathy Participants and Oxytocin Group: 78 cm
  • High Empathy Participants and Placebo Group: 80.5 cm
  • Low Empathy Participants and Oxytocin Group: 80 cm
  • Low Empathy Participants and Placebo Group: 78 cm
  • therefore, interaction between oxytocin and empathy only had an impact on the experimental condition (distance between chairs)
  • there was no difference observed in the interaction of oxytocin and empathy on the control condition (distance between plant and table)
  • this shows that oxytocin did not affect the participant’s general preferences, but only preferences that have a social context
• what are the conclusions of the study?

  • the administration of oxytocin enhances social cues in opposite ways for individuals with different levels of empathy
  • the social salience hypothesis was supported
  • people with low empathy respond to oxytocin with a preference for increased personal distance and those with high empathy respond to oxytocin with a preference for decreased personal distance
  • people need less personal space between themselves with their close friends than they need with strangers